Yield Protection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the whole "enrollment cliff" supposed to happen? Aren't admissions going to get easier in the next few years?

Yes, so Harvard’s acceptance rate will go from 5% to 6%.

That’s a joke.

The enrollment cliff is already happening. It’s won’t affect big name schools. It will mean small schools will get more aggressive with marketing and yield. It will mean some small schools close. We are already seeing that.

No. 2007 was the largest birth year in American history. Most of those kids are part of the HS class of 2025. This year is peak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the whole "enrollment cliff" supposed to happen? Aren't admissions going to get easier in the next few years?

Yes, so Harvard’s acceptance rate will go from 5% to 6%.

That’s a joke.

The enrollment cliff is already happening. It’s won’t affect big name schools. It will mean small schools will get more aggressive with marketing and yield. It will mean some small schools close. We are already seeing that.

No. 2007 was the largest birth year in American history. Most of those kids are part of the HS class of 2025. This year is peak.

But there’s still subsequent drops from the test required reintegration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the whole "enrollment cliff" supposed to happen? Aren't admissions going to get easier in the next few years?

Yes, so Harvard’s acceptance rate will go from 5% to 6%.

That’s a joke.

The enrollment cliff is already happening. It’s won’t affect big name schools. It will mean small schools will get more aggressive with marketing and yield. It will mean some small schools close. We are already seeing that.

No. 2007 was the largest birth year in American history. Most of those kids are part of the HS class of 2025. This year is peak.

But there’s still subsequent drops from the test required reintegration

But slightly easier for kids with hottest scores as the test optional nonsense is going away at many top schools.

[Anonymous]

*high not hottest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were told schools like Case Western and Tulane often defer EA applicants. Do, we intentionally 'demonstrated interest' by attending info sessions (online and on person when possible), opening all email, etc. My kid also reached out to academic departments with legit questions about curriculum, research, etc. Accepted at both with merit.

THis ^^^

You just need to convince them "you are my #1 choice, not a safety". It doesn't take much, but if you do that, you will likely get admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rejected is Not girls protection.

Schools want to admit students who will attend. They need c students to enroll in the fall. So yes if they think you are using them as a safety or most likely have resume for a higher ranked school and don't really want to attend, they might wl or reject you. If they are really your first choice you show them that and you might get admitted

For ex case western, they know that many who apply have the resume for T25. If they accept all of those kids they won't have enough students in the fall. Seriously even of those who end up attending at least 50% + are only there because they did NOT get into the 3-4 T25 they applied to.

But if case is your top choice, let them know they will give you your fa and merit estimates and you can ED 2.

And if it's not your top choice, well then they were accurate in assuming you might not attend. So yup you may not get admitted

This process you are describing is yield protection. If a school wasn’t trying to protect its yield, they could admit every qualified applicant. Sure, only x% would attend, but that’s ok—just admit enough applicants that x% gives you the number you need for your freshman class.

Ok, then every school with a sub 50% admission rate "yield protects". They are simply attempting to only admit kids who actually want to attend. Imagine that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rejected is Not girls protection.

Schools want to admit students who will attend. They need c students to enroll in the fall. So yes if they think you are using them as a safety or most likely have resume for a higher ranked school and don't really want to attend, they might wl or reject you. If they are really your first choice you show them that and you might get admitted

For ex case western, they know that many who apply have the resume for T25. If they accept all of those kids they won't have enough students in the fall. Seriously even of those who end up attending at least 50% + are only there because they did NOT get into the 3-4 T25 they applied to.

But if case is your top choice, let them know they will give you your fa and merit estimates and you can ED 2.

And if it's not your top choice, well then they were accurate in assuming you might not attend. So yup you may not get admitted

Assuming you meant "not yield protection", what you have described is exactly yield protection. Schools don't have to do this--ie Pitt takes both the high stats kids and those with lower stats and has a lower yield.

There are "high stats kids" who get Wl/Rejected from Pitt. It happens at every school with sub 50% acceptance rates. And those kids will continue to scream "I was yield protected".

If you want to apply to 10+ schools (really more than 2 or 3), then there will always be "yield protection".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school that rejected a kid. Yield protection is a coping mechanism used by many on here when kids get rejected.

