<p>^ Berkeley and UCLA yields are lower because they cannabalize each other's yield rates.</p>
<p>^ True, but so do UVA/William & Mary, Indiana/Purdue, Michigan/Michigan State, and a number of other pairs here. Though California may be somewhat worse because even after Berkeley and UCLA there are a number of strong UCs like UCSD, UCD, UCI, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ Berkeley and UCLA yields are lower because they cannabalize each other's yield rates.
[/quote]
excuses excuses. I think its because a lot of those state schools are not that great, so kids applying there see it as their best financial option and if they apply they want to go. I mean if you live in a place with a mediocre state school you mainly only apply if its your best financial option. Berkeley and UCLA are a little different since their are a lot of options in California, and a good amount of OOS students probably apply, get accepted and do not attend, dropping their yield. In my opinion, when you do yield its best only to include the top 5 state schools, since the others have a lot of factors affecting their yield that are not based on desirability (same with all state schools to an extent).</p>
<p>^ Actually, relatively few OOS students apply to Berkeley, and even fewer are accepted. So although Berkeley's OOS yield is relatively low, the numbers aren't big enough to affect its overall yield very much. For 2008, Berkeley had only 5,719 OOS (US) applicants, of which it accepted 950 (17%). Of those, 215 (22.6%) elected to attend. In contrast, 36,509 California residents applied, 8786 (22%) were accepted, and 3835 (43.6%) elected to attend. My guess is a lot of OOS admittees declined to attend becuase as OOS students they got little or no financial aid, making it their worst financial option. Happens at state schools all the time.</p>
<p>As for "factors affecting their yield that are not based on desirability," I have no idea what you're talking about, bescraze. The point I've been trying to make for a long time is that there is no single scale of "desirability" for college applicants. There's a relatively small national pool of highly qualified applicants competing to get into the same handful of elite (and mostly private) schools; their relative yield rates, IMO, tell you a whole lot about the relative "desirability" of those schools within that elite national applicant pool. </p>
<p>But the vast majority of college applicants aren't in that elite national pool. Their criteria for picking a school may be very different. They may want to stay close to home. Finances are in most cases an issue, which leads many to look only (or primarily) at in-state public options, or at least to consider publics as "financial safeties." There are often family loyalties to particular schools. There may be longstanding regional loyalties based on identification with the school's sports teams---undoubtedly a huge factor in Nebraska's impressive 70.5% yield rate. These are all factors affecting the school's "desirability" within its own applicant pool.</p>
<p>And the fact that these applicants are not part of the national elite competition does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't be competitive in the elite national pool. Many would be. Look at it this way: the top quartile of Berkeley's entering class had SATs over 1460. That's over 1,000 enrolled students per year at that elite level---which probably means there are probably more students at Berkeley with SAT's over 1460 than at Harvard (class of roughly 1600, 25th/75th percentile SATs of 1400-1590).</p>
<p>
[quote]
excuses excuses. I think its because a lot of those state schools are not that great, so kids applying there see it as their best financial option and if they apply they want to go.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just what you "think"?</p>
<p>There was data released on this before... and the conclusion? Berkeley and UCLA cannibalize each other's yield rates. However, Berkeley tends to win cross-admits by a small margin, which would probably explain why UCLA's yield is usually a few percent below Berkeley's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Percent of class accepted ED really affects yield significantly. Penn is near 50%, while other Ivies are 33%. Makes a big difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Slipper, baby, I agree with you on a lot of things but this is just epic fail on your behalf.</p>
<p>Penn is 48%, Columbia is 43% and so are Brown, etc. All the ED Ivies shoot for "a smidge under half" of ED. If that counts as gaming, then looks like we'll need at least 5 gaming hats for the Ivy League</p>
<p>ilovebagels - Dartmouth is 34.2%, Brown is 34.4%, Cornell is 35.5%, Columbia is 43%, and Penn is 48%. Seems like Penn and Columbia are playing a different game than the others...</p>
<p>^ Not a different game, just a slightly more intense one :) (difference of 10-13% of the incoming class). And for the record, Columbia and Cornell admit 45% and 37%, respectively, of their incoming classes through ED, according to collegeboard.com.</p>
<p>
<p>There was data released on this before... and the conclusion? Berkeley and UCLA cannibalize each other's yield rates. However, Berkeley tends to win cross-admits by a small margin, which would probably explain why UCLA's yield is usually a few percent below Berkeley's.
Sigh....you need to try and look behind your own biases and realize that this is not an isolated incident. You don't think that HYPS cannabilize their own yield rates, or Penn Duke and Columbia? Every school has its competition for cross admits, that "cannibalize" its yield rate. UCLA and Berkeley are not remotely unique in this regard, most kids who apply to Harvard also apply to at least one other of those top schools, or apply to more than one Ivy. Every school does this, so stop making excuses for them just because you love those CA schools.</p>
<p>There are some major differences:
1. Berkeley and UCLA share one application with no additional fee, so that almost 100% of those who apply to one also apply to the other.
2. Both have breath and depth and are similar in many ways. It can be argued that both are California's flagship schools, though Berkeley is considered the better school.
3. Both are in the same state, for those who wish to stay in-state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sigh....you need to try and look behind your own biases and realize that this is not an isolated incident. You don't think that HYPS cannabilize their own yield rates, or Penn Duke and Columbia?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know it happens quite often like that--I was offering an explanation for Berkeley and UCLA in particular. There is no "bias" in stating an objective fact.</p>
<p>Techie1988 makes some very valid points. (I'd wager that Berkeley and UCLA hurt each other more in yield than most other colleges.)</p>
<p>Also I would like to add that Berkeley and UCLA don't have early programs unlike Penn, Duke, and Columbia. If they didn't offer ED even though their yield probably would not be as low as Berkeley's or UCLA's they would drop significantly. I'd expect it Penn's to drop to about 50 and Duke's to the low 30's. Actually in fact, as it stands Duke's yield is as high as Berkeley's, 40%. I don't know about Columbia's initial yield but expect a drop there too.</p>