For high stats applying to yield-protecting schools, go TO or submit lower single sitting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are overthinking this. I also think “yield protection” is largely a DCUM thing. Posters here can’t fathom the idea that their kids aren’t good enough, so they blame rejections and waitlists on yield protection.

Good heavens you need to read more. Google yield protect and the schools you are interested in. Start reading books on college admissions. Go read on same on College Confidential and Reddit and other sources.

What books and peer-reviewed articles is this mentioned in?

Selingo book discusses LTE. Likelihood to Enroll that colleges factor in in determining whether to admit an applicant. He discusses the importance of yields to colleges at length.

Here’s a quote:

“ In a tsunami of applicants who are qualified on the surface, what matters at this point are the elements that differentiate students, or if they are particularly good overall, the chances they will ultimately choose Davidson—what admissions officers call LTE (likelihood to enroll). It’s an acronym used frequently in discussions during regular decision. The more admissions officers dissect an applicant’s intentions now, the better they’ll fare in April when multiple schools are competing for the attention of the students they accepted. It’s another way a college’s agenda—in this case keeping its yield rate up—shapes admissions decisions.”

This quote is about marginal students getting a nudge into the admit pile if they demonstrate interest, not denying top students because they might not enroll.

There’s a bunch of other stuff written about that. DI can be a component of LTE but it doesn’t have to be. Plus consider the role of econometric modeling in determining LTE. It’s not just DI.

"Mueller says the data is used in more of an aggregate than individualized way, meaning econometric modeling is unlikely to harm strong candidates."
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-admissions-algorithms-could-affect-your-college-acceptance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are overthinking this. I also think “yield protection” is largely a DCUM thing. Posters here can’t fathom the idea that their kids aren’t good enough, so they blame rejections and waitlists on yield protection.

Good heavens you need to read more. Google yield protect and the schools you are interested in. Start reading books on college admissions. Go read on same on College Confidential and Reddit and other sources.

What books and peer-reviewed articles is this mentioned in?

Selingo book discusses LTE. Likelihood to Enroll that colleges factor in in determining whether to admit an applicant. He discusses the importance of yields to colleges at length.

Here’s a quote:

“ In a tsunami of applicants who are qualified on the surface, what matters at this point are the elements that differentiate students, or if they are particularly good overall, the chances they will ultimately choose Davidson—what admissions officers call LTE (likelihood to enroll). It’s an acronym used frequently in discussions during regular decision. The more admissions officers dissect an applicant’s intentions now, the better they’ll fare in April when multiple schools are competing for the attention of the students they accepted. It’s another way a college’s agenda—in this case keeping its yield rate up—shapes admissions decisions.”

This quote is about marginal students getting a nudge into the admit pile if they demonstrate interest, not denying top students because they might not enroll.

You are wrong. Here’s the set up:

“He is taking yet another look at the pool of applications from one of the top high schools in his territory. He knows these seniors are extremely well qualified, but they also have a host of other choices closer to home. Admit too many of these students and too few show up, and Davidson’s yield rate—one of the key metrics that make schools look prestigious—falls.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are overthinking this. I also think “yield protection” is largely a DCUM thing. Posters here can’t fathom the idea that their kids aren’t good enough, so they blame rejections and waitlists on yield protection.

Good heavens you need to read more. Google yield protect and the schools you are interested in. Start reading books on college admissions. Go read on same on College Confidential and Reddit and other sources.

What books and peer-reviewed articles is this mentioned in?

Selingo book discusses LTE. Likelihood to Enroll that colleges factor in in determining whether to admit an applicant. He discusses the importance of yields to colleges at length.

Here’s a quote:

“ In a tsunami of applicants who are qualified on the surface, what matters at this point are the elements that differentiate students, or if they are particularly good overall, the chances they will ultimately choose Davidson—what admissions officers call LTE (likelihood to enroll). It’s an acronym used frequently in discussions during regular decision. The more admissions officers dissect an applicant’s intentions now, the better they’ll fare in April when multiple schools are competing for the attention of the students they accepted. It’s another way a college’s agenda—in this case keeping its yield rate up—shapes admissions decisions.”

