Top 20-ish Colleges by YIELD RATE

[Anonymous]

https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/apply/class-profile-testing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They don't report non-ED yield. I do comprehend that colleges use ED (and some use multiple rounds of ED aggressively) as a lever to increase yield. It's just interesting to see the results.

Agreed. And it's notable that MIT, Naval Academy, Princeton, Stanford all don't have binding ED (just SCEA or EA which are non-binding). Lots of these colleges are aggressively gaming their yield rates to move up in rankings. But informed students and parents are onto them.

Notre Dame doesn't either. Yield is just that high.

It makes sense for them. Their applications are generally about half (around 35,000) of some of the schools that receive like around 60,000 plus a year and the students that apply there really want that go there as it's a specific niche of students that apply there. So, that yield makes sense. A comparable size private like Duke, for example, received around 60,000 applications last cycle to put it in context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Between their summer ED 0 admission cycle, their ED I, ED II, and completely hiding their early decision stats, I think that is a big negative for the college. I understand not all colleges put out all information, but you have to wonder what they are hiding if they reveal nothing while 99% of other schools reveal the same information. Dartmouth doesn't show its SAT scores which I can't believe, but then I looked and looked. It really is a big game to these colleges.

Chicago is completely different from JHU and Northwestern, the latter two never hid their numbers. JHU ED acceptance rate is 11%. Chicago never dares to disclose their ED acceptance rate.

This practice certainly impacts their student quality in the long run. Rank #1 in yield rate may look impressive to the ignorant, but in reality they are just getting mediocre private school kids in the ED run. 80% of their class probably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between their summer ED 0 admission cycle, their ED I, ED II, and completely hiding their early decision stats, I think that is a big negative for the college. I understand not all colleges put out all information, but you have to wonder what they are hiding if they reveal nothing while 99% of other schools reveal the same information. Dartmouth doesn't show its SAT scores which I can't believe, but then I looked and looked. It really is a big game to these colleges.

Chicago is completely different from JHU and Northwestern, the latter two never hid their numbers. JHU ED acceptance rate is 11%. Chicago never dares to disclose their ED acceptance rate.

This practice certainly impacts their student quality in the long run. Rank #1 in yield rate may look impressive to the ignorant, but in reality they are just getting mediocre private school kids in the ED run. 80% of their class probably.

When Yale let's in applicants with SATs in the 1300's and unverified international students from ND, that seems like more of a joke...just saying. Let's be real. Private school can verify a kid and their track record for rigor sometimes....

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between their summer ED 0 admission cycle, their ED I, ED II, and completely hiding their early decision stats, I think that is a big negative for the college. I understand not all colleges put out all information, but you have to wonder what they are hiding if they reveal nothing while 99% of other schools reveal the same information. Dartmouth doesn't show its SAT scores which I can't believe, but then I looked and looked. It really is a big game to these colleges.

Chicago is completely different from JHU and Northwestern, the latter two never hid their numbers. JHU ED acceptance rate is 11%. Chicago never dares to disclose their ED acceptance rate.

This practice certainly impacts their student quality in the long run. Rank #1 in yield rate may look impressive to the ignorant, but in reality they are just getting mediocre private school kids in the ED run. 80% of their class probably.

When Yale let's in applicants with SATs in the 1300's and unverified international students from ND, that seems like more of a joke...just saying. Let's be real. Private school can verify a kid and their track record for rigor sometimes....

No, Chicago is willing to take 3.4 unhooked kids from private schools.

[Anonymous]

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.

They don't report non-ED yield. I do comprehend that colleges use ED (and some use multiple rounds of ED aggressively) as a lever to increase yield. It's just interesting to see the results.

Agreed. And it's notable that MIT, Naval Academy, Princeton, Stanford all don't have binding ED (just SCEA or EA which are non-binding). Lots of these colleges are aggressively gaming their yield rates to move up in rankings. But informed students and parents are onto them.

Notre Dame doesn't either. Yield is just that high.

It makes sense for them. Their applications are generally about half (around 35,000) of some of the schools that receive like around 60,000 plus a year and the students that apply there really want that go there as it's a specific niche of students that apply there. So, that yield makes sense. A comparable size private like Duke, for example, received around 60,000 applications last cycle to put it in context.

Geez. Give credit where credit is due: Notre Dame is underrated.

[Anonymous]

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.

Or they know so call 'better schools' on your standard(aka prestige whores) are not worth hassles and bullshits.

[Anonymous]

In our private , in FL, the top 5 students have following characteristics:
Follow teachers instructions to a T and study a lot
Bookish but not necessarily brilliant…

It is amongst 6 to 20 th ranks where you see true brilliance , marked by some measure of rebelliousness and not toeing the line completely.

I hear the same is true in another top magnet
School nearby.
However the midwit school counselors are often unable to comprehend this reality.

It is in the (top) universities where the difference in intellect truly emerges where complexities and abstractions nullifies advantages of relentless grinding accrued during High School years pursuing simpler and straightforward coursework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) University of Chicago: 88%
2) MIT: 86%
3) US Naval Academy: 85%
4) Harvard: 84%
5) Stanford: 82%
6) Princeton: 76%
7-8) Yale: 70% (tie)
7-8) UPenn: 70% (tie)
9-10) Dartmouth: 69% (tie)
9-10) Barnard: 69% (tie)

11) Brown: 65%
12-13) Cornell: 64% (tie)
12-13) Columbia: 64% (tie)
14) University of Notre Dame: 62%
15-16) Caltech: 61% (tie)
15-16) Vanderbilt: 61% (tie)
17) Duke: 59%
18) Northwestern: 56%
19) NYU: 55%
20-21) Bowdoin: 54% (tie)
20-21) Northeastern (tie)

This is the real "top 20".

