Due to a three percent increase from last year’s yield rate, the Class of 2016 will have about 50 more students than anticipated by the Office of Admission.
Administrators across undergraduate departments are taking steps to accommodate this larger entering class, including keeping Gavilan as an all-frosh dorm, hiring more Pre-Major Advisors (PMAs) and potentially hiring more Program in Writing and Rhetoric (PWR) professors and Thinking Matters teaching fellows.
Freshman class size has steadily increased over the past three years from 1,675 to 1,709 to 1,766 entering students, which is the current approximation for the Class of 2016, according to Dean of Admission Richard Shaw.
“Right now, the count is 1,786 [students], but some will withdraw over summer,” Shaw wrote in an email to The Daily.
The class of 2014 and 2015 will also gain 27 transfer students next year, according to Shaw.
Stanford’s yield rate has been consistently increasing from 64 percent in 2002 to this year’s 73 percent rate.
Because so many students accepted their offer of admission, Shaw said that all students who were placed on the waitlist were released and admission for the Class of 2016 is officially closed.
Although Stanford Student Housing was planning to convert Gavilan in Florence Moore Hall (FloMo) into a four-class dorm for the 2012-13 academic year, the residence will have to remain all-frosh in order to accommodate the large freshman class.
Fran’Cee Brown-McClure, student affairs officer for ResEd, wrote in an email to The Daily that dorms in FloMo often change their class composition from year to year.
“FloMo is the type of dorm that can accommodate a wide distribution of students depending on the needs of that year,” Brown-McClure wrote.
Brown-McClure added that although the number of incoming freshmen will be higher next year, there is adequate residential staff in place to meet their needs.
In addition to the strain on student housing, the office of Undergraduate Advising and Research (UAR) will also see effects of the larger incoming class.
Freshmen are normally assigned to Pre-Major Advisors (PMAs) in groups of four to six other students. UAR has hired additional PMAs for next year in order to maintain the intimate size of PMA groups.
In an email to The Daily, Dean of Freshmen and Undergraduate Advising Julie Lythcott-Haims ’89 wrote that UAR is ready for the incoming class.
“Luckily, our recruitment efforts this year already yielded the largest number of PMAs ever, so we’re in good shape on that front,” Lythcott-Haims wrote.
Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Harry Elam wrote in an email to The Daily that UAR is developing a new online advising tool in addition to the PMA program. The new tool, called “Productive Pathways,” would help freshmen select courses and make sure they feel supported during their freshman year.
UAR has also been planning to hire two new Academic Directors (ADs), independent of the Class of 2016 increased yield, as part of an effort to bring the overall AD-to-student ratio down, Lythcott-Haims wrote.
Elam added that more PWR instructors are needed, and that the new required freshman program, Thinking Matters, may have to hire more post-doctoral fellows to lead discussion sections in order to maintain small class sizes.
Despite these necessary adjustments, administrators said they were thrilled with the larger-than-usual size of the incoming class.
“On top of the obvious things – the academic excellence and infinite possibility – I imagine the genuine affection we all feel for the place comes through and matters to admits,” Lythcott-Haims wrote about why the yield rate was so high this year.
“It is good news that Stanford has had such a strong response,” Shaw wrote. “The University has the capacity to manage this overage.”
Lythcott-Haims added that there is only one potential problem with the freshman class size increasing.
“In UAR, we love freshmen, so there is no such thing as too many of them, except to the extent we can’t fit them all in MemAud,” she said, referring to New Student Orientation events held in Memorial Auditorium.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/05/14/university-braces-for-large-incoming-class/
I'd estimate Stanford gets about a 2% bump in its yield rate by awarding $20 million in non-need-based "athletic scholarships" to 300+ people required to sign a "letter of intent" before being granted admission.
ReplyDeleteThe yield rate for this 6% subset of the student body, which has no equivalent at the Ivies, MIT etc. is, by definition, 100%.
The Ivies don't "officially" have athletic scholarships, but they're willing to be a bit more generous with their athletes and call it "need-based aid." After all, much of the need-based aid awarded at top privates would be considered merit-based elsewhere. They sign athletes just like Stanford does, and assure them of a nice financial aid package. The yield on these students is comparably high, even though it's non-binding; athletes usually seek out only 1 likely letter, and nearly all attend. (See the Crimson article on Harvard's recruitment process.)
