Around 20% over the last two years.
This is from their IG Live today,
1 Like
Thatâs a lot higher than I thought. Thanks!
1 Like
Keep in mind, however, that this is the overall rate, for in-state and OOS combined.
4 Likes
They also donât indicate how many they deferred as opposed to rejected.
Or it could, in a case of deferral, be yield protection.
Regular decision acceptance rate is lower. Not sure what it was last year but in 2021 regular decision acceptance rate was 10% and includes in state and OOS.
That is the overall acceptance rate from deferred, which includes both in-state and out-of-state status. The regular decision acceptance rate for people that are not deferred (ie apply RD instead of EA) is lower.
In this case, student says they were denied.
After watching this for years, I donât think thatâs it. I know multiple kids who were rejected out of state at Georgia Tech or given a conditional pathway that got into MIT. One is best friends with my nephew, rejected EA at GT admitted RD MIT. He is happily thriving there. After this happened a couple of years ago, I realized he is not the only one.
1 Like
Since your reply wasnât linked to any specific post, I took it as a general sentiment.
Could you clarify what part you are disagreeing with? That GT yield protects in the EA round, or that when it does, it does so via deferral?
Consistent with the hypothesis of yield protection.
1 Like
That it yield protects. They absolutely focus on community involvement and potential impact on campus and also consider demographics and emphasize fit (I mention this because our other large, in-state institution UGA does not consider gender or other demographics and they impact admit rates at GT) - things other than grades and academic achievement. It also does not consider legacy unlike many other single digit admits. I just think when you get to that level of admission success with competitive schools it is a crapshoot.
Of course, I donât know that for a fact, but there are more than a few in the Ivy League, or MIT or Stanford who didnât get into Georgia Tech OOS just from watching these boards and knowing a handful.
FWIW, of my two kids, the one whose MIT admission was much more of a slam dunk is the one that happened to get deferred by GT rather than invited to interview for Stamps.
And he was applying to a less competitive major (Math vs CS) 
(Anecdotes not data and yada-yada-yada:)
MIT doesnât do legacy and also focuses on fit and community involvement.
That hardly disproves the yield protection conjecture.
I do agree we will never know for sure what goes on inside those committee meetings, so all of this is conjecture for the (dubious) benefit of future generations. 
Oh sorry. Meant to the message prior. I see. Ok. Thx
1 Like
I donât see how this disproves yield protection/management. Enrollment analytics have improved vastly in the past few years (I know someone who works in this field). They know who their cross-admit schools are, and Iâm pretty sure their model can tell that a particular student, given his/her profile, geographic location, demographics, history of similar applicants in the past, etc., has a very low chance of enrollment. So theyâd rather offer the seat to someone else.
FWIW, saying they protect or manage yield is not a diss at GT in any way. Pretty much every selective school needs to manage their enrollment.
5 Likes
Last CDS GT was 42% yield. Strong for a public.
I think Ga kids do want to stay in state given the free tuition. And for OOS Ga Tech is reasonably priced.
UGA 36%. Also high relative to competitors Iâd say.
Donât know if itâs strategy or in state staying home for free tuition and reasonable OOS costs.
1 Like
That is surprising to me.
Some do it with binding ED rounds, and and it can be presumed that for HYPS it suffices that their EA is restrictive.
Until a couple years ago, Caltech was unabashedly (seemingly) NOT doing yield management, remaining EA in the face of (relatively) paltry 44% yield, even as their admissions office openly admitted (no pun intended) to losing many good admits to MIT. I respected the heck out of them for this.
Regrettably, they too switched to REA a couple years ago, in what can be only explained as an attempt to cut down on the number of MIT EA cross-applicants, as MIT is their only peer with unrestrictive EA.
(They went test blind too, but thatâs a whole separate conversation:)
This is all to say that strong applicants certainly need to be aware of the strong possibility that Tufts syndrome is a thing and factor it into their planning.
1 Like