Top 20-ish Colleges by YIELD RATE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP.

Since you brought up WASP teenagers applying / admitted to Amherst, here for all to examine are the stats on the actual skin color of the Amherst pupils:


Black 6%
Asian 12%
Latinx 16%
Multiracial 11%
White 40%
Did not report 6%
International 10%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

+100

It’s arbitrary.

There seems to be a cohort on DCUM that finds fault with every school excepting HYP. Anything less than their stats is inferior or gaming the system somehow.

I’m not dumb enough to believe that America has less than 5 legitimate colleges and everything else is trash or faking or gaming things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have posted that phrase so many times I'm afraid you believe it. You can't be helped. Nothing will clear the angry red from your eyes. Not the Nobel Prizes. Not the research labs. Not the rankings by US based and international magazines. Not the admissions from Chicago undergrad into top doctoral programs at schools you actually do seem to respect.

<sigh>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

There seems to be a cohort on DCUM that finds fault with every school excepting HYP. Anything less than their stats is inferior or gaming the system somehow.

Because this group of DCUM parents are "priced out" of ED. They make too much to get any financial aid, but not enough to not feel the financial pressure with full pay. It kills them to see others taking advantage of ED when they couldn't. Hence all the twisted reasoning of ED being unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I've posted about this before. My DCs go to one of the top high schools in the country. The avg SAT is above 1500. Top 10% (and/or hooked) goes to HYPSM. The second tier (top 20%) goes to Duke, Penn, Columbia. Third tier (top 30%) goes to Cornell, NU, Chicago, GU, and WASP.

The third-tier level usually comes down to student preference - the kids who go to Cornell or WASP are not "better" than the ones who go to NU or UC, or vice versa. But they are all phenomenal students with SAT scores close to or above 1550 (as we can see in Naviance).

Thus I would agree with you that Chicago is not a top 10 school. It is in the top 15. So if your/your child's ego is tied up in a TOP TEN school, you should strike Chicago from your list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I've posted about this before. My DCs go to one of the top high schools in the country. The avg SAT is above 1500. Top 10% (and/or hooked) goes to HYPSM. The second tier (top 20%) goes to Duke, Penn, Columbia. Third tier (top 30%) goes to Cornell, NU, Chicago, GU, and WASP.

The third-tier level usually comes down to student preference - the kids who go to Cornell or WASP are not "better" than the ones who go to NU or UC, or vice versa. But they are all phenomenal students with SAT scores close to or above 1550 (as we can see in Naviance).

Thus I would agree with you that Chicago is not a top 10 school. It is in the top 15. So if your/your child's ego is tied up in a TOP TEN school, you should strike Chicago from your list.

Don't believe Times Higher Education or QS World University Rankings or USNWR. Believe you because not only does your child go to one of the best high schools on planet earth, you have access top all of their classmates data and have gone so far as to rank and tier them. Then, after sifting your child's classmates for cerebral fitness you have gathered where each will be going to college and - further still - made a matrix to show which of their classmates that you tiered by your standards will be going to which schools. Now, based on how you adjudged your child's classmates you have been able to derive whether or not the university they will be attending is, itself, first or second or third tier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP.

Since you brought up WASP teenagers applying / admitted to Amherst, here for all to examine are the stats on the actual skin color of the Amherst pupils:


Black 6%
Asian 12%
Latinx 16%
Multiracial 11%
White 40%
Did not report 6%
International 10%

WASP stands for Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, and these are trash diversity numbers in comparison.
Mind you, here's class of 2028
American Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
Asian American 20%
Black or African American 3%
Latinx 8%
Multiracial 8%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0%
White 39%
Did not report 7%
International 16%

[Anonymous]

Amherst's athletes are overwhelmingly white, so if you took out recruited/varsity athletes (almost 1/3rd of the students), being a white, MC/UMC suburban male means you have zero chance of being admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I've posted about this before. My DCs go to one of the top high schools in the country. The avg SAT is above 1500. Top 10% (and/or hooked) goes to HYPSM. The second tier (top 20%) goes to Duke, Penn, Columbia. Third tier (top 30%) goes to Cornell, NU, Chicago, GU, and WASP.

The third-tier level usually comes down to student preference - the kids who go to Cornell or WASP are not "better" than the ones who go to NU or UC, or vice versa. But they are all phenomenal students with SAT scores close to or above 1550 (as we can see in Naviance).

Thus I would agree with you that Chicago is not a top 10 school. It is in the top 15. So if your/your child's ego is tied up in a TOP TEN school, you should strike Chicago from your list.

I doubt it there is a clear line drawn between your second and the third tiers. These schools are in the same tier except for Chicago.

All these schools have a much larger percentage of class from RD round except for Chicago. Cornell has cut down much of its ED class, Georgetown does not have ED, and WASP have no ED advantage.

When an applicant has no confidence in RD, they would choose ED Chicago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amherst's athletes are overwhelmingly white, so if you took out recruited/varsity athletes (almost 1/3rd of the students), being a white, MC/UMC suburban male means you have zero chance of being admitted.

It law means the majority of white kids at the school are athletes, which is….weird.

[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.”

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.

The proportion of Econ majors at Chicago is nothing like at any Ivy. Nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

4 kids at your neighborhood agree wholeheartedly.

The one at Duke is miserable and thing academics is a joke ( by his standards)

One at Wharton - thinking of Wall Street and all - is crestfallen by all sorts of hanky panky that goes on there

The one at Cornell- engineering is satisfied so is the Uchicago kid.

All top stats//