ReplyDeleteAnother point is that since a portion of Stanford's student body is taken care of by these endowed scholarships (this year, it was only $14 million in non-need-based athletic aid, by the way), the rest of the financial aid budget has less strain. Stanford spent $126 million in institutional grants, compared to Harvard's $148 million. But when you include the $17 million athletic awards, for a total of $143 million, you can more easily see why the two have comparable financial aid budgets.
The Ivies do not "sign" athletes. They are free to attend or to go elsewhere if recruited. Many are offered "like lies" at more than one school. Even if they enroll, they are not compelled to play a sport, and (unlike Stanford) they will not lose their financial aid if they do.
ReplyDeleteStanford spends $14 million on the football program alone.
Harvard's need-based aid is currently budgeted at $172 million.
The point is that in addition to admitting X percent of the class via SCEA, and benefitting from the higher yield rate that results, Stanford admits another 6% of the class through a BINDING 'letter of intent" process with a 100% yield rate.
Nothing wrong with that (as you don't object to salaried athletes playing for your school) but it does mean that the announced yield rate deserves an asterisk!
NYC Fan cool it will you?
ReplyDeleteStanford's athletes have the highest academic minimum of any other college. So during the recruiting process, most were choosing between other top schools as well. That they chose Stanford indicates the school's desirability.
NYCFan must have gotten a rejection letter from Stanford.
ReplyDeleteStanford certainly does not have the "highest academic minimum of any other college" - unless by "college" you mean the PAC 12.
ReplyDeleteI doubt the Stanford football squad could measure up to the Academic Index at any of the Ivies.
But then Stanford football players are not recruited and paid for their academic talent, but for their athletic talent, which they have in abundance - proving that in this area, as in so many others, you get what you pay for.
NYCFan, your statistics are off. The ones I gave you are the official statistics.
ReplyDeletehttp://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2011.html
As you can see there, $14 million is the entire budget for merit-based athletic awards (including need-based athletic aid, the total athletic awards budget is $17 million). $14 million for football alone would make no sense at all, since the NCAA places a maximum on each sport; for football, the maximum number of full scholarship equivalents is 85. There are strict rules on what the school can give students, which many schools have gotten dinged for (e.g. the Reggie Bush scandal).
The figure you cite on Harvard's need-based aid budget includes other forms of financial aid. The institutional grants (i.e. what Harvard itself pays) for their financial aid is $148 million. Don't believe me? Look up the common data set. I referenced it in my last comment, so I know that it's right.
Your argument that the non-binding nature of Harvard et al's recruitment makes a big difference is nonsense. It's like arguing that SCEA is completely different from ED - sure, the former is non-binding, but it yields over 90%, so in terms of "effective yield," it's not much different from ED.
Here is an excerpt from a 2011 Crimson article on the recruitment at Harvard and the Ivies. As you can tell, it proves your point wrong.
---------------
Despite acknowledging the Ivy League policy of not requiring a commitment, Galehouse said that coaches do gauge interest levels before submitting their preferences to the admissions office.
“If coaches are going to go to bat for you, they want a pretty strong commitment,” he said of his understanding of the process in the Ivies. “You’re not really supposed to be going after likely letters from multiple schools. Coaches talk.”
Fitzsimmons acknowledged that few recruited athletes who receive likely letters from Harvard end up attending other institutions.
“A pretty high percentage of the athletes end up coming,” he said, adding that the trend can be attributed to a bond that recruits feel to the coach or the institution, not because Harvard requires any sort of commitment.
---------------
QED ;)
It's apparent you don't know how recruitment works. Many are NOT offered likelies at multiple schools - that's unethical, as you can see from the quoted Crimson article. Ivies DO sign athletes - coaches recruit them, and then submit the preferences to the admissions office. They aren't bound, but as noted above, that doesn't really matter given how the recruitment process works.
ReplyDelete"But then Stanford football players are not recruited and paid for their academic talent, but for their athletic talent, which they have in abundance - proving that in this area, as in so many others, you get what you pay for."
