Yield Management 2026: The Most Absurd Non-Admits

[Anonymous]

BC probably gets their strongest applicants ED2. These are kids who were deferred or denied ED1 or SCEA from stronger schools and aren't up for the stress of RD (I don't blame them).

By RD, BC denies/waitlists the strongest kids from privates. They take the middle of the class ones. It's a definite formula. Kids with better options (top 20s, strong state schools, etc) will take them. No top kid is going to pay BC $98K/year if they get better options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it does. The process has gotten so ridiculous. "Over-qualified" kids get rejected from schools solely so they can manage their yields. This is not OK. If a kid applies, assume they want to go there. At least waitlist them so they can plead their case if they really are interested.

The process has gotten so over-complicated. Schools should be devoting their financial resources towards education, not paying yield management experts.

Except OP explicitly said that the kid did not want to go there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slate is a CRM. It has a Reader function. AOs at schools that don’t use demonstrated interest won’t waste time leaving the Reader to go look at the communication data.

The AO does not need to look and I agree that it is unlikely that they would bother to do so. If the enrollment management consultant has access to that data, it is very likely that the data find their way into the mathematical model for yield scoring. Yield management algorithms are outside the purview of the AO. The admissions director may know more, particularly with regard to back-end class shaping with data from the consultant.

[Anonymous]

My kid has 4.0 uw gpa, 35 ACT, private school DMV and got into all her safeties—even those she didn’t engage with. Maybe there’s something about your kid Syracuse just didn’t like…perhaps in the essays?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it does. The process has gotten so ridiculous. "Over-qualified" kids get rejected from schools solely so they can manage their yields. This is not OK. If a kid applies, assume they want to go there. At least waitlist them so they can plead their case if they really are interested.

The process has gotten so over-complicated. Schools should be devoting their financial resources towards education, not paying yield management experts.

Except OP explicitly said that the kid did not want to go there!

So why did he apply? I think there should be a happy medium between "demonstrated interest" and "must visit, click on a lot of e-mails, and constantly suck up to show you love them."

It has become too easy to just apply to dozens of places. But there should also be more predictability to it - if the process was more predictable, students would feel less of a need to apply to many places. It is a bit of chicken and the egg.

I hate the stories about the underprivileged kid who got into 43 schools and got huge scholarships from all of them. Why were they applying to 43 schools? If you are so underprivileged, spend some of the time you spent applying and get a job (I know the additional work to apply to an additional school is often minimal, but you get my point). These kids aren't heroes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BC probably gets their strongest applicants ED2. These are kids who were deferred or denied ED1 or SCEA from stronger schools and aren't up for the stress of RD (I don't blame them).

By RD, BC denies/waitlists the strongest kids from privates. They take the middle of the class ones. It's a definite formula. Kids with better options (top 20s, strong state schools, etc) will take them. No top kid is going to pay BC $98K/year if they get better options.

I heard RD acceptance rate was ~8% this year. That said, my high stats kid from a Catholic HS was admitted RD and enrolled, even with what others may consider to be a “better option.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just for kicks, please list the basic stats (or whatever else you want) of schools that your kid should have statistically gotten into but didn't.

I'll start:

School: Syracuse
GPA: 3.81 unweighted (DC private)
SAT: 1510

I’d reject this kid too. Why would they be applying to Syracuse??

They spent the time and money to apply. Assume they want to go there.

The money for many is trivial. The time, also. A few tweaks of an essay. For a school like Syracuse, when you get to the 18th college on your common app and you have a couple of free ones to go, why not just apply? Silly, but AO's know this game.

The strong but not T15 private colleges have to play this game, too. You don't think the AO's at BC, Wake, USC, Northeastern, BU, Tufts, Emory, etc. can't sniff out who is really interested in the school from someone like the OP? They track pixels on your email, time spent on their portal, engagement with webinairs, history of your high school, visits, SAT bands who have been accepted before, etc.. They have an entire software system set up to analyze demonstrated interest and likelihood of attending- and it is only getting more sophisticated.

When you get to the next tier below- GWU, Miami, Syracuse, TCU, SMU, Santa Clara they usually can't be (and aren't) that picky. In OPs case, the AO in charge of the file sounds like they should get a bonus.

Can you say more about this? What do you mean they track pixels? How can they tell about time spent on their website?

If you google SLATE, Salesforce Education Cloud, you'll see. The pixels are one of the oldest ways to track someone. There are more sophisticated ways, but pixels are the easiest. You would be amazed and appalled if you had a look behind the curtain at how this part of admissions works.

And a kid "that smart" can understand this and do everything possible to "show interest". Not difficult to do, especially nowadays that it can all be done virtually. Syracuse has a "why Syracuse" supplemental. Make that awesome as well. The OP kid likely didn't do all of that. But it's on the kid to show their "safety" schools that they are number one choices....it's okay to fake/lie in these cases, it's your job to convince the school you want to attend.

Just highlighting the claim that for a top student to get into college, they must be willing and able to lie. Is this a common view, that it is necessary to lie to get into college, even at a religious school like BC that purports to have ethical standards?

