In the first year of Harvard’s renewed early admissions program, the yield for the class of 2016 soared to nearly 81 percent, a significant increase from last year’s rate of 77 percent, the University announced on Thursday.
This year’s yield, which measures the percentage of accepted students who choose to enroll at Harvard, marks the first time this number has reached 80 percent since the class of 1975 was admitted.
"It is a major jump," Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 said.
In December, Harvard admitted 772 students under its early action program. Another 1,260 acceptances were extended in March. Overall, 1,641 of those admitted to the Class of 2016 accepted their offer of admission from Harvard.
Due to this high yield a very small number of students will be taken off the waitlist, approximately 25, Fitzsimmons said. The admissions office began reviewing waitlisted applications on Thursday, he added.
Though this year’s yield is not the highest the College has ever seen, Fitzsimmons said it is certainly the highest in the modern era of highly competitive college admissions, especially at the most selective institutions.
"It was a very different world. Harvard and our peer institutions were not anywhere near the national and international institutions they are today. It’s really almost like apples and oranges," he said.
Fitzsimmons said he attributes this significant increase in the yield to three factors—the return of early action, the continuing poor economic climate, and an increase in awareness of new programs at the College.
Fitzsimmons said that the renewed early action program was expected to have a significant influence on the yield. According to Fitzsimmons, students who apply early typically have a stronger interest in Harvard than those who apply regular decision, and are thus less likely to apply elsewhere when admitted early and are more likely to attend.
Fitzsimmons added that the College’s financial aid program continues to encourage students to matriculate.
"The financial aid program continues to be paramount in people’s decisions, even the people who might not be on financial aid, but who see what might happen to them and to their own jobs and their own financial situations," he said.
In addition, Fitzsimmons named the increased public profile of a number of newly introduced programs at the College—including new engineering programs at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences—as factors in students’ decision to matriculate.
Of the other Ivy League universities, only Dartmouth has released its yield rate of 49.5 percent. Harvard’s yield is typically the highest among peer institutions.
—Staff writer Elizabeth S. Auritt can be reached at eauritt@college.harvard.edu.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/10/admissions-yield-2016-action/
10 comments:
The Harvard yield last year was not 77%, but 76% - 75.9% actually - so the increase this year was 5%.
So the mistake by the crimson writer actually did not do a favor for Harvard. :) Where is your complaint about them not following CDS?
I am so lazy now for not figuring out how many HYPSM cross-admits less than that of last year's.
It seems that I agree with you that HYSPM should get rid of SCEA all together to make it a fair competition.
Harvard has not yet filed a CDS form for the 2011-12 school year.
I agree that SCEA is a phony "reform" since the yield rate on these exclusive applicant groups is virtually the same as for binding ED at schools relying on that yield crutch.
For the 4 Harvard SCEAers I know this year, only one was cross-admitted by HYPM, the rest did not even apply to other schools. Two of them could get accepted at least by Princeton or Yale.
We'll have more than anecdotal info about cross admits after the wait list action is analyzed. Harvard is the only school to report the ACTUAL number of pre-waitlist matriculants. The Stanford "no wait list" report is only a rumor so far. Absolutely nothing from Princeton and Yale.
I suspect they want to fill as many slots via the wait list as possible BEFORE reporting anything, to avoid indicating exactly how many "defectors" there were to rival schools. It is one thing to use the wait list to make up for an initial shortfall, and another to rely on it to make up for presumed matriculants who have "melted" away!
Stanford is okay - they accepted the same number of applicants as they did last year. MIT is fine too. Princeton and Yale are fishy though.
I think Harvard had about 1,350 cross admits with YPMS last year, of whom a bit more than3/4 chose Harvard and a little under 1/4 chose Y, P, M or S.
The cross admit pool will be smaller this year, but I doubt the school-by-school breakdown will change much, even if the yield rates all rise in consequence.
The size of the early pools dropped to varying degrees at Y, M and S, probably reflecting fewer "tactical" apps from "true" H or P applicants who applied SCEA elsewhere because they had nothing to lose.
But the yield for H last year was about 75%, if all other schools did not matter (100% yield for H), the 3/4 yield over YPSM had to be that every H admit was H-YPSM cross-admits, which contradicts your number: 1350 H-YPSM cross-admits.
1. The Havard overall yield rate was just short of 76%
2. Some cross admits were admitted to more than one of the YPSM group.
3. On occasion admits prefer other schools such as state universities, etc where they receive substantial "merit aid" or athletic scholarships, or benefit from far lower tuition in cases where they do not qualify fot financial aid. It has ever been thus.
That is fine. We only concern H with YPSM, because any YPSM is no concern to H. Stanford's data also indicated that S can not lose that percent to any other schools for all the reasons possible, it should not be a surprise that H can do better. Without detailed data, it is not so easy to guess the true number. The Stanford's 1060 HYPSM cross-admits of class 2014 was S with HYPM. I believe H has a bigger number than 1060. I am not disputing your 1350, but H won 75% may be a little overstated, but I don't have any proofs to back me up. My simple calculation may say that 75% is not quite right, though I know it is your wish for the longest time :).
Post a Comment