<p>the daily princetonian finally breaks the silence. lots of information on acceptance rates, expected yield rates, demographics, etc.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/04/05/news/15079.shtml[/url]”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/04/05/news/15079.shtml</a></p>
<p>Hehe, beat me to it, f.scottie. I was just about to post. :)</p>
<p>This envisions a 68% yield and an RD yield of a little over 52% - about the same as last year. There were no applicants taken from the WL last year, vs. 99 the year before. If any are taken from the WL this year, that would drop the yield rate accordingly.</p>
<p>Byerly ~ Why does taking from the WL drop the yield rate? Especially if the school calls and says “Do you want to come?” and gets a “yes” from the applicant. Wouldn’t this have the same positive impact on yield rate as taking an additional ED admit? Consensus on other forums is that other colleges are taking their last few admitted students from the WL specifically to raise yield rate…</p>
<p>As a general matter, you are correct. An admissions director once jokingly observed to me that, ideally, ALL applicants would be placed on the waitlist, and they would only be admitted, one by one, in exchange for a commitment in blood to matriculate! The vision: a perfectly crafted class … and a juicy 100% yield rate.</p>
<p>To be sure, the incentive to “go light” on RD admissions and to fill in from the WL is, in part, a higher yield rate than might otherwise be the case. Say you run 100 acceptances short: you can fill the slots, probably, with only 100 from the waitlist, whereas, if your usual RD yield was 50%, then you would have had to accept another <em>200</em> RD to fill those slots without resort to the WL. Your bottom line yield would end up being 45.5% (1000/2,200) So it is true, as a rule, that heavy use of the WL gets you a higher net yield than if you filled all the slots in the “normal” manner.</p>
<p>BUT … it is a slightly different situation when, having projected and proclaimed, lets say, a 50% yield when you admitted 2,000 people for 1,000 slots, you fall 100 matriculations short and need to fill in with 100 from the WL to get your 1,000 freshman. You will, in fact, have admitted 2,100 applicants to achieve your goal. So after all the shouting, your <em>real</em> yield, come September, will not be the 50% you announced with pride in April, but, rather, 47.6%. Better than the 45.5% you would have had otherwise, but not as good as the 50% you announced in the beginning.</p>
<p>I hope you follow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Prince article suggests, there were some at least.</p>
<p>*Rapelye sent thick envelopes to 1,193 students from a regular decision pool of 15,327 applicants, which included students deferred in the early decision process. *</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/04/05/news/15079.shtml[/url]”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/04/05/news/15079.shtml</a></p>
<p>PS: How would that compare to H and Y RD?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Byerly, I would argue, it is not only the greater number (diluting the yield), but also the greater variance in yield - making enrollment less predictable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you mean “will be,” I do not see that implied.</p>
<p>Byerly ~ Thank you for another one of your fine, and very clear explanations. I was worried that I had completely mis-understood the game, and was about to get a terrible arithmetic shock! My guess is that Princeton has dialed back ever so slightly on the RD side, perhaps thinking to take 10-15 WL kids if yield is similar to last year. After all, taking a very small number of WL kids gives the admission office one more shot at filling “holes” in the class (like the Oboe player who perhaps did not get selected ED). I don’t mean to create false hope; I’m just observing which outcome I think is best for the institution of Princeton.</p>
<p>Of course if the RD yield is unexpectedly lower this year because of an increase in applications per student, then a few more spots might also open up. But it could also be that there will be none taken from the WL at all.</p>
<p>Sonar ~ I think Playfair may be talking about ED kids deferred to RD and then accepted, not about WL kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed I was, because Byerly earlier made the point that the RD yield of deferred EDs is practically as good as of admitted EDs (or of admitted SCEAs to make the analogy more fitting).</p>
<p>Nevertheless, my error.</p>
<p>I guess, B.'s point was that a WL candidate who gets asked by admissions if he was interested and declines, never shows up in any statistic so that the implicit (recorded) yield of candidates enrolling from the WL is 100% (otherwise I would fail to grasp, why the yield of WL candidates should differ from the normal RD yield significantly)</p>
<p>I think it can safely be assumed that a high fraction of candidates invited to enroll off the waitlist will accept the invitation - on the assumption that their earlier indication of a desire to remain on the WL meant that the school ranked higher on their personal preference list than the other school at which they were accepted and to which they have already paid a deposit to ensure a place.</p>
<p>In any case, the <em>actual</em> yield on WL admits approaches 100%, since such admits have usually been contacted personally and offered a slot conditional on their willingness to accept it.</p>
<p>I wonder how it will work out for kids that are on multiple waitlists?</p>