<p>From an institutional point of view, perhaps the most important admissions stat: what per cent of the applicants you accept, accept you? With these numbers just about to begin trickling out, I wonder if others have noted what I have: the ratio changes remarkably little from year to year, and in many cases, over the decades. I've wondered why US News dropped it as a rating stat--I've heard the explanation that it's too easily maniplulated, but why then does it change so little? Things are attempted to bump it up, of course: more money devoted to merit and need-based scholarships, improved marketing to acceptees, and especially a major ED program, where 40-50% of your class is accepted early in return for a promise to attend, which can give you a yield approaching 100% on half your class. I believe it's easier to manipulate acceptance rate through a marketing effort that brings more applications through the door, and we have seen significant changes in acceptance rates at a good number of colleges over time, but I do have the impression that final yield changes very little. But just an impression, I haven't looked at it in an organized way. Does anyone else feel this is, or is not true?</p>
<p>Yield probably changes little for the highly selective LAC's & Ivies. But even small % changes in the many, many less selective institutions in the US can have a big impact for those schools. If a few more high SAT score/high GPA students accept some merit awardsor full-tuition offers, that can have a impact in the academic profile reported by that school, for instance.</p>
<p>But I think the thing that most concerns a school will probably be meeting the student service demands, ie. housing, classroom space, other facility usage if you suddenly have a higher yield than anticipated. Larger institutions may be able to absorb that easily, but smaller schools can be thrown for a loop. So overall, I believe most colleges LIKE to have very stable yield percentages, regardless of how that is percieved by the public. I mean, the Admissions Office doesn't look at it like, how many people accept the offer of admission is a sign that we are a great school. They just want to enroll the appropriate number of students that allows the university to best meet the educational & residential needs of its community. (and isn't over-budget ;-)</p>
<p>Interesting: so you think a stable yield is the institutional goal, to avoid logistical problems. I must admit that hadn't occurred to me.</p>
<p>USNews dropped yield as a selectivity measure NOT because its significance was challenged, but for quite the opposite reason.</p>
<p>A couple of years ago, the hue and cry about the evils of Early Decision programs was reaching fever pitch, initiated by the Fallows article in the Atlantic, and the book "The Early Admissions Game." Congress was even threatening to investigate!</p>
<p>USNews was blamed for encouraging the expansion of the hated ED programs, because some schools were accused of using ED to artificially boost their yield rate - and thus their USNews rankings.</p>
<p>As a result, USNews now determines "selectivity" on the basis of the equally-manipulable "admit rate" and other factors that are becoming more dubious as fewer schools report them for all matriculants: SAT medians and % of students in the top 10% of their high school class.</p>
<p>At the time, I argued strenuously to USNews that the disgraced "yield" numbers should be replaced by "RD yield" - the yield a school gets in the "open market" when applicants are free to choose. They looked into it, but thought the stat would be hard to normalize across the 2,000 or so schools for which they collect data.</p>
<p>I still believe that "RD yield" is the best way to compare the relative "selectivity" of elites, absent the kind of cross-admit data utilized in the "Revealed Preference" study. It is much harder to manipulate than overall yield, unless a school risks a lower SAT median via other "enrollment management" techniques - such as variations on what is known as "Tufts Syndrome."</p>
<p>Here are preliminary 2009 "RD yield" numbers for a few elites based on April 1 enrollment projections. These numbers will change based on forthcoming matriculation data and the use of waitlists to combat "summer melt."</p>
<hr>
<p>Projected "RD Yield" rates for the Class of 2009:</p>
<p>Harvard: 71%</p>
<p>Yale: 57.1%</p>
<p>Stanford: 55.7%</p>
<p>Princeton: 52%</p>
<p>Penn: 48.4%</p>
<p>Columbia: 46.8% ("College" only)</p>
<p>Brown: 46.3%</p>
<p>Dartmouth: 39.2%</p>
<p>How is Early Decision not an expression of an open-market choice? Seems to me that it is the ultimate expression of consumer choice for a product.</p>
<p>Seems to me that it is a far stronger expression of consumer choice than the schools that line the street like carnival barkers: "looky, looky, how much would it cost to convince you to come in and see the miracles of science within these walls? How 'bout I give you $20,000 a year? Nope? OK. $30,000 and that's our final offer. Nope? OK, OK, we'll give you a full ride and throw in a toaster oven!"</p>
<p>In the case of EA (at least "open" EA) I might agree with you. But binding ED is an anti-competitive device that would probably be struck down by the courts if challenged.</p>
<p>The power imbalance is obvious when 17 year olds are asked to sign these one-sided agreements: If we want you, you have to come here, and agree not to compare offers from our competitors. If we DON'T want you, well, then get outta here! Second cousin to the notorious baseball reserve clause!</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I think the thing that most concerns a school will probably be meeting the student service demands, ie. housing, classroom space, other facility usage if you suddenly have a higher yield than anticipated.
