Top 20-ish Colleges by YIELD RATE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Davidson has a yield rate higher than Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore, and just a tad lower than Pomona. Its yield rate handily beats most other top-rated LACs, save Bowdoin.

Your’e neglecting the fact that Williams and Amherst only have one ED round while Davidson has two, increasing their yield

Amherst would have to accept a lot of kids ED2 to make a difference because their current yield is a dreadful 39%. I say dreadful because given all the hoopla about the school, you’d think it would be much higher.

Actually, Amherst's yield is quite good. Amherst competes with both the top LACs, the majority of which have two rounds (compared with one at Amherst) as well as with the Ivy Plus national universities for the most highly qualified students. Ivy Plus Unis have higher national and universal recognition due in part to their size, research output, and graduate programs making it more difficult for a small LAC to compete when a student is accepted to both. Being in a region with the most dense population of elite colleges also affects the yield. The WASP LACs, on the other hand, have more niche appeal to students and families who value a strong undergraduate focused education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

I think you’re in the minority re the obsession with admissions rates. Selectivity isn’t the key factor in determining excellence. Students wanting to be there, peer reputation, academic excellence, caliber of student, and retention rates are what speak to most people, which is why many very qualified candidates choose ED to non-Ivy top schools (Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, etc.) over competing against legacy candidates at HYP. It’s the smart move when you aren’t a legacy, a recruited athlete, or an otherwise hooked candidate.

Sure it is. Just don’t pretend it’s a top 20 school. Top 20, maybe. You can’t have your cake and eat it. As for excellence, the Chicago of a generation ago (with 1/2 as many undergrads and a much higher admit rate) was a place of excellence; now it is just a striver school with 30% Econ majors — literally. So much for “life of the mind.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

I think you’re in the minority re the obsession with admissions rates. Selectivity isn’t the key factor in determining excellence. Students wanting to be there, peer reputation, academic excellence, caliber of student, and retention rates are what speak to most people, which is why many very qualified candidates choose ED to non-Ivy top schools (Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, etc.) over competing against legacy candidates at HYP. It’s the smart move when you aren’t a legacy, a recruited athlete, or an otherwise hooked candidate.

Sure it is. Just don’t pretend it’s a top 20 school. Top 20, maybe. You can’t have your cake and eat it. As for excellence, the Chicago of a generation ago (with 1/2 as many undergrads and a much higher admit rate) was a place of excellence; now it is just a striver school with 30% Econ majors — literally. So much for “life of the mind.”

Sorry. Don’t pretend it’s a top 10 school. Top 20, maybe — but only if you exclude SLACs.

[Anonymous]

It is interesting to see the stats but yields are just so easy to manipulate. Not just through ED but also through accepting from the WL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

I think you’re in the minority re the obsession with admissions rates. Selectivity isn’t the key factor in determining excellence. Students wanting to be there, peer reputation, academic excellence, caliber of student, and retention rates are what speak to most people, which is why many very qualified candidates choose ED to non-Ivy top schools (Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, etc.) over competing against legacy candidates at HYP. It’s the smart move when you aren’t a legacy, a recruited athlete, or an otherwise hooked candidate.

Sure it is. Just don’t pretend it’s a top 20 school. Top 20, maybe. You can’t have your cake and eat it. As for excellence, the Chicago of a generation ago (with 1/2 as many undergrads and a much higher admit rate) was a place of excellence; now it is just a striver school with 30% Econ majors — literally. So much for “life of the mind.”

chicago is widely seen as better than many ivies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry I'm new to this... can you explain what yield rate is and it's significance?

Put it this way. Chicago has 80% of the class admitted from ED0-ED3 rounds. EDs are binding, so they have to go to Chicago. So for 80% of Chicago’s class, the yield rate is 100%.

Chicago admits almost 100% of their class from their early rounds. Allegedly 25% of the incoming class from each of those rounds, and less than 1% accepted in RD.

[Anonymous]

But why does ED matter at all to you people?

For example, Dartmouth had an ED admission of 49%. And their stats are great. 93% of students were in the top 10% at their schools.

So clearly, impressive kids have Dartmouth as their first and only choice.

It's not like they are admitting dummies who would otherwise never get in.

So why exclude ED admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

This may be shocking to you, but I don't care if the school is "overrated" on the USNWR. I care about the education and experience my kid receives. By that measure, Harvard is extraordinarily overrated, given that the undergrad experience frankly sucks.

Did you go to Harvard to know that the undergrad experience frankly sucks?

