<p>That was my point. Back then so few were aware of ED as an option and even few exercised that option, so that it was a very small part of the admissions picture. Now with schools that have the majority of their kids applying ED somewhere, and with kids frantically trying to find the best ED option for them, the picture has changed.</p>
<p>Jamimom, many of us really appreciate your long posts. Keep em coming. You have experiences and a long term perspective and please don't shorten that out of your posts. But if you could add a few paragraph divisions, it would make for easier reading! ;)</p>
<p>jamimom,</p>
<p>Agreed. Add to that the increased number of students through something like 2010 and the increased knowledge that applying early provides a benefit. I expect that the issue will get more acute before it gets better.</p>
<p>However, there is hope, many of the former 'safety schools' are becoming more competitive with those most percieve to be at the top of the pyramid. For example, the percentage of Rhodes scholars coming out of the Ivy league is going down (though still a pretty good number) and those from other schools is going up.</p>
<p>For me, that parent of a junior, we will have to cast our net a bit more broadly and look at a number of schools that have honors programs. The students in these programs often have the same 'stats' as those in the Ivy league but are pushed by their universities for certain scholarships, i.e. Fulbright, Rhodes, etc. Further, many of these students receive merit aid to attend. All in all not a bad deal. Just a lot of work for us parents.</p>
<p>I need not post anymore about why I think ED is a bad policy. Patuxent summarized my poistion quite well in post #88.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jamimom, many of us really appreciate your long posts.
[/quote]
I appreciate them too, and I hope I didn't sound critical...that wasn't my intent :)</p>
<p>No offence taken, Driver. And I have enjoyed your viewpoints and they have made their points even when I have not agreed with you. The variety of viewpoints makes this forum go around. But I was a long winded and off point on that post as I did digress too much. But I do not edit my posts here as I consider them the same as conversation. I would not post here if I had to proof and edit as I do most of my posts on the fly as I click and flit from something else I am doing to a post here. </p>
<p>I think ED is a good deal for those who can afford to do it. It may be a dying species, however, as it is attracting negative attention because of the group of people it has been offering its advantages. And these days, most kids apply ED saying "I would have no regrets having to go to this college" rather than "this is the college I want absolutely want the most".</p>
<p>Driver, You didn't sound critical and I knew that you also welcomed such posts. I almost said "I am sure that Driver appreciates your posts also" but I didn't feel I could speak for you. I also appreciate the exchange of opinions here on CC - in fact I think that is what keeps me coming back, after the decisions have been made.</p>
<p>"If 30% of cops taking the sergeants test are members of some identifiable group but only 10% pass then that is all the evidence you need that the process is unfair and anything that contributes to that differential outcome has to be fully justified and proved to be relevent. i.e. because there are differential outcomes here the burden of proof is on you to prove the selection process is fair not on me to prove it is not."</p>
<p>Wait a minute, I'd like to see the percentage of white, upper-middle class applicants to the Ivies, and then see the % that get in. The % of WUMC applicants will be high and the % that get in will be low, of course. So can't we apply "then that is all the evidence you need that the process is unfair and anything that contributes to that differential outcome has to be fully justified and proved to be relevent."? I just don't think there's logic in the sergeant's test example.</p>
<p>bbmom-</p>
<p>But that is the issue. Right or wrong the public views some schools as out of reach financially. ED is a policy that can feed that perception. Particularly with some of the critical components of the contract undefined.</p>
<p>The Ivy League schools have done a tremendous job expanding their pool of applicants over the last year or two through their financial aid initiatives. A move away from ED to SCEA would be another move that would change that perception. Basically, you get to agree to the 'contract' once the financial term is defined.</p>
<p>Obviously, the financial component is just one aspect of the deal but for many families it becomes a primary motivation. I guess I just don't see the issue with switching to SCEA from ED.</p>
<p>Eagle-I'd like to see the stats on ED admission % vs. SCEA admission %...I suppose most schools would not offer both though, so it would be apples to oranges...</p>
<p>"For me, that parent of a junior, we will have to cast our net a bit more broadly and look at a number of schools that have honors programs. The students in these programs often have the same 'stats' as those in the Ivy league but are pushed by their universities for certain scholarships, i.e. Fulbright, Rhodes, etc. Further, many of these students receive merit aid to attend. All in all not a bad deal. Just a lot of work for us parents."</p>