The "lie" is trying your hardest to convince that college they are your top choice/one of your top choices. That's not really a lie.
It's similar to when you have job interviews. Even if the company is not somewhere you really want to work, your job during the interview process is to convince them "why yes, this is my ideal job because of x, y, z and here is why I'm qualified and excited about this". You don't lie about qualifications. You "lie" about it being the most interesting place and a job you really really want.

It's not just for top students, it's for everyone! Your job with your application is to convince the university that you will attend and want to attend if admitted. That's literally the point of the college application process. If you cannot do that with the "why X" supplement, then yes, they won't accept you. Just like I'm not hiring someone who cannot tell me "why they want to work for my company" and who doesn't hasn't done basic research about the company.

So no, it's not an ethics violation to work hard to convince someone this is what you want. It's literally what life is all about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just for kicks, please list the basic stats (or whatever else you want) of schools that your kid should have statistically gotten into but didn't.

I'll start:

School: Syracuse
GPA: 3.81 unweighted (DC private)
SAT: 1510

I’d reject this kid too. Why would they be applying to Syracuse??

They spent the time and money to apply. Assume they want to go there.

The money for many is trivial. The time, also. A few tweaks of an essay. For a school like Syracuse, when you get to the 18th college on your common app and you have a couple of free ones to go, why not just apply? Silly, but AO's know this game.

The strong but not T15 private colleges have to play this game, too. You don't think the AO's at BC, Wake, USC, Northeastern, BU, Tufts, Emory, etc. can't sniff out who is really interested in the school from someone like the OP? They track pixels on your email, time spent on their portal, engagement with webinairs, history of your high school, visits, SAT bands who have been accepted before, etc.. They have an entire software system set up to analyze demonstrated interest and likelihood of attending- and it is only getting more sophisticated.

When you get to the next tier below- GWU, Miami, Syracuse, TCU, SMU, Santa Clara they usually can't be (and aren't) that picky. In OPs case, the AO in charge of the file sounds like they should get a bonus.

Can you say more about this? What do you mean they track pixels? How can they tell about time spent on their website?

NP. Slate (by Technolutions) is the application review platform used by most college admission offices. It includes an entire page where the admissions officer, if they choose, can see when you clicked on the college website and what page over a long period of time. It is all tracked. Same for clicks of links in emails. There are interesting youtube training videos on Slate that show this.

More importantly, all the data ends up in the enrollment management consultant's mathematical model, along with numerous other pieces of data like parent education, employment, etc. Test scores or lack thereof, along with financial-related scores, also predict yield.

I don't know if this part is true, but it would be unsurprising if the click tracking fed data about number of times you run the NPCs, look at scholarship and financial aid pages, etc., in their estimate of whether you are seeking aid at a need-blind school. They have all that data. It's just a question of whether and how they use it.

High stats students are less likely to yield at a lower-ranked school. Enrollment management consultants should be able to figure out how many high stats applicants to yield one, in theory, but apparently they either aren't very good at it, or the desire to yield such students is overridden by the pressure to keep the acceptance rate down. Schools that are lower-ranked that commonly offer merit discounts have very, very, very detailed algorithms to help them offer just the right amount while maximizing yield within their budget. It is not a stretch to guess that high stats students would require larger merit discounts to yield.

They would love to accept all High stats kids they think will attend. However, the universities goal is to enroll X students come august. Not X+y and not X-Z, but X. So they must work hard to determine who might actually attend. That means they cannot just accept every qualified kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slate is a CRM. It has a Reader function. AOs at schools that don’t use demonstrated interest won’t waste time leaving the Reader to go look at the communication data.

The AO does not need to look and I agree that it is unlikely that they would bother to do so. If the enrollment management consultant has access to that data, it is very likely that the data find their way into the mathematical model for yield scoring. Yield management algorithms are outside the purview of the AO. The admissions director may know more, particularly with regard to back-end class shaping with data from the consultant.

There was an old post on here that had a visuals in a link. Does anyone remember where they are?

[Anonymous]

There's a T10/15 SLAC that my kid visited (self-registered tour), filled out the form saying we were there (over a holiday), and had previously met the AO twice (once at school and once at a consortium event with other SLACs).

Rec'd personal email after self-registered tour. Was admitted in RD (test optional). Ended up at a T20, but the personal note from AO upon acceptance was something to remember and made DC tear up with pride.

Demonstrated interest is absolutely real for SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do kids apply to any safety school? If all else fails, it could be the best available option.

Top students shouldn’t use schools like Syracuse and BC as safeties. Even if they get in, there will be very few other strong students at the school, because the school actively turns such students away. They’d be better off at a state flagship where at least there will be top in-state kids.

Please tell us more about BC having very few strong students.

Please tell me how a strong student could possibly get into BC. Everyone in this thread says that their scores and grades disqualify them, because BC cares more about yield!

They get in ED1 and ED2. By regular decision BC only takes middle-of-the-class kids from most privates. They waitlist or decline the strongest kids.

In my experience NEU and Case Western also operate this way. Not to say that they don't take some of the strongest kids but the bulk are a step down stat/strength of application-wise.

