Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Introducing a New Expert Content Section: Careers!

STANFORD planning on a 68% yield rate this year

ByerlyByerly - Posts: 7,019 Senior Member
edited May 2006 in Stanford University
Here are the minutes of the April 20 Faculty Senate meeting

Some interesting stuff.

http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2005_2006/minutes/04_20_06_SenD5831.pdf

A lot of emphasis is to be placed on recruiting off the West Coast, in areas where Stanford has not been as successful as its peers in getting the top students.

Alumni will become involved in the effort, hopefully, to an extent they haven't been in the past.

Much emphasis will be placed on increasing yield.

To this end, there were 121 "likely letters" sent this year, including 61 to "academic superstars" and 60 to top URM candidates, hoping to gain a recruiting edge with them over the competition.

Further, special telephone solicitations were sent to over 80 of the SCEA admits who, along with the 161 who got "likely letters", were probably admitted to competing institutions as well.

Faculty comments that the humanities students are not as high quality as the science majors, perhaps due to Stanford's "semi-tech reputation." Efforts needed to recruit better potential humanities students.

2430 admits, and 1657 matriculants expected, for a 68% yield rate.
Post edited by Byerly on
«13

Replies to: STANFORD planning on a 68% yield rate this year

  • cjanthonycjanthony Registered User Posts: 46 Junior Member
    I guess that's probably not really good for waitlisted hopefuls, huh?

    That's really too bad. I will always dream, though.
  • stambliark41stambliark41 Registered User Posts: 2,527 Senior Member
    Byerly, that was really interesting actually. Talked about a lot of the stuff we talk about but never actually see.
  • doubledouble Registered User Posts: 430 Member
    wow, great article/post. very interesting read.

    one question: on page 10 in the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph of the page, it states: "And this is all in concert with the extraordinarily wonderful announcement from President Hennessy that in five years or so perhaps we can try to work towards being completely need-blind and need-based."

    what's up that that?...

    or am i reading it wrong...

    anyways, great info!
  • JimmyEatWorld711JimmyEatWorld711 Registered User Posts: 2,399 Senior Member
    I think it's referring to international admits, who are currently NOT admitted on a need-blind basis. Stanford isn't unique in this respect; most if not all of its competitors also assess need when reading international applications.
  • JimmyEatWorld711JimmyEatWorld711 Registered User Posts: 2,399 Senior Member
    I thought it was interesting when Dean Shaw noted that 16% of people with straight A's were rejected. Maybe I'm just too familiar with high school grade inflation, but the admit rate for straight-A students seems very high...
  • yahoooyahooo Registered User Posts: 1,386 Senior Member
    what is the yield rate?
  • zikzik Registered User Posts: 150 Junior Member
    Number of Students who matriculate / Number of students accepted
  • TetragrammatonTetragrammaton Registered User Posts: 392 Member
    JimmyEatWorld:

    I thought so too. When I was told at an information session that 40% of 1600 scorers got in, it was an impressive statistic. But "only" 84% of straight-A students? Perhaps Stanford places more emphasis on grades than we've been led to believe (most people I've spoken to seem to think that Stanford has an essay- and EC-heavy evaluation).
  • chillaxinchillaxin Registered User Posts: 965 Member
    I'm pretty shocked by that statistic as well! Is it possible that it's a typo? I feel that so many more students would have been admitted if only 16% were denied admission. That would mean that less than 3000 of those 20,000+ who applied had straight-A's, something I find very difficult to believe. Or perhaps he meant to say sixty and said sixteen, which would go along with the 40% of 1600 scorers admitted?
  • JimmyEatWorld711JimmyEatWorld711 Registered User Posts: 2,399 Senior Member
    Do you guys think 16% straight A students accepted would be too low?

    I would hypothesize that most of those "all study, no play" applicants that Stanford likes to reject, saying that they lack "intellectual vitality", would be straight A students.
  • TetragrammatonTetragrammaton Registered User Posts: 392 Member
    I think 16% is too low for an acceptance rate and too low for a denial rate.
  • zephyr151zephyr151 Registered User Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    "...in five years or so perhaps we can try to work towards being completely need-blind and need-based."

    What could Shaw mean by that? Stanford's financial aid policies are already solid.
  • n1bigduden1bigdude Registered User Posts: 350 Member
    I think hes referring to international aid. Although I've heard that many international students have gotten great aid packages, the official policy is that Stanford is not need blind to internationals.
  • stambliark41stambliark41 Registered User Posts: 2,527 Senior Member
    I thought the thing about the A's was strange too, so strange I assumed it was a type-o. We had two kids accepted from my school: one had straight A's. However, there were many with straight A's that were rejected. About five or so come to mind at the moment, but there may be more. The acceptance rate for Valedictorians is only in the 40% range, so I think it is impossible that 84% w/ straight A's are accepted. I'm guessing it is 16% w/ straight A's are accepted. Even though this may be hard to believe, given the quality of the applicant pool it may be possible.
  • TSATSA Registered User Posts: 100 Junior Member
    By comparison:

    Last year's # of freshman applicants
    = ( Male + Female )
    = (10236 + 9959 )
    = 20,195 Total Applicants

    Last year's yield
    = ( M + F Matriculants )/( M + F Admits)
    = (845 + 788)/(1249 + 1177)
    = 67.3%

    -Data source: 2005-2006 Stanford Common Data Set ("C. FIRST-TIME, FIRST-YEAR (FRESHMAN) ADMISSION, Applications")
    <http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#enrollment>;
«13
This discussion has been closed.