This quote is about marginal students getting a nudge into the admit pile if they demonstrate interest, not denying top students because they might not enroll.

There’s a bunch of other stuff written about that. DI can be a component of LTE but it doesn’t have to be. Plus consider the role of econometric modeling in determining LTE. It’s not just DI.

"Mueller says the data is used in more of an aggregate than individualized way, meaning econometric modeling is unlikely to harm strong candidates."
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-admissions-algorithms-could-affect-your-college-acceptance

This is mainly in the financial aid context but your story goes on to say, “ "Sometimes these data points are used at the point of evaluation (when reading the application) and other times they are used at the point of shaping a class," Perez explains.”
The reality is that the companies selling it don’t choose how it’s used and the colleges aren’t going to tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are overthinking this. I also think “yield protection” is largely a DCUM thing. Posters here can’t fathom the idea that their kids aren’t good enough, so they blame rejections and waitlists on yield protection.

Good heavens you need to read more. Google yield protect and the schools you are interested in. Start reading books on college admissions. Go read on same on College Confidential and Reddit and other sources.

What books and peer-reviewed articles is this mentioned in?

Selingo book discusses LTE. Likelihood to Enroll that colleges factor in in determining whether to admit an applicant. He discusses the importance of yields to colleges at length.

Here’s a quote:

“ In a tsunami of applicants who are qualified on the surface, what matters at this point are the elements that differentiate students, or if they are particularly good overall, the chances they will ultimately choose Davidson—what admissions officers call LTE (likelihood to enroll). It’s an acronym used frequently in discussions during regular decision. The more admissions officers dissect an applicant’s intentions now, the better they’ll fare in April when multiple schools are competing for the attention of the students they accepted. It’s another way a college’s agenda—in this case keeping its yield rate up—shapes admissions decisions.”

This quote is about marginal students getting a nudge into the admit pile if they demonstrate interest, not denying top students because they might not enroll.

You are wrong. Here’s the set up:

“He is taking yet another look at the pool of applications from one of the top high schools in his territory. He knows these seniors are extremely well qualified, but they also have a host of other choices closer to home. Admit too many of these students and too few show up, and Davidson’s yield rate—one of the key metrics that make schools look prestigious—falls.“

That does not mean they won't be admitted, it means the AO will have to work harder to yield them after offering admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are overthinking this. I also think “yield protection” is largely a DCUM thing. Posters here can’t fathom the idea that their kids aren’t good enough, so they blame rejections and waitlists on yield protection.

Good heavens you need to read more. Google yield protect and the schools you are interested in. Start reading books on college admissions. Go read on same on College Confidential and Reddit and other sources.

What books and peer-reviewed articles is this mentioned in?

Selingo book discusses LTE. Likelihood to Enroll that colleges factor in in determining whether to admit an applicant. He discusses the importance of yields to colleges at length.

Here’s a quote:

“ In a tsunami of applicants who are qualified on the surface, what matters at this point are the elements that differentiate students, or if they are particularly good overall, the chances they will ultimately choose Davidson—what admissions officers call LTE (likelihood to enroll). It’s an acronym used frequently in discussions during regular decision. The more admissions officers dissect an applicant’s intentions now, the better they’ll fare in April when multiple schools are competing for the attention of the students they accepted. It’s another way a college’s agenda—in this case keeping its yield rate up—shapes admissions decisions.”

This quote is about marginal students getting a nudge into the admit pile if they demonstrate interest, not denying top students because they might not enroll.

You are wrong. Here’s the set up:

“He is taking yet another look at the pool of applications from one of the top high schools in his territory. He knows these seniors are extremely well qualified, but they also have a host of other choices closer to home. Admit too many of these students and too few show up, and Davidson’s yield rate—one of the key metrics that make schools look prestigious—falls.“

That does not mean they won't be admitted, it means the AO will have to work harder to yield them after offering admission.

