<p>bclintonk, I just saw your post refencing one of my sub-quotes:</p>
<p>Here’s what I actually stated:</p>
<p>But a u’s yield rate is obviously inextricably tied with its acceptance rate. There is no u in the country that wouldn’t like to have a yield like Harvard’s and thereby considerably lower its acceptance rate – especially for the U in question in OP’s first blast.</p>
<p>UNL (high AR, High YR) is vastly different than Harvard (Low AR, High YR). UNL at one time, I believe used to be open admissions. Harvard is at opposite ends in this regard and still is. As others stated, yield will improve if a lower level group of students is admitted. This occurs anywhere: the lower qualified students enroll at a higher % than those of higher standing (qualification).</p>
<p>But schools like Tulane have a low acceptance rate AND low yield – this is common at a lot of excellent LACs. There’s a rational low-yield strategy at work there. Sure, they’d love to have Harvard’s draw, but since they don’t, there are various ways to make the best of the applicant appeal they DO have.</p>
<p>While the cynic in me would love to readily agree with you, I still have trouble replacing my cynicism (and your interpretation/spin) with the actual, hard data reported by UCLA. It’s one thing to post nothing by marketing material on their website, but it is far different to be posting questionable data on federal sites, such as ipeds. Are you suggesting that UCLA is purposely mis-reporting student data to the federal government? Do you have a source for this claim?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire, IMO, “to be fair”, one works with facts in evidence, not personal “guestimates”.</p>
<p>But speaking of “fair”, you also have to readily acknowledge that UCLA’s published top decile (rank) is pure fiction, by definition. And the reason for that is less than half of California public high schools, the main feeders to UC, publish a class rank. (Source: LA Times).</p>
<p>The data just does not exist for UC Southern Branch. (At least Cal is honest and marks, ‘na’, for % of students who report class rank.)</p>
<p>And the data on CMC’s CDS indicates that only 25% of their students had a class rank.</p>
<p>“Estimated” class rank at UCs is theoretically derivable from the data submitted by high schools to UC for calculating the top 9% threshold GPA for Eligibility in Local Context.</p>
<p>Note that this is based on UC’s recalculation of GPAs (by the usual UC method) of previous classes at the high school, and does not depend on the high school’s GPA calculation method or current class rank if published.</p>
<p>As I have to reduplicate the post that was lost…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA is undoubtedly one of the most transparent u’s in the country. They report nos. related to admissions as a guide to those, specifically of poorer background, what it takes to gain admission. And again, it purposely understates to give poorer kids a higher level of confidence … because UCLA is all about diversity.</p>
<p>So if you want to refer to this as marketing, then if would be a best-foot-behind kind of marketing. </p>
<p>If you look at the U’s CDS, it reports 25th and 75th percentile, which are obvious forms of medians. On its website, it reports mean SAT. It’s just a different type of reporting. The reporting at its website understates SAT scores because, again, a mean will indeed be materially lower than a 50% median.</p>
<p>The 1910 mean SAT becomes 1970 or so just by eyeballing. At both sites, it’s possible to eyeball within a few points within that 1970 figure. So it’s not misreporting, but rather a different way of reporting. And the fact that it’s ~ 1970 for both sites, verifies that UCLA’s nos. are consistent. </p>
<p>Some persons have posited that 40 points added is a figure to convert to 2-part superscoring. I conservatively used 40 for the three.</p>
<p>The redundant reporting of SAT and ACT’s is fairly evident to me. Either you see it or you don’t. Most kids try a first stab at the SAT, and if this baseline is deemed to low for them, then a lot of them switch to the ACT, which is deemed a bit easier and non=course specific. But either way, within a 10% amount of scores that will be approximately equal, there will be a separation between both scores. This is what UCLA is doing wrong, and it’s not a purposeful misreporting on its website vis-a=vis the federal forms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me what you think the mean gpa of CMU’s students should be.</p>
<p>CMU isn’t Pomona College nor Harvey Mudd. It’s a very good college, but I wouldn’t think it would get the absolute top-tier student. And there’s nothing wrong with a 3.6 mean gpa. There are a lot of o/s u’s with a similar mean. Hopkins, I believe, has a mean in the 3.6’s. </p>