[/quote]
Around 5 years ago Princeton significantly over-enrolled a freshman class, to such an extent that they had to haul mobile homes onto the campus to house them. Being clever Princeton students, they immediately installed pink flamingos and other such in their front "yards." It must be a real source of anxiety for adcoms at such schools to know full well that most of their acceptees have also been accepted a number of the other most sought-after destinations. It's a bit of a crapshoot from their end, too.</p>
<p>Open EA is, at best, a lukewarm expression of consumer preference. </p>
<p>There is no stronger expression of strong consumer preference for a school than a binding ED application. Why would you exclude that from that from what you are attempting to use as a measure of consumer preference? In effect, you are saying, "In our measure of consumer preference, we aren't going to count the students who most want to attend."</p>
<p>Will the increase in applications per student have a substantial impact on yield? If thats so, will colleges be pressured to accept more students applying ED, or will they just dip into their waitlists as needed?</p>
<p>BTW, I question the notion that yield is a stable indicator.</p>
<p>Here is a graph of historic acceptance rates and yields dating back 35 years at one elite LAC.</p>
<p>Note the periods of demographic "bulge" in the applicant pool during the tale end of the first baby boom and, now, during the "echo boom".</p>
<p>I think "RD yield" is a most interesting suggestion, Byerly, though it's not hard to imagine the difficulties in standardizing it, especially with the variety of Early admit plans offered, and the widely varying percentages of classes which are early admits.</p>
<p>interesteddad, you make a good point, but in my experience for every ED applicant who is "sure" that a given school is the place for them, there are several who apply early because it increases their chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>justanothermom, I don't notice that increased numbers of applicants changes yield, though it does change admission rate.</p>
<p>The problem is circular, of course, since as schools become more "selective" applicants are pressured to apply to many schools in order to maximize their odds of having a real choice.</p>
<p>Obviously, no kid can go to more than one college, so that when a kid gets into 5 schools, that means an industry-wide "yield rate" of 20% where he or she is concerned.</p>
<p>The schools react with various "enrollment management" techniques, many of which disadvantage the bulk of applicants, starting with "binding ED" - the Faustean bargain whereby the kid surrenders all right to choose - or to compare financial aid offers - in exchange for a <em>chance</em> to be admitted at a more favorable rate.</p>
<p>Other such devices include variations on the "likely letter", and the "exploding offer of admission" - ("Dear applicant: We are pleased to offer you this early chance to confirm a seat in our Class of 2009. Circumstances require us to limit such offers to just a few applicants, so please notify us within 5 days of your willingness to accept, or we will be forced to withdraw it in favor of another candidate.")</p>
<p>Then there are the well-known variations on "Tufts Syndrome" - including extending offers of admission based on demographic factors run through the computer, including prior matriculation rates for the applicant's school, those in his SAT median score band, and even his <em>zip code</em>!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
for every ED applicant who is "sure" that a given school is the place for them, there are several who apply early because it increases their chance of acceptance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that consumers are that stupid. Once a selection of college has been made, admissions odds may enter into the decision to apply early decision. But, I've never heard of a kid applying ED to a school he or she does not want to attend. I have more faith in the free market system than that.</p>
<p>What you describe is certainly not the case for the binding ED applicants we run across here on CC. It seems to me that the ED applicants are consistently well informed and have made their decisions based on extensive research, careful consideration, and a strong preference for a school. Not only that, but the success rates in ED for the schools I follow are remarkable here, indicating that the ED process is an extremely efficient self-selection mechanism -- something that would benefit the entire college application system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
starting with "binding ED" - the Faustean bargain whereby the kid surrenders all right to choose - or to compare financial aid offers - in exchange for a <em>chance</em> to be admitted at a more favorable rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why discount the possibility that consumers are saavy enough to have already "compared financial aid offers" before submitting an ED application? I don't personally know an ED applicant who has not already considered that:</p>
<p>a) there are schools out there that would offer merit aid discounts. A very rational decision can be made that the potential discounts don't justify stepping down two or three notches in perceived quality to get them.</p>
<p>b) that the financial situation will render need-based aid competition moot, either because the student will not qualify for need-based aid or will qualify for a full-ride based on need-calculations.</p>
<p>I don't understand why we should have so little faith in the free-market system, including the free market consumer's ability to weigh the pros and cons of a binding ED option. There is no stronger statement of informed preference than the submission of a binding ED application. Do you really think anyone submits such an app without considering the question, "Are you sure you really, really want to go there to the exclusion of all other colleges?"</p>
