Princeton's yield tumbles 3 points this year

<p>According to Daily Prince:</p>

<p>Yield</a> falls to 56.9 percent for Class of 2014 - The Daily Princetonian</p>

<p>I think the massive increases in apps at a number of schools, including Princeton this years, has a shadow effect of making yields harder to predict. Harvard had a very strong yield year. Haven't seen Y or S numbers yet.</p>

<p>S numbers are good, around 70%. My guess is Y's drop too.</p>

<p>56.9 percent isn't bad at all. A majority of Princeton's losses are probably to Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. At least Princeton is losing to its peers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
56.9 percent isn't bad at all. A majority of Princeton's losses are probably to Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. At least Princeton is losing to its peers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is certainly respectable, though noticeably lacking compared to its peers (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT) and its showings in previous years.</p>

<p>Yale's yield also dropped a couple of percentage points to 67%, still significantly above Princeton's 57%, however.</p>

<p>Yale</a> Daily News - Yield rate sees slight decline</p>

<p>Perhaps, this will finally put to rest the notion (which some Princeton students, alums and parents have been irrationally spouting) that Princeton does not lose cross-admit battles to YSM. If this highly implausible (not to mention, inherently biased) claim were to be true, then this means that (relative to YSM) Princeton is suffering much greater losses in cross-admit battles to some of the lower ivies (Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth) and other lesser schools such as Duke and Vanderbilt, with which Princeton shares a substantial number of cross-admits. So you Princetonians can either rob Peter to pay Paul. Or not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps, this will finally put to rest the notion (which some Princeton students, alums and parents have been irrationally spouting) that Princeton does not lose cross-admit battles to YSM. If this highly implausible (not to mention, inherently biased) claim were to be true, then this means that (relative to YSM) Princeton is suffering much greater losses in cross-admit battles to some of the lower ivies (Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth) and other lesser schools such as Duke and Vanderbilt, with which Princeton shares a substantial number of cross-admits. So you Princetonians can either rob Peter to pay Paul. Or not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's silly. All these schools have ED/EA (which fill up as much as 50% of the class with 90+% yield). We don't. Back when we did, we also had YSM level yield.</p>

<p>Look, if you don't like Princeton, fine. No one's compelling you to. But at least be fair to the data. Don't let your biases rob you of simple common sense.</p>

<p>As an alum, I don't think 57% is so good. What bothers me more is the yield went down when some comparable colleges had their yield go up. I don't know all the factors for this. </p>

<p>I would like to see Princeton do away with grade deflation. I just don't see a good reason for it and I am sure some applicants with future grad school aspirations are scared away because of it.</p>

<p>I agree about the grade deflation. It is a killer if one wants to go onto professional or grad school.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>But Princeton does not have YSM level yield anymore. That's exactly my point. In the past, Princeton ONLY had YSM level yield because it was artificially inflated by Princeton's Early Decision program. When Princeton got rid of ED, its yield dropped precipitously, as predicted by many (albeit not Princeton administrators, apparently).</p>

<p>FWIW, I was not comparing Princeton's yield to that of "all these schools [that] have ED/EA (which fill up as much as 50% of the class with 90+% yield)." I was comparing Princeton's declining yield to the yields (which have stayed relatively constant, if not risen) of HYSM, none of which (like Princeton) currently have BINDING early decision programs. My argument is that Princeton cannot possibly be beating or tying YSM in head-to-head cross-admit battles, unless Princeton was being more hurt than YSM in cross-admit battles against those ED schools (the lower ivies, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc.) in question. I thought my point was fairly straightforward. But if it wasn't, here it is again:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Last but not least, it's kind of ironic that someone named "Silly Puddy" would characterize my argument as "silly."</p>

<p>Yeah as opposed to calling you a goose for what you say.</p>

<p>1) It's been acknowledged that the absence of EA/REA/SCEA programs hurts Princeton's yield. This is not surprising.
2) Princeton's lack of professional schools is probably a huge detriment to a rising number of pre-professional students. If I wanted to go into medicine or business, I would want to go somewhere with a med school so I could do research or a business school so I could take classes there.
3) If grade deflation is truly driving admits away, Princeton should definitely keep it around. If grade deflation leads to a student body that cares more in general about learning than about a tenth of a point in GPA, then that's exactly what I would want as a Princeton student. I'd rather have a high-quality student body (in the sense that people would rather embrace an academic challenge than flee from it) and lower yield than vice versa.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Princeton's declining selectivity must hit home for you, as both a Princeton alum AND mother, twice as hard. If mocking (and misspelling) my username helps alleviate some of your increasingly painful status anxiety, go to (Prince-) town.</p>

<p>Hahahahahahahaha.</p>

<p>In full honesty of course I hate to see anything that might cause Princeton difficulties. But that wasn't why I was mocking you. I mocked you because you mocked someone else I like.</p>

<p>Princeton's declining selectivity?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com:8080/images/graphics/2010/04/02/Admissions_-_PRINT_RGB-massive.jpg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com:8080/images/graphics/2010/04/02/Admissions_-_PRINT_RGB-massive.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Doesn't look like declining selectivity to me.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>As I said earlier, "go to town!" Not all of us can come up with such original and clever usernames as "Alumother." I really appreciate how you put the 'm' at the end of "alum" and the 'm' at the beginning of "mother" together as one. That was a true stroke of genius!</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Relative to HYSM. HTH.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Princeton's declining selectivity?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com:808...GB-massive.jpg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com:808...GB-massive.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Doesn't look like declining selectivity to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You definitely need to put this in context. Almost every school (and certainly every school that could be considered Princeton's peer) has experienced declining acceptance rates. If Princeton is declining slower than its peers (where this has to be well thought out - eventually, it becomes hard to decline significantly), it is lagging in selectivity. Similarly, if its yield is falling when other colleges' are not, it is also losing appeal.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Back when we did, we also had YSM level yield.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I may be mistaken, but Princeton's yield in the final years of its ED was roughly 67 - 69% (comparable to Yale and Stanford and perhaps a little above MIT's usual). However, ED is simply very different from even SCEA in that you are virtually guaranteed a (near) 100% yield. It only happens that SCEA at Yale/Stanford nets an 80 - 90% yield without a binding contract.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I believe Princeton tended to accept around 50% of its incoming class during the early round. This is most definitely not true of Stanford or MIT, although potentially true for Yale (depending on how high Yale's early yield actually is).</p>

<p>Class of 2014 - Admissions Yield for Regular Decision Applicants* </p>

<p>76% - Harvard
61% - Stanford
57% - Princeton
49% - Yale
48% - Penn
47% - MIT
44% - Dartmouth
39% - Cornell
33% - Williams
28% - Northwestern</p>

<hr>

<p>*Assuming 97% yield for EA/ED accepted students</p>

<p>
[quote]
*Assuming 97% yield for EA/ED accepted students

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is an overestimate for EA/SCEA, and therefore your list underestimates Stanford, Yale, and MIT. Could you recompute assuming 80%, 85% and 90% yield for these colleges to provide more realistic estimates?</p>

<p>Additionally, while your list is accurately labeled, it should be noted that these statistics do not necessarily accurate reflect yields for the other colleges had they removed ED entirely. That is, the ED acceptees (the ones who clearly prioritize that college as first) would be mixed in the RD pool, and many of them would inevitably be chosen again, resulting in a higher yield RD pool.</p>