[Anonymous]

I get that people want to make it seem like their reasoning is justified, but I don't see why one has to feel better by putting other schools down, especially if they themselves have yet to experience it. And even if you did experience it, I am sorry you felt that way. Perhaps others have had good experiences at the same college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

This may be shocking to you, but I don't care if the school is "overrated" on the USNWR. I care about the education and experience my kid receives. By that measure, Harvard is extraordinarily overrated, given that the undergrad experience frankly sucks.

Did you go to Harvard to know that the undergrad experience frankly sucks?

I know half a dozen H grads + another 4 with kids there now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

I think you’re in the minority re the obsession with admissions rates. Selectivity isn’t the key factor in determining excellence. Students wanting to be there, peer reputation, academic excellence, caliber of student, and retention rates are what speak to most people, which is why many very qualified candidates choose ED to non-Ivy top schools (Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, etc.) over competing against legacy candidates at HYP. It’s the smart move when you aren’t a legacy, a recruited athlete, or an otherwise hooked candidate.

Sure it is. Just don’t pretend it’s a top 20 school. Top 20, maybe. You can’t have your cake and eat it. As for excellence, the Chicago of a generation ago (with 1/2 as many undergrads and a much higher admit rate) was a place of excellence; now it is just a striver school with 30% Econ majors — literally. So much for “life of the mind.”

chicago is widely seen as better than many ivies

agreed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

I think you’re in the minority re the obsession with admissions rates. Selectivity isn’t the key factor in determining excellence. Students wanting to be there, peer reputation, academic excellence, caliber of student, and retention rates are what speak to most people, which is why many very qualified candidates choose ED to non-Ivy top schools (Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, etc.) over competing against legacy candidates at HYP. It’s the smart move when you aren’t a legacy, a recruited athlete, or an otherwise hooked candidate.

Sure it is. Just don’t pretend it’s a top 20 school. Top 20, maybe. You can’t have your cake and eat it. As for excellence, the Chicago of a generation ago (with 1/2 as many undergrads and a much higher admit rate) was a place of excellence; now it is just a striver school with 30% Econ majors — literally. So much for “life of the mind.”

You’ve just described Ivy League outcomes perfectly. More than half of the class goes into consulting or investment banking at many Ivy Leagues. And by “strivers” at Chicago and elsewhere, you’re obnoxiously referring to non-legacies who managed despite their lack of inherited privilege to get into a top school. OMG, how dare they? Sorry that your Ivy degree doesn’t have the same clout at the country club these days.

[Anonymous]

UPenn and Ivies invented ED strategy.
Majority of them still have it.

Some of them have gotten on very high grounds and so now pretending not having ED is something noble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UPenn and Ivies invented ED strategy.
Majority of them still have it.

Some of them have gotten on very high grounds and so now pretending not having ED is something noble.

Chicago ranks #1 in abusing ED practice and in hiding numbers.
Actually, Chicago is the only one doing that, no other schools hide their numbers and have 3-4 rounds of ED.
It's become a laughing stock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only non-ED yield rates count. I hope it’s not too hard to comprehend.

Why? Because you said so?

If someone is applying ED, that’s a pretty strong signal they actually want to go to the school.

It’s the strongest signal possible.

Or they know they have little chance for better schools. But I know it’s hard to argue with an idiot.

You know it’s a strong argument when you resort to name calling.

It’s U Chicago, there aren’t that many “better” schools and those that are higher ranked are lottery plays.

A high stats student could attend the excellent Chicago as a sure thing or bet that they can win the Yale lottery but forego any advantage with ED to Chicago.

Taking the Chicago deal seems like a smart play for most students.

I can think of a dozen schools that are lower-ranked that are lottery plays. Ergo, Chicago is overrated. It is that simple. You can’t have your cake and eat it too….if it looks too good to be true….whatever cliche you want to use, this conclusion is inescapable. And yet the Chicago boosters claim otherwise, thinking they have done a brilliant run around the entire college admissions system.

I think you’re in the minority re the obsession with admissions rates. Selectivity isn’t the key factor in determining excellence. Students wanting to be there, peer reputation, academic excellence, caliber of student, and retention rates are what speak to most people, which is why many very qualified candidates choose ED to non-Ivy top schools (Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, etc.) over competing against legacy candidates at HYP. It’s the smart move when you aren’t a legacy, a recruited athlete, or an otherwise hooked candidate.

Sure it is. Just don’t pretend it’s a top 20 school. Top 20, maybe. You can’t have your cake and eat it. As for excellence, the Chicago of a generation ago (with 1/2 as many undergrads and a much higher admit rate) was a place of excellence; now it is just a striver school with 30% Econ majors — literally. So much for “life of the mind.”

chicago is widely seen as better than many ivies

Absolutely not. Among “top” students in a good high school, only 3rd tier ones end up in UChicago. The first tier goes to HYPSM, and second tier goes to rest of ivies and Duke.