My kid got into Pomona, Hopkins, Swarthmore, Dartmouth, Georgetown and Brown.

WL at Villanova and Tufts.

My kid got into Tufts, Georgetown, and Pomono and WL and weightlisted at Dartmouth. Rejected from Brown.

So, it's very hard to know--depends on so many factors.

Sorry, as a Tufts grad, I'll tell you that Tufts, Georgetown, and Pomona are less selective than either Dartmouth or Brown. That's not yield protection. Evidence of yield protection would be if kid were accepted at Dartmouth and Brown and waitlisted at Tufts.

But if that happened, Tufts is justified in not admitting or WL the kid. They want kids who will attend. If they think the kid will get into several higher ranked schools, why should they admit them? The kid would rather attend the other schools. Tufts (and any school) wants kids who want to attend. End of game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school that rejected a kid. Yield protection is a coping mechanism used by many on here when kids get rejected.

I disagree. If two ivies accept and a top 75 rejects, it's not a copying mechanism. Yield protection is real.

And then it turns out the T75 was correct in "rejecting" Remember if kids get to apply to 10+ schools, the schools rightfully get to try and assume who actually has them as #1 or #2 schools and will likely attend. That kid isn't attending, so why waste the space, when there are plenty of "similar students, maybe slightly below who will actually want to attend".
Of course yield protection will happen. Otherwise the schools in the 25-60 range would end up not having enough students many times and hoping the WL produces results. Because many "high stats kids" would get into several T25 and attend one of those, leaving the 25-60 schools without enough students until they use the WL. Schools don't want to use the WL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no convincing proof that any school does yield protection but DCUM parents cling to this “explanation” for their kid getting rejected.

Well, if you look in SCOIR scattergrams for some colleges (ie U Miami) where the top quadrant kids are all deferred/waitlisted and those with lower stats are accepted, it feels a lot like yield protection.

Scattergrams based on two very limited criteria (GPA and SAT/ACT) are not showing you the whole picture of the applicant and you can't draw conclusions about "yield protection" from them. You don't know what those "lower stats" kids had that the "higher stats" kids didn't have that allowed the former to get accepted - URM, athlete, legacy. musician, could be a lot of things the college wanted that wasn't just "raw stats" based.

Nope--for our HS (small enough to now know who each point represents), U Miami rejected the kids now at top 25's and accepted wealthy kids with much lower stats (not athletes, legacy, musicians, but very wealthy)--you can see this trend year over year. The trouble with applying to yield protection schools from expensive private schools is that they know you could afford to ED if it was truly your top choice. Especially for the ED2 round. Not sure why you are arguing a concept college counselors will agree upon--yield protection is definitely a thing--especially demonstrated by the schools taking a large percentage of kids via ED (Tulane is notorious for this).

It is. The other thing is, the counselors at our school know some AOs very well. They know which of their kids are using certain schools as safeties. They have met with the kids and families a bunch of times prior to applying and throughout the process. Sally may already know she's going to Georgetown first, then BC and a then Villanova in that order. Jimmy is ND or bust, Villanova and then, ,, you get the point. They are going to work to get each kid into the school of their choice and best fit. It's a 2-way street. They know each year relative numbers of admits at these schools and they know which kids are legacy, athletes and likely to get in, etc. So, yes, I can see why a kid might be WL somewhere because they know he/she isn't likely to yield.

This also sounds super fair and maybe the subject of a further Varsity Blues type documentary.

The real issue with yield protection is that you have the high stats kids not winning the lottery at the “elite” schools and then also getting locked out of next tier down.

So it is on the High stats kid to convince the schools in the 25-60 range that "yes I definately want to attend, you are my top choice".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school that rejected a kid. Yield protection is a coping mechanism used by many on here when kids get rejected.

I disagree. If two ivies accept and a top 75 rejects, it's not a copying mechanism. Yield protection is real.

If it’s a consistent pattern, maybe. But it’s also possible that the student did something in the application to the T75 school to warrant the rejection. There are a lot of kids now applying to 25 or more schools and it’s hard not to make mistakes/get sloppy with the essays.

Such a perfectly impervious theory. Didn’t get in? You should have applied to more schools. Still didn’t get in? You applied to too many schools. No matter what happens, it’s always the kid’s fault.

