<p>
</p>
<p>They eliminated yield as a ranking factor because they decided it’s sort of double-counting: a high yield generally gives you a low admit rate, a low yield generally gives you a high admit rate, so they figure if you know the admit rate that’s all you need to know. </p>
<p>It’s not quite as simple as that, however. Some schools have a high admit rate AND a high yield. An example is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Their admit (acceptance) rate is 63%, but their yield is a stratospheric 67%, not quite as high as Harvard’s (76%) but the same as Yale’s (67%) and higher than Princeton’s (60%). Why? Well, that’s an interesting question. It’s a pretty good public institution, but there are better publics with lower yields (most are in the 40-50% range). It’s a relatively large institution in a state with a small population, so that may account for the high admit rate. But why the extraordinarily high yield? It may be partly the lack of public and private college alternatives nearby. It might be the fact that, lacking professional sports, Nebraskans are born and bred Cornhuskers sports fans, and that loyalty translates into college preferences. It could be that Nebraskans are uncommonly thrifty and calculate that their in-state public flagship is both good enough and a good value. But those factors don’t work in the neighboring states for the University of Kansas (91% admit rate, 40% yield, possibly due to K-State rivalry?), University of Iowa (83% admit rate, 32% yield, Iowa state rivalry?), University of Missouri (83% admit rate, 41% yield, other public and private options?), University of Colorado (84% admit rate, 34% yield, a “safety” for a national pool of applicants who end up going elsewhere?), or the University of South Dakota (87% admit rate, 41% yield). So something unique is going on here. Anyway, I think it’s interesting. I think yield DOES tell us something distinct from admit rate, though when I’ve raised this before on CC many posters said, essentially, “Who cares?”</p>