Ha. You’ve gone too far now. Of course it means they won’t admit them all. They’re going to decide who they have an actual chance of getting.

How about this from The Gatekeepers?

“ With U.S. News having put such an emphasis on “yield”—the percentage of students accepted at a college who then actually enrolled—some colleges had, in fact, begun rejecting top applicants, not wishing to waste an acceptance on someone who appeared unlikely to attend.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are overthinking this. I also think “yield protection” is largely a DCUM thing. Posters here can’t fathom the idea that their kids aren’t good enough, so they blame rejections and waitlists on yield protection.

Good heavens you need to read more. Google yield protect and the schools you are interested in. Start reading books on college admissions. Go read on same on College Confidential and Reddit and other sources.

What books and peer-reviewed articles is this mentioned in?

Selingo book discusses LTE. Likelihood to Enroll that colleges factor in in determining whether to admit an applicant. He discusses the importance of yields to colleges at length.

Here’s a quote:

“ In a tsunami of applicants who are qualified on the surface, what matters at this point are the elements that differentiate students, or if they are particularly good overall, the chances they will ultimately choose Davidson—what admissions officers call LTE (likelihood to enroll). It’s an acronym used frequently in discussions during regular decision. The more admissions officers dissect an applicant’s intentions now, the better they’ll fare in April when multiple schools are competing for the attention of the students they accepted. It’s another way a college’s agenda—in this case keeping its yield rate up—shapes admissions decisions.”

This quote is about marginal students getting a nudge into the admit pile if they demonstrate interest, not denying top students because they might not enroll.

You are wrong. Here’s the set up:

“He is taking yet another look at the pool of applications from one of the top high schools in his territory. He knows these seniors are extremely well qualified, but they also have a host of other choices closer to home. Admit too many of these students and too few show up, and Davidson’s yield rate—one of the key metrics that make schools look prestigious—falls.“

That does not mean they won't be admitted, it means the AO will have to work harder to yield them after offering admission.

Ha. You’ve gone too far now. Of course it means they won’t admit them all. They’re going to decide who they have an actual chance of getting.

How about this from The Gatekeepers?

“ With U.S. News having put such an emphasis on “yield”—the percentage of students accepted at a college who then actually enrolled—some colleges had, in fact, begun rejecting top applicants, not wishing to waste an acceptance on someone who appeared unlikely to attend.”

A source from 2002

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are overthinking this. I also think “yield protection” is largely a DCUM thing. Posters here can’t fathom the idea that their kids aren’t good enough, so they blame rejections and waitlists on yield protection.

Good heavens you need to read more. Google yield protect and the schools you are interested in. Start reading books on college admissions. Go read on same on College Confidential and Reddit and other sources.

What books and peer-reviewed articles is this mentioned in?

Selingo book discusses LTE. Likelihood to Enroll that colleges factor in in determining whether to admit an applicant. He discusses the importance of yields to colleges at length.

Here’s a quote:

“ In a tsunami of applicants who are qualified on the surface, what matters at this point are the elements that differentiate students, or if they are particularly good overall, the chances they will ultimately choose Davidson—what admissions officers call LTE (likelihood to enroll). It’s an acronym used frequently in discussions during regular decision. The more admissions officers dissect an applicant’s intentions now, the better they’ll fare in April when multiple schools are competing for the attention of the students they accepted. It’s another way a college’s agenda—in this case keeping its yield rate up—shapes admissions decisions.”

This quote is about marginal students getting a nudge into the admit pile if they demonstrate interest, not denying top students because they might not enroll.

You are wrong. Here’s the set up:

“He is taking yet another look at the pool of applications from one of the top high schools in his territory. He knows these seniors are extremely well qualified, but they also have a host of other choices closer to home. Admit too many of these students and too few show up, and Davidson’s yield rate—one of the key metrics that make schools look prestigious—falls.“

That does not mean they won't be admitted, it means the AO will have to work harder to yield them after offering admission.