<p>Yield is a funny thing. The women's colleges, for example, benefit in the yield comparisons greatly because, while selectivity is putatively lower (they can only draw from half the population, and only about half of those will even consider a single gender school, hence many fewer ED admits), yield is very high (at Smith, currently 42%, which is higher than some of the Ivies even when they count in their ED admits.) But even that is misleading. One of the reasons Smith's yield is so high is because of the number of low-income (Pell Grant recipients) they enroll - 28%, vs. 6.8% at Harvard; 7.6% at Princeton, roughly 10% at Yale. These students might have been accepted elsewhere, but without the financial aid available to go (Harvard's new full-freight policy affected precisely 111 students - significant, but not huge.) And accepting Pell Grant recipients virtually by definition means lower entrance stats.</p>
<p>This year Smith had 13 Fulbrights, last year 10. More than Yale, more than Harvard, more than Princeton, more than Williams, etc. Wellesley about the same. You are correct - I don't for one minute believe the students at Smith and Wellesley are "better" than at those other more "selective" schools - it has to do with inputs while there - advising, etc. - as opposed to what they bring in when they come.</p>
<p>So, after reading through this interesting thread, full of lively discussion, I'm still left with my original question (a non-starter, obviously): does yield at a given college change much over time?</p>
<p>Talk about an apt screen name! You win the prize for patience.</p>
<p>Still idling, aren't you? LOL</p>
<p>Don't know, Idler. So much has changed in admissions. The movement towards ED, EA with ED2 and other hybrid programs. Online apps and common apps have made it easier to apply to more school, lowering yield. College fighting back with demonstrated interest become an important component of admissions.</p>
<p>Yield seems to change slowly except to the extent certain "enrollment management" techniques are utilized:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Raising the fraction taken binding ED (with a juicy 100% yield) raises the overall yield; adopting the ED II option, use of the "exploding offer" of admissions, and variations of the "likely letter" and "early write" are other ways of nailing down recruits before they have the clear option of other schools open to them,</p></li>
<li><p>Adopting the common app raises the numper of apps - and thus the "admit rate - but may drop the yield rate to the extent some applicants are less "committed."</p></li>
<li><p>Going "light" on initial admits and filling in from the waitlist tends to enhance the overall yield, since the waitlist admits - like the ED admits at the front end - come in at that nice juicy 100% yield rate.</p></li>
<li><p>Variations on "Tufts Syndrome" are used to enhance yield also; ie, utilizing demographic and historic matriculation data to avoid admitting applicants deemed less likely to enroll if admitted. Such applicants may be excluded (or waitlisted) based on their SAT score, the school they attended, or even their <em>zip code</em> !! </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The risk with strict "Tufts Syndrome" utilization is that you may be raising yield at the expense of student quality. For example, if College X avoids applicants with SAT scores over 1500 based on the liklihood that they will enroll elsewhere, College X may end up with a lower SAT median and thus hurt its USNews ranking.</p>
<p>Well put, Byerly. Online apps, free apps and heavy, targetted advertising also increase yield.</p>
<p>I would say those measures are more likely to increase apps - and lower the "admit rate" - than to affect yield.</p>
<p>Byerly I agree with you!</p>
<p>it also seems to me that the schools that are just a bit below HYPS have ED, pton being the notable exception.</p>
<p>I think thats because they are concerned about locking up good applicants before HYPS snatches them away.</p>
<p>and interesteddad</p>
<p>Byerly may have spent time in cambridge, but he is no liberal</p>
<p>"So, after reading through this interesting thread, full of lively discussion, I'm still left with my original question (a non-starter, obviously): does yield at a given college change much over time?"</p>
<p>The answer is, except for HYP and the like, undoubtedly yes. As the costs rise, financial aid applicants apply to more schools attempting to maximize "merit" awards (including "merit" at need-blind schools, and every single one of them rigs the packages based on whom they want), and hence may end up turning down more schools, and, likely, more selective schools, as they seek the financial aid they require. At the other extreme, schools with high percentages of low-income students (i.e. high numbers of Pell Grant recipients) see their yields go up as 1) they are willing to accept highly qualified applicants with lower SAT scores, or don't even use them in admissions determinations; and 2) such schools are more likely to be the first choice for low-income applicants. Taken together, these two factors explain the "Smith anomaly".</p>
<p>There is no Ivy with an overall yield rate under 50% in most years. (Dartmouth was 49.6% last year, but will apparently be back over 50% this year.)</p>
<p>The only other elites with a 50% + yield rate - to my knowledge - are MIT and Stanford.</p>
<p>Isn't the RD yield rate at Dartmouth under 40% (39% was the last I saw - I don't track it. And the interesting question is whether the yield rate is inflated with "extension" school admits, as Harvard does with its Pell Grant rates - they claim a 9.8% Pell Grant rate, when in fact their Pell Grant rate for entering undergraduates is 6.8%.) Anyhow, that the Ivies (or at least the top ones) are an anomaly is not surprising, as between legacies and the high percentage of students who require no financial aid, a majority of students can eliminate finances from admission considerations.</p>