If yield rates are a factor in rankings, do you believe that USC or any of the top-ranked schools are starting to actively engage in yield protection?
I saw how the idea of yield protection speculation rose again back in March-April here on CC. It seemed like a # of kids admitted to a slate of HYPSM level schools were also being denied at USC, UVa, BU, etc. If you happen to be someone looking at admission letters from all 5 of the colleges ranked in the top 5 of US News college rankings, it must be a shock to also have a rejection in-hand from USC or a school ranked much lower. It could of course be due to a # of factors, including how nonchalantly they may have approached the USC application or other school’s applications. But it does make me wonder if schools might be actively looking to deny kids who they suspect will never be attending even if admitted… as a potential way to better their own school’s yield rate.
I personally just wish that USC had an early admissions program of some kind. It could clearly allow for the highest level of demonstrated interest and also raise the yield rate in the process. USC is my daughter’s top choice now… but she has no other alternative but to also apply to a # of other schools… since that USC golden ticket will not arrive (even if it hopefully does) until late March.
Yield is not a factor in US News Rankings at all. A schools acceptance rate only counts for 1.25% of the US News rankings.
No, they do not. Of course they all care about their ranking, but some universities have policies in place that have nothing to do with improving their school, but are just ways to take advantage of US News loop holes to increase their rank.
Look up each school to see if “level of applicant’s interest” is considered (in the common data set section C7 or on the admissions tab of the college’s entry at http://www.collegedata.com ).
@ucbalumnus Understood… but I believe that there is more to consider in terms of the concept of yield protection. If it is true that some stellar applicants with near perfect stats manage to gain admission to Harvard, Yale, UChicago, Stanford and Princeton, for example, while getting rejected at UVa, BU and USC, it does seem counter-intuitive.
Since my daughter will be among the 54K+ applicants to USC this cycle, I would certainly hope that the admissions committee would just be setting out to admit the 9K or so most qualified applicants, but other considerations always do enter into the mix… legacies, athletes, creative/artistic talent, geographic diversity, demographic diversity, gender, intended majors, etc. It would not surprise me at all if the goal of raising USC’s yield rate might be brought into the equation somehow too. They cannot like it always being around 32-33% while other elite colleges have yield rates into the 60s. How do you actively deny a kid with a 4.0 unweighted GPA, a 35 on the ACT and a 2300+ SAT? But if you trust some posts on CC this past Spring… USC did so. And if so… why? I doubt that those applicants just chose to send in mediocre essays to the schools on their list with higher admission rates…
@WWWard, yield protection definitely exists regardless of what you may hope for.
Even if they play a small part in the USNews rankings, it probably doesn’t surprise you to know that many applicants and their parents judge a school’s eliteness by its admit rate (and some by yield) regardless of how silly such a thought process may be.
If your daughter is serious about USC, visit the school and have her apply by the December 1 scholarship deadline. Those who apply early will also receive acceptances by February and not the normal date of early April.
@zinhead That is not accurate about USC. If you apply before the Dec 1st scholarship consideration deadline and are invited to interview for one of their merit scholarships, then the implication is that you are accepted and may also get a merit scholarship. Otherwise, for all other applicants, even if you applied before Dec 1st, you will not learn your fate until late March. I know… we went through this already with D1 3 yrs ago. D1 is a junior there now. As for D2, she is very serious, has visited there and applied day 1… Aug 1st.
Here is what it says at USC.edu:
All first-year applicants who submit a complete application by the December 1 deadline will be considered for USC Merit Scholarships and will receive notification of their status in February. Applicants who are not selected to receive or interview for scholarships will still be considered for regular admission. All first-year applicants who submit a complete application by the January deadline will be mailed an admission decision by April 1. USC does not have an Early Decision or Early Action program. Only notification from the Office of Admission constitutes an offer of admission.
Sometimes, people complain about yield protection due to rejection from an ostensibly less selective college while getting admission to an ostensibly more selective college, but there are often other reasons:
a. The “less selective” college may admit by major or other subcategories (e.g. state residency), and the applicant happens to be in an especially selective subcategory at such a college.
b. The “less selective” college may have a somewhat different weighting of admission criteria. An example would be the test-score-heavy applicants getting rejected from UCs, which tend to overweight GPA and underweight test scores. The UCs’ admission criteria also tend to overweight overcoming disadvantaged situations in holistic reading, which appears to be less weighted at most other highly selective colleges. On the other hand, USC may have been chasing test scores during its ranking rise (based on the generous NM scholarships it offered at the time).
WWWard posted “but we did not really like or respect the college then and most of us wish we had gone elsewhere. The same is likely true for these Harvard kids. They will be proud of being Harvard alumni eventually, but at least 1/2 of them said that they wish they went elsewhere.”
WWWard, I think you jumped the shark with that one.
Kids who go to Harvard usually have other really good options as well. Or do you find unbelievable the statement that they will eventually be proud Harvard alums?
@zinhead Yes… exactly. I said that above. But the vast majority of kids applying before Dec 1st are not so notified that they are going to be offered an interview for a scholarship. Therefore, the vast majority of kids applying before Dec 1st are still only going to be able to learn if they are admitted to USC in late March. Overall… the vast majority of admitted USC applicants first learn of such in late March. That was my main point. D1 applied in Aug 2013 and was accepted in March 2014. D2 applied in Aug 2016… and unless she is offered a scholarship Dec 2016-Feb 2017, she will have to wait until March 2017 to learn her fate as well. Since USC is her top choice, it would be great if USC offered EA or ED, but that is simply not the case.
@googledrone Not sure of your implication. My point is simply that these current Harvard undergrads were all complaining about Harvard and their overwhelming focus on grad schools vs Harvard College itself - their undergraduate needs. They were complaining about how much their parents were spending to have them taught by TAs while their professors were off doing research or teaching grad students. Roughly 1/2 of them said they wished they had gone elsewhere. The same was true of me and my friends during our freshman year at Hopkins. We all complained… many of us wish we had gone elsewhere… some even talked about transferring. But none of us did so. And in truth… likely none of these kids will transfer away from Harvard either. They will likely complain less and less over time… or they will at least deal with it and eventually be proud that they have a Harvard diploma. Like @PurpleTitan , I am not sure what you are saying.