.
YAR ... Admit(%) ... Yield(%) ... School
11.0 .... 6.9 .......... 76 .......... Harvard
10.0 ... 7.2 ........... 72 .......... Stanford
8.9 ..... 7.5 .......... 67 .......... Yale
7.0 ..... 8.2 ........... 57 ......... Princeton
6.6 ..... 9.7 ........... 64 .......... MIT
All data were from before taking people from the wailtlist, except Princeton's and Yale's yields which were from after taking people from the waitlist.
.
4 comments:
CORRECTION:
NONE of these reported numbers include all expected waitlist admits. Even where a few waitlist admits are accounted for (ie, 137 preliminarily at Princeton, 26 at Stanford, 60-75 at Harvard, and 60+ at Yale, this is all "pre-melt", and reported matriculant numbers are not comparable - ie., Yale and Princeton and Stanford do not adjust for anticipated deferees. The Harvard number is a projected FINAL number, which would be a projected FINAL yield rate of 76.6%
I would predict a FINAL yield rate of under 66% at Yale, under 56% at Princeton, and about 71.5% at Stanford, (which accepted a record number of high-yield early admits and benefitted from admitting more than 100 "merit aid" athletes, who were required to sign "letters of intent" and were, as a practical matter, in the "100% yield" category.
I am sure that you know what "Preliminary" means.
Somehow, I feel the numbers before the "waitlist" are more meaningful -- without the "waitlist" game playing effect. But, I could not get those from Yale, and Princeton this year.
I will run the "FINAL" YAR for class of 2013 when the usnews numbers are out in August, like I did for class 2012 -- it went all the way to 200+ schools. I updated the original list if you have not seen it. It included LACs and USMA etc.
Something you should be aware of, however: A high yield rate is less impressive if the admits "yielded" are of lower quality.
Regardless of whether a school relies an early admissions crutch or not, the yield rate can be manipulated by the degree to which that school pursues the top applicants for which the other are competing.
There is some evidence that Stanford is seeking a higher yield by competing less strenuously for top students:
For the Class of 2012, with Dartmouth and Brown using binding ED, Stanford and Yale using SCEA, MIT using EA, Harvard and Princeton having open admissions:
The percentage of the freshman class having SAT score over 700, in reading, math and writing respectively:
(Harvard data unavailable; data for other schools from CDS forms)
Yale: 78%, 77%, 79%
Princeton: 74%, 75%, 77%
Dartmouth: 65%, 67%, 68%
Brown: 58%, 66%, 63%
MIT: 57%, 87.5%, 57%
Stanford: 57%, 67%, 61%
It should be noted that Princeton has radically improved its relative perfomance in this respect under Rapelye. Princeton has paid a price, yield-wise, however, for going head to head with Harvard and Yale for the most sought-after applicants.
Cross-admits, cross-admits. Everything is reflected in my data, if you can read them. P has the highest rate of cross-admits three years in a row, plus grade deflation, P's yield is sent to tank. H and Y are about the same but lower than P's, which is a shame for H, and S has relatively lower rate, but not by much.
But the true is, Stanford has always been doing this, the improvement is relative to that it did a few years ago. It is not Stanford did something differently lately.
The yield to admit ratio could be about the same as H next year, and YP would not matter anymore.
Nobody cares about average SAT scores. Most of HYPSM cross-admits had close to perfect SAT when they were 8th grade. Whoever gets the most cross-admits and higher YAR ratio wins.
Most of the cross-admits could fail the Chinese national entrance exams. SAT is a joke, if you want to use it to measure how good a student is. The IMO gold medalist at Stanford had 600s on his SATs.
Check this Putnam Fellow Yale imported from China last year, I would guess that he had less than 2000 on SAT.
Post a Comment