Not true at all. Plenty of high stats kids get into Case and NEU thru EA/RD. My own kid got into both with EA (1520/3.98UW/8AP/good EC). Now yes, Case does take kids who apply EA and encourage them to do ED2, specifically really high stats kids. Why? Because they know that anyone with really high stats is likely also considering plenty of T30 schools and will happily attend those if they get in. So Case is a Target for that kid. Go interview the case kids, and 75%+ wanted to attend 1+ schools ranked higher, but didn't get in. That is a well known fact. So case has a yield management issue---they know they attract high stats kids and that means those kids really have several higher choices often in "better locations" (not many kids think of Cleveland as a dream location). So if Case wants to have a full freshman class in the fall, they need to figure out who actually wants to attend case. So yeah if your kid has a 1580/4.5W/10+AP resume, Case will likely review their EA and ask them to ED2 and provide you with the FA/Merit package. And if your kid isn't using Case as a backup school, you can choose to commit. If that upsets you, well that means your are using case as a backup school and they have every right to not accept you because they are 100% accurate that you likely wont be attending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK. Let's say a kid with 1600 and 4.0 applies to Syracuse or some other non-TT school and demonstrates interest (visits campus, clicks on e-mails, etc.). Then that kid should get in, even though they are theoretically over-qualified?

I am new to this process and trying to figure it out. Remembering how I basically wrote a check and hit a button on the Common App 30+ years ago and was accepted to a very elite school that I had shown no interest in. And did not attend, though if a few of the schools I did get into had fallen through, I legitimately would have investigated it more seriously and considered it over my safeties.

Theoretically, yes they should. And if Syracuse (or some other school like that) is truly your kid's top choice, then you ED, and if not willing to do that, you speak with admission counselor and make it about finances and needing the best offer and do everything possible to show major interest (visit, keep in contact with admissions, do whatever they suggest to show full interest). Because yes, it's highly unlikely a kid with those stats really wants to attend Syracuse. So don't be mad at Syracuse for figuring that out and choosing to offer spaces in their class to kids who actually will attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think of all the good things the money being spent on expensive yield management software could be funding. Such as lower tuition. Or scholarships. Or rock climbing walls (kidding).

College admissions has become an exercise in statistics and game theory. Which is awful.

Colleges are a business. They need X students to enroll as freshman each year. Going over or under by much creates issues. When kids applied to only 2-3 schools, they didn't have to spend money to determine yield. But now that most apply to 10+ and many do 20+, why yes universities have to employ resources to manage yield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid has 4.0 uw gpa, 35 ACT, private school DMV and got into all her safeties—even those she didn’t engage with. Maybe there’s something about your kid Syracuse just didn’t like…perhaps in the essays?

Syracuse does have a Supplemental "Why Syracuse" essay. It's up to the applicant to use that to convince admissions they want to attend.

Did your kid apply to places with supplementals? Because with those stats, yes many "safeties" will reject a kid because they know you are not attending (because with those stats, if you do the process correctly, you are getting into at least 1 target)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it does. The process has gotten so ridiculous. "Over-qualified" kids get rejected from schools solely so they can manage their yields. This is not OK. If a kid applies, assume they want to go there. At least waitlist them so they can plead their case if they really are interested.

The process has gotten so over-complicated. Schools should be devoting their financial resources towards education, not paying yield management experts.

Except OP explicitly said that the kid did not want to go there!

So why did he apply? I think there should be a happy medium between "demonstrated interest" and "must visit, click on a lot of e-mails, and constantly suck up to show you love them."

It has become too easy to just apply to dozens of places. But there should also be more predictability to it - if the process was more predictable, students would feel less of a need to apply to many places. It is a bit of chicken and the egg.

I hate the stories about the underprivileged kid who got into 43 schools and got huge scholarships from all of them. Why were they applying to 43 schools? If you are so underprivileged, spend some of the time you spent applying and get a job (I know the additional work to apply to an additional school is often minimal, but you get my point). These kids aren't heroes.

Agreed! I think it's time we limit applications to 10-12. Both of my kids kept their to that and did fine.

Kid 1 got in everywhere except one (and that one was a T10 school they had no shot at---kid had a 26 ACT/3.5UW/No APs---yeah they were never getting in, but wanted to apply and we were happy to let them have that one). So rejected at Far reach and accepted at all targets and safeties (kid was at/above 50% at every school except the reach)


Kid 2:
4 Reaches: ED1 deferral then rejected in RD
Rejected at 1, WL at 1, Accepted with 1st year abroad at NEU

3 Targets:
Accepted at all 3, top merit automatic merit award at CWRU (the award you just get for applying)

3 Safeties:
Accepted at all 3, Top safety gave $28K merit per year (others were schools that don't give merit/state U)

So it went exactly as you would expect. Both kids got into all their targets and safeties and only applied to ~10 schools

The only reason you think you need more schools is because you want to apply to 10-15 Reaches and then toss in a few Targets/Safeties.
But in reality, there is no way most kids would actually be "good fit" for 15 reaches. It's time to do the work and research what schools you want before applying.