<p>LOL! No question that binding ED is "efficient" from the college's point of view - up to a point.</p>
<p>That point is crossed when the inability to squeeze more than 50% of the class out of a relatively small ED app pool starts to compromise quality and diversity goals.</p>
<p>Both Yale and Stanford were starting to see this as a problem, which led to their exodus to "SCEA" a couple of years ago. Their "SCEA" pools doubled the size of the previous "binding ED" pools without seriously undercutting the yield rate. Not a bad trade-off.</p>
<p>Stanford, Yale and Princeton had only moved to binding ED in 1996-7 in order to reduce the size of their overlap pools with Harvard, and thus raise the yield rate. The move did increase the schools' yield rates by a fairly uniform 5% across the board, but, as noted, proved to be a mixed blessing in other respects.</p>
<p>Princeton - caught in the middle of the "changing of the guard" in the admissions office - hesitated, and as a resultm suffered a near debacle last year (relative to its fellow elites) when both the app number and the yield rate tumbled. They ony recovered with apps this year by moving to the common app - previously scorned by Hargadon - although yield rate recovery may be a longer time coming.</p>
<p>I predict Princeton will abandon binding ED for SCEA next year for the same reasons Stanford and Yale did: it no longer serves the best interest of the school.</p>
<p>Seeing any connection between "binding ED" and a "free market" seems to me to stand the meaning of language on its head, unless you view the anti-trust laws as anti-competitive in nature!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
LOL! No question that binding ED is "efficient" from the college's point of view.
[/quote]
.</p>
<p>It's also highly efficient from a student's perspective as well, unless you think filling out college applications for schools that aren't even exciting is a fun, productive use of time.</p>
<p>There are kids who have spent more than a year researching colleges, visiting, doing overnight visits, meeting professors, talking to alum. If they have a clear number one choice, how is it "efficient" to apply to a dozen schools, many of which are just viewed by the kid as "just OK"?</p>
<p>The system works best to the extent that the right kids are matched up with the right schools before the applications are even submitted. One of the reasons the system is creaking under the pressure of too many apps is that efficient self-selection has been reduced. Look at the number of kids we see here where "efficient self-selection" starts and ends with the USNEWS ranking list. How bogus is that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seeing any connection between "binding ED" and a "free market" seems to me to stand the meaning of language on its head.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have personal experience with two binding ED applications, 30-some years apart. Both were well-informed, well-researched (within the resources of the time), careful choices. Both were perfect examples of an informed consumer making a free-market product selection.</p>
<p>LOL! You sound like a Confederate veteran rhapsodizing about the joys of life in the "Old South". </p>
<p>With all due respect, I see those points as party line rationalizations for a repressive device that is on its way out.</p>
<p>Some schools - such as Penn - which have gotten a lot of milage out of binding ED - may be lothe to give it up, but they will do so the very second its marginal utility disappears.</p>
<p>Ha. A confederate veteran rhapsodying! You sound like a Cambridge-liberal caterwauling about the "repression" of the masses by colleges offering an optional admissions choice! Repression. Please!</p>
<p>If you carry your argument to the extreme. Retailers should not be allowed to put a price tag on a product. All commerce should be conducted by auction in a bidding process.</p>
<p>The fact that consumers are given the option to evaluate a product, decide the posted price is acceptable, and consumate a deal without further shopping is hardly "repressive". Happens all the time in the real world, the instant any consumer decides to stop shopping and make a purchase. </p>
<p>In many cases, the decision to buy point is reached more by the completion of careful product comparison than by concern over a potential savings of a dollar or two on a less desireable product. Have you ever bought a shirt because you've looked at several, found one you really liked, and decided the price was OK? Even though you know you COULD get in your car and drive to three or four more places and find a cheaper shirt? Are you being repressed by the opportunity to purchase that shirt? </p>
<p>How 'bout if they only have one shirt left in your size and two of you want it? You hand the man your debit card while the other customer is hemming and hawing about the price? Who's getting the shirt? Is the hemming and hawing customer being "repressed" by the store? Only in Cambridge.</p>
<p>interesteddad: I'm not saying that "consumers are stupid" in deciding to select one school for binding ed; it's just as easy to argue that they are "smart" in trying to gain an advantage in the odds.</p>
<p>Are they sure they really, really want to go to their ed choice above all others? Probably. Would their views change as the process unfolds? Not unlikely.</p>
<p>Maybe it's just in my little corner of the world, but at local prep shools well more than half the (well-coached) kids apply early, and I just can't believe that most are sure that a given school is the one for them--they mostly think they like it and want to gain the early advantage.</p>