That's completely false. They are also recruited for academic ability, and many articles have noted the fact that there is only a small handful of athletes that Stanford can recruit because of its admissions standards. Multiple times, a coach has resigned/moved to another school because the admissions office won't admit their recruits (e.g. a few years ago the basketball coach angrily left a few weeks after one of his star recruits was rejected). Stanford perennially dominates in the All-Academic Teams. Here's a quote from a Daily article:
--------------
Stanford’s entrance requirements have long been considered the limiting factor for the football team’s success. When recruiting season comes around, it’s hard to miss coaches being quoted as saying something along the lines of, “There are only a few dozen good players in the country who could possibly get in here, and it’s our job to find them.”
--------------
See this WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132503526250500.html
You obviously have a bias against this aspect of Stanford, but what you know is clearly wrong.
Not sure what happened to my last comment:
ReplyDeleteNYCFan, your statistics are off. The ones I gave you are the official statistics.
http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2011.html
As you can see there, $14 million is the entire budget for merit-based athletic awards (including need-based athletic aid, the total athletic awards budget is $17 million). $14 million for football alone would make no sense at all, since the NCAA places a maximum on each sport; for football, the maximum number of full scholarship equivalents is 85. There are strict rules on what the school can give students, which many schools have gotten dinged for (e.g. the Reggie Bush scandal).
The figure you cite on Harvard's need-based aid budget includes other forms of financial aid. The institutional grants (i.e. what Harvard itself pays) for their financial aid is $148 million. Don't believe me? Look up the common data set. I referenced it in my last comment, so I know that it's right.
Your argument that the non-binding nature of Harvard et al's recruitment makes a big difference is nonsense. It's like arguing that SCEA is completely different from ED - sure, the former is non-binding, but it yields over 90%, so in terms of "effective yield," it's not much different from ED.
Here is an excerpt from a 2011 Crimson article on the recruitment at Harvard and the Ivies. As you can tell, it proves your point wrong.
---------------
Despite acknowledging the Ivy League policy of not requiring a commitment, Galehouse said that coaches do gauge interest levels before submitting their preferences to the admissions office.
“If coaches are going to go to bat for you, they want a pretty strong commitment,” he said of his understanding of the process in the Ivies. “You’re not really supposed to be going after likely letters from multiple schools. Coaches talk.”
Fitzsimmons acknowledged that few recruited athletes who receive likely letters from Harvard end up attending other institutions.
“A pretty high percentage of the athletes end up coming,” he said, adding that the trend can be attributed to a bond that recruits feel to the coach or the institution, not because Harvard requires any sort of commitment.
---------------
QED ;)
Your financial aid info for Harvard is two years behind.
ReplyDeleteSee:http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/03/record-for-financial-aid/
And as rigorous as Stanford's academic standards for jocks may be compared to Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona and the like, they are nowhere near as rigorous as the standards every Ivy must comply with under the Academic Index.
And sure, Ivy coaches try to get "moral" commitments from recruits before "going to bat" for them, but still there is the kind of "slippage" Stanford and the other "letter of Intent" schools don't countenance. THOSE letters are LEGAL COMMITMENTS!
Moreover, since Ivy athletes aren't owned by the coaches, they can decide, with maddening frequency, to give up "games" in order to spend more time in the chem lab! Let a Stanford athlete try that and his "scholarship" will be pulled before he gets back to the dorm.
None of this means that Stanford isn't a great place to go to school, but merely that its frequent claims to athletic superiority frequently fail to acknowledge that success comes at a price: Stanford spends more on athletic scholarships than any other school in the United States of America.
Its all a question of priorites, I guess, as the Chair of the Stanford Trustees acknowledged after a tour of Yale last year:
"To Hume, Yale’s highly developed and comprehensive commitment to the arts was an indicator of a difference in the highest priorities of the two institutions, citing a similarly strong level of commitment at Stanford to athletics that Yale did not share."
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/10/trustees-report-from-yale/
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I thought "NYCFan" sounded familiar, and a quick google search showed you're one of the most widely disliked trolls on CC and xoxohth. I remember you, Byerly--I mean NYCFan.
ReplyDeleteSorry, not gonna let you bait me like you did to so many posters elsewhere.
NYCFan you make me laugh. You really don't know what you're talking about. Please go set up a meeting with Stanford's athletics director before you speak this nonsense.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Stanford athletic director (when a new one is selected) should set up a meeting with the chair of the Stanford trustees to get their story straight!
ReplyDelete