Your figures for UChicago are wrong. UChicago had a yield of 47% and is expecting about 1525 incoming students.http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/05/18/admissions-yield-college-grows-47-percent-greater-diversity
This list is premature, misleading and basically useless.Many of these schools have acknowledged wait list admits, the likelihood of "summer melt, etc. No "yield" list has any value until we see how many show up for the start of classes, how many have been taken from the wait list (even at a claimed 100% rate and the like.Yale, at the extreme, has neither acknowledged how many agreed to matriculate initially, how many initial admits have chosen to matriculate elsewhere, or how many slots were backfilled from the wait list.
Totally agree with the two comments.
According to that article, for 47% of yield, 25370 applicants with 13.3% admit rate, Chicago will matriculate 1581 students this year, not 1525, as compared to the normal 1300-1400 per class. An increase of 200-300 students this year.Yale rarely releases its info because of NYCFan, so my guess is good as anyone's except Yale's own data. Check my previous estimates about this, and you will see that it is close enough.Besides,Yield to Admit Ratio is what I am interested in. The imperfection of the class sizes and yields should not affect the bigger picture of the index, especially when the Yield to Admit Ratio is high.
The "admit" numbers you use are off,in most cases, so that your "ratio" is using incorrect admit numbers as well as incorrect matriculant numbers.Just at the top, there is no reasonable basis for projecting class sizes of 1,641 and 1,396 at Harvard and Princeton respectively.
I thought that I made it very clearly that the waitlist numbers and hence "summer melt" were not considered, as most people/papers did. You need to give the schools some rooms to hide the truth. And it also clearly illustrates how much those school papers understand how to calculate the numbers.
"You need to give these schools some room to hide the truth," he says.Why? If you are posting a massive chart full of numbers, what is the point if so many of them are not "the truth"?
Chicago is likely to experience tremendous summer melt. I have heard from credible sources that the yield will fall to 44% or lower.
SRW:I am curious, how will UChicago's yield will drop due to the summer melt? Almost all HYPSM schools will not take anyone off their waitlist. I guess UChicago has already taken summer melt into account if there is any, otherwise, UChicago will matriculate 1581 students this year.
NYCFan,The data were obtained from the public information, and the table was noted for where the data came from. If you know how to read the numbers, you would go through the noise to get more info out of it. Unlike the schools which tried to hide the data, or unlike you who never see the truth, I can live with what I have done, with explanations.
You should have waited until August to post all these numbers, as you have in the past, rather than prematurely posting them in early June, when even you admit they are often wrong - no matter where you claim to have gotten them.I trust that when more accurate numbers are available you will post them and delete this post.
Fair enough. I will update the table once I know more. So far, I don't know what I am expecting in the next few months.
I really like your idea of yield/admit ratio, as it takes the two very important numbers and create a single index for easy comparison. However, you may want to update your expected enrollment figures for the class of 2016 now that the actual numbers are available:http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/01/30/national-universities-where-accepted-students-usually-enroll
Post a Comment