<p>Add, that a very good portion of CMU’s students would probably be good private school hs kids, but not the absolute top tier, as in Pomona, or Harvey Mudd, or certainly not Cal Tech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not at all bothered by your reference to UCLA as the Southern Branch. I really couldn’t care less if your intent is to rile. But go ahead and live in the past. ;)</p>
<p>You and I had a conversation of the overstated top decile %”s of both UCLA and Cal. I estimated that both would have ~ 80% top decile, when both overstate at 97%+, so we’re not breaking new ground here. I think just about all u’s overstate this %, so UC schools aren’t the only offenders.</p>
<p>Besides, which, I don’t know what your intent is. If you want to tie it into gpa, the mean of UCLA students is 3.82 in 2012, as it clearly states at its website. I would guesstimate that this figure is significantly higher than CMU’s average, whatever it is.</p>
<p>A very interesting discussion about yield. There are so many variables that go into yield that is is nearly impossible to find “similar” schools to compare to each other. Do they have ED ? Price? How “demonstrated interest” focused is their acceptance? Lots of toehr variables also.</p>
<p>However, when you do find comparable schools with a similar applicant pool then maybe there is one big factor that highly influenced yield - Actual cost to attend.</p>
<p>Take Carnegie Mellon for example, CMU is no doubt a highly ranked school, yet a lower yield than many of the other top private schools. Maybe that has a lot to do with the fact that they do NOT guarantee to meet financial need. Are the “need blind” for admissions (I don’t know the answer) but if they are then maybe many accepted students go elsewhere because the aid at CMU falls short by comparison to other top schools’ offers.</p>
<p>I would say yield should not be much of a concern when selecting a school, but maybe in some cases it does shed some light on their process, aid, etc. However, if they have a competitive offer for YOU then why would you care if others didn’t find their offer as compelling in the final choice?</p>
<p>To me, a very important factor in selecting a college would be whether others in my class are going to be happy to be there. As with any institution, the overall morale of the class/group is incredibly important to the success and happiness of the individual member. A very low yield number would raise a huge red flag for me. I would want to make sure that the low yield number does not reflect the satisfaction level of those who choose to matriculate there. I personally think it is important that the school be the FIRST choice for some significant percentage of the matriculated class. Otherwise, there is a risk of apathy that is highly contagious. I wouldn’t want to be at a place where a large number of students are trying to transfer, for example. I wouldn’t want to be at a place where most of the kids have a stand-offish, wait-and-see attitude toward the institution. And I wouldn’t want to be at a place where people are defensive about their choice. In your case, you obviously sensed a positive vibe on your visit. I assume that means you encountered many happy, positive students, so perhaps in this case the low yield doesn’t reflect the attitudes of those there. But I’d be concerned that it might.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with students going to community college and then onto a university. But it would be a big problem for me if the students at a LAC that my daughter was thinking of attending had the same attitude toward their college that students typically have toward their community college.</p>
<p>Also, no offense ucbalum, but the two examples you provide seem totally off point. One concerns a 14 year old who was admitted to UCLA at age 12 after obtaining an AA degree at a community college that he started at at age 8. The other is a 31-year-old who is graduating at the top of his class from UCB, to which he transfered after having started his education at a community college. Those are two remarkable stories, but I’m not sure how they relate to whether having a large number of students who want to transfer from a small, four-year LAC would negatively affect the class’s morale. That’s my point – overall morale is important, and I would be concerned that a low yield figure MIGHT correllate to overall low morale.</p>
