chicagoboy12

No, NOT owned. I said about 1 in 4 people turn down Harvard, and as far as I can see the yield has been about 78% average for recent years. IS 78% about 75% YES! Thanks.

How do i know so much about it? Like i said, the students that i talked to that had been accepted told me these things about themselves. I know them very well, and even looked at some of their applications. I saw it with my own eyes. Good enough for me.

And piccolojunior - Brigham Young and Harvard actually tied last year with a yield of 79%.

Once again, POINT STILL STANDS.

guitars101

chicagoboy,

What school are you going to in the fall? Why aren't you on that site giving "advise"?

munchkin3590

No offense to Brigham Young, but as it is considered THE school for Mormon college students, it would make sense that they would have a very high yeild. It's a different circumstance that changes what the figures mean.

What I mean is, if you are looking to go to a good quality Mormon school, and you get in to BYU, odds are you are going to go, because there is no other contender. If you are looking to go to a top-tier liberal arts school and you get into Harvard, well... there are lots of fantastic liberal arts schools.

It's like how "graduation rate within 5 years" means nothing at Northeastern because of their co-op program, or how some very very small schools with say, 100 people per class, are not included in rankings of "most selective" even though their acceptence rates are very low. Because of circumstances, you really can't compare the two.


Now really chicagoboy, I agree with guitars101. I don't understand what point you are trying to make, or why you care enough to make it. Go find the forum for the school you are actually going to, and help out there. Trolling is a pathetic waste of time.

chicagoboy12

well guitars, since i haven't attended the school yet, and dont know what the adcoms look for, its hard to give advice. it would be even harder to give "advise," since thats a verb, not a noun.

guitars101

Again, there you go picking and trying to make yourself seem important and valuable. Please do something productive other than trying to find flaws in others. Enjoy your youth, don't be so bitter and self-conscious about yourself. I'm sure you're a fine person.

OdysseyTigger

chicagoboy12

1) you did not say "about 75%" (which leaves the range a bit ambiguous) you said "about 1 in 4" (which implies a number closer to 1 in 4 than to 1 in 3 or 1 in 5)
"about 1 in 4" simply was not correct - "about 1 in 5" would have been the correct estimate
( for this year it looks like "about 1 in 6" will be correct)

As for your "and one of the reasons that harvard has a high yield is their $$.", that would only apply as a partial explanation for this year's expected increase above the already "high" yield you were referencing

Finally, about your point "standing", what exactly WAS your point?

That not every single person who gets into Harvard ultimately decides to go there? Well that would be a pretty pointless point even if that was what you meant to say.


2) the 79% figure you use for Harvard and BY comes from a USNWR study using data from 2006, not last year

Also, BY's acceptance rate according to the study is 70%!!! - meaning that over 55% of those who APPLIED to Brigham Young in 2006 matriculated vs. 5% for Harvard - so you are talking apples and oranges and irrelevancies here.

Yield is only one measure of attractiveness - another is number of applications. BY gets about 2 applications for every seat it has in its freshman class. Harvard gets more than 20.

3) In any event, neither of these school had the highest yield for 2006. That "honor" belonged to the USMA with a yield of 83% (and an acceptance rate of 15%).

4) UChicago's numbers - yield 34%, acceptance rate 38%

5) Projected yields based upon number admits for class of 2012

Harvard - 85%
Yale - 69.7%
Princeton - 62.7%

6) Based upon what I have seen with "my own eyes" over the past 30 years since I was your age, your claims about mediocre students and individuals getting into Harvard by lying about things like their number of volunteer hours or club participation don't remotely pass the smell test.

7) If you don't want to be taken for an angry rejected applicant or a troll, don't come here and act like one.

chicagoboy12

odysseytiger - its very funny how you knock me for using 2006 information, but then you go and do exactly that for chicago.

and how can you already predict harvard's yield this year?

OdysseyTigger

^
1) Is reading a problem for you, too?

1a) I did not "knock you for using 2006 information". You inaccurately claimed you were using 2007 information. I noted the specific study and year (2006) that the information came from and corrected your claim.

1b) I then shared more info from that study. Obviously this was also 2006 information and I made no claim whatsoever that I was using any information not from 2006 until I got to this year's numbers.

2) Each school has a target class size. Each school has admitted a certain number of students. Dividing the first number into the second number gives you the projected yield based on the number of admits.

chicagoboy12

ACTUALLY i was using 2007 information. but not that it really matters, because i said 79% when it was really 78%.

OdysseyTigger

^

Wrong again bucko, last year's yield was 79.2%.

As for this year initial yield is apparently "around 78% - same as last year". The final number is expected to be bumped up by the 150-175 students to be admitted from the wait list.

chicagoboy12

So, wasn't I correct with 79% to begin with? The only reason I switched it to 78% was because I read the harvard article that stated this:
"Harvard's yield for the Class of 2012 will remain about the same as last year—around 78 percent"

Well, I guess I shouldn't have trusted the crappy harvard crimson. Anyway, we've beaten this thing to death. Later ya'all.

OdysseyTigger

It doesn't seem so much a matter of trusting the Crimson as much as it is a matter of learning how to read, no?


Reading the first sentence of an article does not constitute "reading the article". If you HAD bothered to read the entire article you claim to have read, you would have found it specified:

"While Harvard and Princeton dropped early admissions this year, Yale and Stanford maintained their early programs. As a result, Fitzsimmons initially calculated that dropping early admissions would ding Harvard's yield by as much as seven points, an effect that ultimately did not take place. Last year's yield came in at 79.2 percent. "


The only thing you've beaten to death is your credibility.

OdysseyTigger

"So, wasn't I correct with 79% to begin with?"

you "began" with this:

"And piccolojunior - Brigham Young and Harvard actually tied last year with a yield of 79%"

and no, you were not correct. (pretty much as you have been universally incorrect) LAST year's yield was 79.2%. The year before, according to last year's Crimson, it was 79.8%.

"In percentage terms, this year's 79.2 percent admissions yield matches up with last year's figure of 79.8 percent, continuing to hover near 80 percent as it has for the past few years, according to Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons ’67."

The 79% figure that you cite for Harvard and BY comes from the USNWR study:

"So which colleges do students really want to go to? One way to find out is to look at a school’s yield, the percentage of applicants accepted by a university who end up enrolling at that institution in the fall. The figures in this table are from the fall 2006 entering class and show the admit yield and overall acceptance rate. ...

U.S. News Rank School Acceptance Rate Yield
79 Brigham Young University—Provo (UT) 70% 79%
2 Harvard University (MA) 9% 79%
..."