If you apply to a good list of Reach/target/safeties/likelies and show demonstrated interest at all (ie convince them yes you are my #1 choice), even your high stats kid will get into at least 50% of their targets and safeties.
The key is anything with a Sub 20% acceptance rate is a reach for Everyone. And you need a few targets where your kid is 75%+ for stats and acceptance rate of 30%+ to ensure that happens.
But if you do that, 95%+ of kids will have it work out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a few weeks, a whole lot of people here will claim that every school that denied their kid was doing it.

Yep. Happens every year, like clockwork. Some parents (and their kids) truly believe they're entitled to admission to pretty much any school. When it doesn't happen, they're shocked and claim "yield protection." Never fails.

And yield protection is not a bad thing---from the universities prospective, their goal is to admit students who actually want to attend. Face it, your kid most likely would rather be attending 3-5 of their Reach schools instead and would only attend their target/safety if they don't get into those. So if WL/Rejected, the school was actually right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any school that rejected a kid. Yield protection is a coping mechanism used by many on here when kids get rejected.

I disagree. If two ivies accept and a top 75 rejects, it's not a copying mechanism. Yield protection is real.

If it’s a consistent pattern, maybe. But it’s also possible that the student did something in the application to the T75 school to warrant the rejection. There are a lot of kids now applying to 25 or more schools and it’s hard not to make mistakes/get sloppy with the essays.

Such a perfectly impervious theory. Didn’t get in? You should have applied to more schools. Still didn’t get in? You applied to too many schools. No matter what happens, it’s always the kid’s fault.

Nope, not blaming the kids. But there are simply way, way more qualified students than their are slots at the "top" schools. The bottom line is that kids need to understand that nothing is guaranteed, that they are not entitled to get into any one of these schools (regardless of their metrics), and that there are other kids who are just as deserving as they are. Moreover, as soon as everyone realizes that there are super-smart, highly-accomplished kids at literally hundreds of colleges--kids just as amazing as their own (gasp!)--everyone will be better off.

Sorry, but my issue with yield protection isn’t the top schools. I get that they’re too small for their avowed purpose. It’s the lower-tier schools like Elon. You wind up with high stats kids who don’t get into top schools because of random chance, and then also can’t get in to lower-tier schools because those schools assume the kids will get into a more impressive school OR because the lower-tier school filled up with less impressive kids in the ED round. The high stats wind up being an albatross that prevent strong students from getting into the kind of small or mid-size, four year private residential college they wanted. This is why people with 1600s debate applying TO to those mid-tier schools. The schools’ behavior shows them to be so opposed to academic achievement that students think they might have to hide it. And it makes me sad and angry to see educational institutions treat educational achievement as a strike against anyone.

Purported "high stats" kids use lower-tier schools as safeties and have no intention of matriculating there if accepted. It goes both ways.

THis 1000%

Parents are mad that a school their kid really doesn't want to attend didn't accept their kid. So if anything, the school was spot on in their decision making. It's up to your kid to convince the school otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a few weeks, a whole lot of people here will claim that every school that denied their kid was doing it.

Yep. Happens every year, like clockwork. Some parents (and their kids) truly believe they're entitled to admission to pretty much any school. When it doesn't happen, they're shocked and claim "yield protection." Never fails.

This might be true but yield management is real. If yield management is not a thing, colleges would not be paying so much money to consultants to increase their yields. The main reason demonstrated interest exists is for yield management.

Yup! Why do you think Harvard defers over 75% of their REA (or whatever their EA is called)? Because then they can almost guarantee yield by admitting a large percentage of kids in RD who they KNOW really really want to attend. Easy to yield manage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were told schools like Case Western and Tulane often defer EA applicants. Do, we intentionally 'demonstrated interest' by attending info sessions (online and on person when possible), opening all email, etc. My kid also reached out to academic departments with legit questions about curriculum, research, etc. Accepted at both with merit.

THis ^^^

You just need to convince them "you are my #1 choice, not a safety". It doesn't take much, but if you do that, you will likely get admitted.

Professors and research directors do NOT want to hear from prospective undergraduates, at least at highly selective schools. Prospectives email me and I tell them to contact the admissions department and get back in touch when they've matriculated. The admissions office does not see or track those kinds of communications. Keep your focus on things that can be seen and tracked by admissions.