Ha. You’ve gone too far now. Of course it means they won’t admit them all. They’re going to decide who they have an actual chance of getting.

How about this from The Gatekeepers?

“ With U.S. News having put such an emphasis on “yield”—the percentage of students accepted at a college who then actually enrolled—some colleges had, in fact, begun rejecting top applicants, not wishing to waste an acceptance on someone who appeared unlikely to attend.”

A source from 2002

The colleges aren’t going to admit they’re rejecting candidates who they believe are probably “too good” for them. Most of us know this happens and we will consider our strategies accordingly. Feel free to ignore all the available information.

[Anonymous]

There is no question yield management is real and part of it is to deny or waitlist high stat kids who are viewed as unlikely to enroll. Anecdotally you hear about it all the time. That being said, schools do want high stat kids so it’s also risky to negate your advantage over other strong applicants.

Schools practice yield control not just because yield is an important metric but because acceptance rate is a critical metric. If you are worried about students rejecting you, you don’t accept them. Ironically “more selective” schools could have weaker student bodies because they don’t chase high stat kids. Bates falls into this category in my opinion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would imagine this might work at Michigan or Wisconsin or similar?

Honestly I think people should stop talking about “stats” and look at the full application. My Asian DD was admitted to Michigan with a 1570 and a rigorous course load with all A’s. Also to other great publics. Her essays and application package was really good, I thought. She had a compelling narrative which is what I think is needed.

This could be a misread because high stat Asians probably more likely to enroll at Michigan if accepted (because more likely to be rejected from Ivy and similar). Would be fascinating if enrollment management software takes into account race as an econometric variable. Redlining all over again. If they don’t use race directly, they can triangulate it with other variables, zip code etc

[Anonymous]

They don't need race - there's plenty of other informative meta data on each student - zip code, school, ECs, etc. About four years ago, I saw a database with my personal info that was designed by a politically based firm and was blown away by the level of detail. It used what kind of cars we purchased, what restaurants we frequented, where we went for vacation, number of hotel nights etc to predict the issues that we would support. It was scarily accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would imagine this might work at Michigan or Wisconsin or similar?

No, absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

We’re applying this strategy for VA Tech year. Definitely going TO. Love this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would imagine this might work at Michigan or Wisconsin or similar?

Honestly I think people should stop talking about “stats” and look at the full application. My Asian DD was admitted to Michigan with a 1570 and a rigorous course load with all A’s. Also to other great publics. Her essays and application package was really good, I thought. She had a compelling narrative which is what I think is needed.

This could be a misread because high stat Asians probably more likely to enroll at Michigan if accepted (because more likely to be rejected from Ivy and similar). Would be fascinating if enrollment management software takes into account race as an econometric variable. Redlining all over again. If they don’t use race directly, they can triangulate it with other variables, zip code etc

We'll see if my kid is rejected from the two ivys she applied to on Ivy day, but she is already in at one hard to get into privates (T10). The odds of her getting in are not high, I agree. She is not different on paper (or likely in reality) from a bunch of other high stats Asian and non-Asian kids. Others probably have similar or better ECs and awards than her. I do think a difference may be that she took the application process very seriously and had every piece of data hang together to tell her story very effectively. I obviously dont know what others do, but I was impressed by her efforts. She looked at it like a persuasive essay project. I do think the application matters more than people realize.

Anyway, I dont think it will do any kid any good to submit worse scores than they have. They may want to emphasize something totally different in their application which will end up mattering more in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would imagine this might work at Michigan or Wisconsin or similar?

IDK about Wisconsin, but when I looked at the CDS for Michigan something like 80% of their admitted students provided test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re applying this strategy for VA Tech year. Definitely going TO. Love this thread.

My kid wanted to do that out of Langley and the CC told them that VTech expects to see scores from the strong NoVa publics.