Yield determines quality?

Acceptance rate + yield rate + student stats and additionally retention rate and probably graduation rate together determine the true selectivity.

This is what the 10 million students actually acted and committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In our private , in FL, the top 5 students have following characteristics:
Follow teachers instructions to a T and study a lot
Bookish but not necessarily brilliant…

It is amongst 6 to 20 th ranks where you see true brilliance , marked by some measure of rebelliousness and not toeing the line completely.

I hear the same is true in another top magnet
School nearby.
However the midwit school counselors are often unable to comprehend this reality.

It is in the (top) universities where the difference in intellect truly emerges where complexities and abstractions nullifies advantages of relentless grinding accrued during High School years pursuing simpler and straightforward coursework.

Except for Johns Hopkins…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) University of Chicago: 88%
2) MIT: 86%
3) US Naval Academy: 85%
4) Harvard: 84%
5) Stanford: 82%
6) Princeton: 76%
7-8) Yale: 70% (tie)
7-8) UPenn: 70% (tie)
9-10) Dartmouth: 69% (tie)
9-10) Barnard: 69% (tie)

11) Brown: 65%
12-13) Cornell: 64% (tie)
12-13) Columbia: 64% (tie)
14) University of Notre Dame: 62%
15-16) Caltech: 61% (tie)
15-16) Vanderbilt: 61% (tie)
17) Duke: 59%
18) Northwestern: 56%
19) NYU: 55%
20-21) Bowdoin: 54% (tie)
20-21) Northeastern (tie)

This is the real "top 20".

Yield determines quality?

Acceptance rate + yield rate + student stats and additionally retention rate and probably graduation rate together determine the true selectivity.

This is what the 10 million students actually acted and committed.

Selectivity and quality aren't the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In our private , in FL, the top 5 students have following characteristics:
Follow teachers instructions to a T and study a lot
Bookish but not necessarily brilliant…

It is amongst 6 to 20 th ranks where you see true brilliance , marked by some measure of rebelliousness and not toeing the line completely.

I hear the same is true in another top magnet
School nearby.
However the midwit school counselors are often unable to comprehend this reality.

It is in the (top) universities where the difference in intellect truly emerges where complexities and abstractions nullifies advantages of relentless grinding accrued during High School years pursuing simpler and straightforward coursework.

I am sure your kid is in the brilliant 6 to 20 because the top kids are bookish! What are the "midwit" counselors supposed to do, look beyond objective measures like grades and reward brilliance. There is enough subjectivity in the admissions process without having to introduce subjectivity at the school couselor level as well. If you are implying Chicago is getting those brilliant 6 to 20 kids, atleast in out school it is not. They are getting mediocre, full pay private school kids who are unlikely to get into any other top school ED or RD if they had not gotten into Chicago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our private , in FL, the top 5 students have following characteristics:
Follow teachers instructions to a T and study a lot
Bookish but not necessarily brilliant…

It is amongst 6 to 20 th ranks where you see true brilliance , marked by some measure of rebelliousness and not toeing the line completely.

I hear the same is true in another top magnet
School nearby.
However the midwit school counselors are often unable to comprehend this reality.

It is in the (top) universities where the difference in intellect truly emerges where complexities and abstractions nullifies advantages of relentless grinding accrued during High School years pursuing simpler and straightforward coursework.

I am sure your kid is in the brilliant 6 to 20 because the top kids are bookish! What are the "midwit" counselors supposed to do, look beyond objective measures like grades and reward brilliance. There is enough subjectivity in the admissions process without having to introduce subjectivity at the school couselor level as well. If you are implying Chicago is getting those brilliant 6 to 20 kids, atleast in out school it is not. They are getting mediocre, full pay private school kids who are unlikely to get into any other top school ED or RD if they had not gotten into Chicago.

DP. It's true that people who have the most impact are "rebelliousness and not toeing the line completely". Also risk takers. The top GPA students in high school are not usually in that group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our private , in FL, the top 5 students have following characteristics:
Follow teachers instructions to a T and study a lot
Bookish but not necessarily brilliant…

It is amongst 6 to 20 th ranks where you see true brilliance , marked by some measure of rebelliousness and not toeing the line completely.

I hear the same is true in another top magnet
School nearby.
However the midwit school counselors are often unable to comprehend this reality.

It is in the (top) universities where the difference in intellect truly emerges where complexities and abstractions nullifies advantages of relentless grinding accrued during High School years pursuing simpler and straightforward coursework.

I am sure your kid is in the brilliant 6 to 20 because the top kids are bookish! What are the "midwit" counselors supposed to do, look beyond objective measures like grades and reward brilliance. There is enough subjectivity in the admissions process without having to introduce subjectivity at the school couselor level as well. If you are implying Chicago is getting those brilliant 6 to 20 kids, atleast in out school it is not. They are getting mediocre, full pay private school kids who are unlikely to get into any other top school ED or RD if they had not gotten into Chicago.

I see this too at privates in our area, the top kids are usually striver types, smarter kids are the quiet ones who test 36 in one sitting and are audiodacts, bored with endless homework...