<p>Remember that the community college is often not the student’s first choice, but merely an acceptable choice bounded by constraints (e.g. cost, high school record, parental restrictions, various types of non-traditional students, etc.). The same also goes for the local state universities that large numbers of college students commute to.</p>
<p>Being able to attend the perfect fit college is kind of a luxury in a world where most students are happy to go to an acceptable fit (defined mainly by academic programs at affordable cost) college. Yes, it is perfectly fine to look for a better fit, but it is not the end of the world to attend a merely acceptable fit college.</p>
<p>I just looked at the stats for a liberal arts college with a yield of about 12%-- Willamette. The financial aid stats are telling. 98% of students applied for need based financial aid; 65% were found to have need; and of those 65%, full need was met for only 39%. I believe that includes loans. Average percent of need met was 87% (based on school’s definition of need). So lots of gapping going on here.</p>
<p>Compare this to a school like Pitzer. Less than half of admitted students apply for aid, suggesting non-need-blind admissions. Of those who are found to have need, 100% of need is met. </p>
<p>Pitzer has a lower admit rate and a much higher yield. </p>
<p>This could obviously and easily explain the differences in yield rates between the two schools, and the lower yield rate at Willamette wouldn’t suggest that the school was a safety for those who decided to matriculate or that morale is likely be be low. in this instance, I’d be less concerned abt yield numbers if I could afford the school based on the aid awarded. I haven’t studied the numbers closely enough to really see if the numbers hold up but this is the sort of analysis that I would be doing in trying to figure out whether a difference in yield was likely to indicate anything significant about the relative quality of life at schools that I was comparing.</p>
<p>My mistake… CMC isn’t Pomona College nor Harvey Mudd wrt admissions. I know you’re trying to be cute, but you should be able to see my comparisons would be more relevant between three of the Claremont colleges. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you not realize that bluebayou made the conclusion that CMC’s admissions is tougher than UCLA’s by solely the 25th% level SAT, which we know for a fact that this would be as comparing apples and oranges? </p>
<p>Bluebayou said, something to the effect that: “There’s nothing wrong with CMC being tougher to gain admission to, drax” after he misunderstood my first reply to his. I still don’t think he understands what I’ve proposed. </p>
<p>I think, rather, that his superficial conclusions based on one item shows that he couldn’t piece together a more cogent conclusion than a five year old. He’ll probably accuse me on an ad hominem, but would edit: have conveniently ignored yours.</p>
<p>The three things which UCLA does to understate SAT would be most relevant to the bottom quartile SAT’s because score replacement and elimination would affect this set the most (… but similarly not my example becasue the BGHS student only took the SAT once). If you are similarly unable to see this, then I can’t help you, either.</p>
<p>I still stand by my statements: UCLA should be tougher in which to gain admission than CMC. They live in different worlds, however, and neither really has any significant commonality in admissions decisions with the other.</p>
<p>But you’re free to pick my arguments apart, if you wish, but expect a reply in return.</p>
<p>I completely agree. I think my choice of words in my earlier post was poor. I should have said, " All other things being equal, I’d rather be at a place where the students around me are happy to be there and don’t intend to transfer over a place where other students lack enthusiasm about the institution and are looking for ways to escape asap." Most students don’t have the luxury of of such a choice, and of course students get perfectly adequate educations in less-than-ideal surroundings.</p>
<p>Okay, fine. One or at most two-sentence responses, though, hold no credibility. I can say the same of some of your conclusions: Wrong, off-based, whatever. Doesn’t hold water…</p>
<p>I’m not an NU apologist - just fact checking the first school on the list above;</p>
<p>But perhaps the best illustration of Northwestern’s growing reputation among the nation’s most selective schools is the proportion of admitted freshmen choosing Northwestern, or “yield” in admissions parlance. For the second consecutive year, yield rose five percentage points, reaching 43 percent.</p>
<p>I don’t think yields should be as concerning as they are to most people. Some just don’t fit in a particular college after looking into it further.</p>