Isn't the yield part of the US news ranking algorithm? If so then of course the schools will try to game it to raise their ranking.

University of Alaska—Fairbanks has a 70% yield. I guess if you live in Alaska, you're options are limited.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2017-01-18/universities-colleges-where-students-are-eager-to-enroll

SCEA is really different than ED. Not binding for students, so as with RD, they get to compare offers. And if you can get into one of the SCEA school early, odds are you will have other offers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half those classes are made up of people who applied ED or SCEA. So it's really not as impressive as schools that have high yields without any binding admissions.

A 61% yield puts Dartmouth as one of the highest, if not second highest, for yields among schools that offers ED. The highest is usually U'Penn. Also, Dartmouth only filled ~43% of its class with ED, compared to 50%+ at most other peers.

An 84% yield without any binding process will probably be the highest in the nation.

They are impressive yields, for sure. Not sure what examples you have which do better? Stanford's yield is comparable to Harvard and its early process is restrictive. MIT's yield is quite impressive but not as high as Harvard's. U'Chicago has gamed its yield with no less than 3 early processes.

I guess I was saying that I was not impressed, but I wasn't comparing them to any particular schools. Then when I was looking online, I found out that University of Nebraska has over a 60% yield. Obviously it's a less impressive school by DCUM standards, but I'm personally more impressed by it's yield. I would compare RD yield at ED/SCEA schools to other schools overall yields. This would put Dartmouth at 40-something percent, which while good, is not in a league of it's own.

You'd expect that with more admits, you take fewer off the waitlist. Basically, this is about whether/which schools had enough confidence in their predicted yield to admit accordingly. In cases like Yale's (and Chicago's), if you want to increase class size and aren't tightly constrained by number of beds available, you don't have to worry so much about overenrolling.

Yale is not taking anyone off the waitlist this year either. And this is with an increased class size/more admits this year.

Anonymous wrote:function of the economic times. people see how hard it is to crack into or stay in the umc and a ivy degree really helps on that quest.

ivy madness would not occur in a more economically equal society

or if we limited the supply of students, but we keep INCREASING the immigration rates, our urban areas have housing prices that are obscene.

Harvard's yield is impressive; Dartmouth's is not.

Basically, any highly selective school with ED can raise its yield at will (and without lowering its selectivity as measured by grades and scores). You just take a higher percentage of the class from your ED pool because 100% of those applicants have committed to attend your school if accepted and if their demonstrated financial need is met. (You also know in advance who has no financial need.) By contrast, less than half of the applicants admitted through RD (where kids can make an informed decision, knowing all their options) accepted Dartmouth's offer.

FWIW, this isn't an Ivy-specific phenomenon. They'll be a big jump in UChicago's yield this year as well -- they just introduced ED1 and ED2 and admitted kids from those pools at a dramatically higher rate than from EA or RD pools.

I think it's a really messed-up system. We're telling our kids not to fixate on "the one," but if they aren't willing to make a binding declaration by Nov 1 as to which highly selective school that is, then they may not have a chance at any of them. Of course, the vast majority of them will be rejected despite applying early and get to spend December through April of their Senior year scared, stressed, and/or depressed.

On one level -- boohoo, first world problems that will primarily hurt people who have a ridiculously narrow view of where you can get a great education. OTOH, why make this process more fraught than it already is? So schools can brag about these meaningless/manipulable statistics?

Anonymous wrote:Half those classes are made up of people who applied ED or SCEA. So it's really not as impressive as schools that have high yields without any binding admissions.

A 61% yield puts Dartmouth as one of the highest, if not second highest, for yields among schools that offers ED. The highest is usually U'Penn. Also, Dartmouth only filled ~43% of its class with ED, compared to 50%+ at most other peers.

An 84% yield without any binding process will probably be the highest in the nation.

They are impressive yields, for sure. Not sure what examples you have which do better? Stanford's yield is comparable to Harvard and its early process is restrictive. MIT's yield is quite impressive but not as high as Harvard's. U'Chicago has gamed its yield with no less than 3 early processes.

Half those classes are made up of people who applied ED or SCEA. So it's really not as impressive as schools that have high yields without any binding admissions.

Anonymous wrote:Wow...up to 84% from 80!

...

It's pretty meaningful, actually. Harvard had to take nearly 100 students from the waitlist last year. But they aren't going to have to this year.

function of the economic times. people see how hard it is to crack into or stay in the umc and a ivy degree really helps on that quest.

ivy madness would not occur in a more economically equal society

Wow...up to 84% from 80!

...

I think most decent colleges are becoming more difficult to get into. Even middling state "football factories" that are regarded as "party schools," mostly require close to a 4.0 GPA now. Fifty years, that same GPA would have gotten you into an ivy, or at least a place like Amherst.

On the flipside, many no-name privates are struggling.

Two of the Ivies are reporting their highest yields in at least 25 years. Neither will go to the waiting list this year.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/10/class-2021-yield/
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/05/college-sees-increase-in-yield-rate-to-61-percent

Is Ivy prestige a bigger factor for applicants this year, or are less students getting into the Ivies and their peers to bring down the yields by attending elsewhere?