Yield Protection?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

DP. Exactly. It's an algorithm failure. Enrollment management is a $15B industry and they can't figure out how many high stats applicants to admit to yield the number they want.

[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.

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

WL at Villanova and Tufts.

That doesn’t scream yield protection. Just very different competitive schools

I do not think that you understand the concept of yield protection as the above applicant results are clear evidence of yield protection.

No. They are evidence that the PPs kid did not fit the class that Villanova and Tufts were trying to build that year.

The admissions process is opaque and different at every school, and that’s why stupid people like to make up explanations like “yield protection” for the outcome.

Maybe you should take a breath and realize that “yield protection” is just another way of saying “opaque and apparently irrational.”

If that is the way that you prefer to rationalize the OP's example, then that is fine. But, to deny the practice of yield protection in college admissions is ignoring the reality as shared by many current and former college admissions officers.

Of course, I am just guessing that OP's waitlisting at the two less rejective schools was due to yield protection as I--nor you--prestige in the room when the decision was rendered.

Try a Google search for "yield protection". You should get some interesting results & sources.

Cite the AO’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My cousin got into Duke and Bowdoin and rejected by Elon

Elon is very upfront about their use of demonstrated interest. If you never interacted with them, they are going to assume you're using them as a safety.

What happens is that the high stats kids assume they are too good for a school like Elon and will certainly get in. Unfortunately, no one is entitled to admission. Why should a school raise their admission percentage and Lower their yield for a kid who. never even bothered to visit the website? No one is entitled to a spot and schools are well within their rights to admit kids they think will accept. If a kid like the one above really wanted Elon, they could reach out to admissions and would likely be admitted.

So we really trust these schools to accurately record who visits or emails? I don’t!

[Anonymous]

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).

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Ok, some colleges might yield protect. So what?

High stats students apply to 10+ colleges amongst the T25 to weigh their options.

Fair game, no?

[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.

DP. The Dartmouth acceptance rate is identical to Pomonas. But also, the differences between those schools makes one wonder how well these colleges are accessing applications.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

DP. The Dartmouth acceptance rate is identical to Pomonas. But also, the differences between those schools makes one wonder how well these colleges are accessing applications.

I had a kid accepted to Dartmouth, Pomona, Brown and Georgetown. The first 3 are known for undergrad focus so I'm not sure why you would think the type of applicant would be different. The kids my kid met all seemed to have BIG crossover with these 4 schools. We learned this on the tour talking to parents from all over the US. None of these schools are big football schools. Dartmouth is more greek and remote, but has so many other characteristics that are similar.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

DP. The Dartmouth acceptance rate is identical to Pomonas. But also, the differences between those schools makes one wonder how well these colleges are accessing applications.

Dartmouth yield rate is 70%. Pomona is 50%. Make of that what you will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, some colleges might yield protect. So what?

High stats students apply to 10+ colleges amongst the T25 to weigh their options.

Fair game, no?

More like a vicious cycle.

Uncertain admissions means students apply to more schools, driving down yield, encouraging schools to step up their yield protection efforts, making admissions more uncertain.

Rinse and repeat.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

UCI and USC