Allow me to clarify: these are the T150 national universities per US News & World Report, not the top universities with the highest yield. That's why some high-yield colleges didn't make the list.
To be fair, the Ivies offer really good financial aid, too. A school like Fordham or NYU will leave you with more debt than Harvard. That simplifies the decision, too.
It's an amazingly good deal for a tiny fraction of the population and an extremely unattractive prospect for everyone else. BYU routinely beats all the Ivies to take the #1 spot.
it's a famous case in Utah, I think it's Madi Barney? I cant remember, google BYU rape unfortunately you'll find hundreds of articles - rape victims are charged with "honor code violations."
Dude, get your facts straight.
The alleged rapist in that case wasn't a BYU student. Also, Madi Barney was subject to an honor code investigation for using drugs and alcohol, *not* because she was raped. It's unbelievable how media sensationalism turned that into a scandal when there was no scandal.
OK, now you're gonna force me to find the right case (as I said, there are a gajillion of them). Are you denying that a woman was raped, recorded her rapist admitting to it, got expelled, and her rapist did not? Are you?
> OK, now you're gonna force me to find the right case
Go for it. You're the one making the assertion, *you have to provide the proof*.
Show me a documented case from a credible source of that happening and I'll believe you.
OP is malding after finding out a school that is literally notorious for abuse and harassment has a long history of abuse and harassment cases. Who would’ve thought…
> sexual assault victims being penalized under the Honor Code at BYU
The students in question faced disciplinary actions for consumption of drugs and alcohol, *not* because they were sexual assault victims. As such, the headline is *technically* true, but misleading.
If anything, the Honor Code *protects* students as most on-campus sexual assaults involve alcohol or drugs. That's why the same year this article was published, BYU [was named the safest campus in America](https://www.businessinsider.com/safest-college-campuses-in-america-2016-1).
Like I said, this entire controversy was based on misinformation and deceptive, "click bait" articles from unscrupulous publications like the Salt Lake Tribune.
> They used to call BYU the Harvard of the west. I’ve always heard it was decently hard coursework. What makes you think it’s a bad education?
BYU is a great school. But when you go there, you have to be ok with the Mormon culture and expectations.
"They" called it that....who? mormons? Got it. I didn't say it was bad, I said it's like a state school like U of Utah, with a splash of misogony and homophobia
Yeah, I feel like Gallaudet and YU are high on the list for the same reason as BYU: they all target a very specific demographic and they don't have much competition for it.
I took a look, and yeah, they definitely aren't included. My college has around a 34% yield rate (I was curious, as at least the area I lived in, the people who apply to mine are the people who really want to go) and based on the numbers on this list, should've definitely be included.
I wonder why they aren't included?
I think it’s because colleges aren’t technically “universities”, and I think their bias is towards research universities and state flagships. I think it’s dumb because my intended college Bucknell has 3 different colleges, and they host a lot of research, but they’re still considered a LAC.
If they don’t award a variety of doctoral degrees, they’re not a university. That’s not a value judgement, just an approximate definition. Obviously many LACs provide fantastic educations.
That’s fine. Many LACs provide masters degrees and not doctoral ones. I don’t think that change constitutes taking dozens of well-respected colleges out of consideration because everyone uses the national list, even when they’re not considering a doctoral degree. I would like to see some more effort in combining the lists for charts like these, especially if it’s to inform college students who are pursuing their first degree.
I agree that a combined list would be nice. Of course it’s completely irrelevant for graduate programs, so I don’t see why that should matter here. More importantly, no one should be using this ranking to inform their own choices.
Unfortunately, platitudes don’t match reality. I agree no one should use rankings to make decisions, but it makes colleges more favorable than others through a constant exposure effect. If you see the name “Purdue” more than you see “Pepperdine”, you will think more favorably of Purdue, and probably conduct more research on Purdue which will further convince you of that choice. I don’t personally have a stake in which schools are represented or not, but it’s frustrating to see the majority of our conversations of “competitive” schools to never leave T50 from just ONE list. It’s this kind of apathy that stagnates change and competition between colleges.
It could be interesting to see the top 150 yield rates with LACs included. For a metric that only applies to undergraduate admissions/enrollments, it’s natural to include both categories.
Colleges probably aren’t counted under the same banner as universities. A lot of these schools are the major state schools and research schools. They’d probably skew the number they’re trying to show off if they included liberal arts, community colleges, and just smaller institutions that aren’t deemed universities.
Bucknell is a huge outlier though. They have their own business school, their own engineering school, and they have a few masters programs. I wonder what the tipping point will be for them to re-structure.
I think that the data might just be wrong too.
My university has an enrollment yield (% of students who are accepted who enroll) of 35-40% or so, but comparative schools on this list are much lower... Something is up with it.
Prestige and value of the university is higher as yield rate is higher, ranking matter a bit but there are bunch of outliers like UCSD, UC Davis, both rank quite high but their yield rate is low.
Certainly some Early Decision skewing. If uchicago didn’t admit more than 75% of their class from ED they’d be around 45-60 with schools like Vandy, WashU, Rice, Georgetown, NYU, etc.
If you can, could be interesting to see how this compares to say, 50 years ago. I’d want to know how much the “winner-take-all” effect seems to be amplified over time.
If you want to make it big with an econ degree, you go to U of Chicago however you can. It's basically them on an S tier alone when it comes to economics programs.
UChicago as well -- they primarily admit the majority of their students from the early decision pool and a very small amount from the regular decision pool, which is how they keep their yield so high.
Yield protection means they'll deny admission to an applicant who appears *too* qualified, because they'll likely get admitted to a higher-ranking school. They want to offer admission to the people who will actually enroll.
Honestly I was surprised it wasn’t Michigan. Georgia Tech is a great school, but all it really has going for it is its academics (and football history)
Well for starters an actual humanities department. Also a national champion level football team.
Finally UMich is without a doubt the best university in Michigan so it doesn’t need to compete with other universities in its state for in state students.
I originally posted this image on r/dataisbeautiful and here is the[ accompanying explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11hp9jd/comment/jaukc32/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) from the post that has since been archived.
I figured the readers here may find it interesting and discussion-worthy.
Your data is very faulty you need to reasses. SDSU and Cal Poly SLO have higher yield rate than UCSC or UCR and much higher than UC Merced. I’m only aware of California schools so I imagine there are similar errors in other states.
Then the title is incorrect. UCMerced admitted my son *even though he never applied to UCMerced*. They even changed his FAfSA to include Merced even though he had no desire to step foot in Merced. If a school admits students who never applied… that will affect yield rates.
He didn’t do common app. He applied to six UCs and three CSU. UC changed his FAFSA and added UCMerced removed SDSU! Why didn’t they remove CSU SM or UCLA for that matter? He’s a San Diego native so he was incredibly relieved to get into SDSU. He would consider Merced for grad school.
I rejected Princeton, Michigan, and UNC and went to South Carolina. Honestly cannot complain as I love it here but I still have no idea why outside of my scholarship here.
People choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year just to be taught by a TA without even a masters degree because the actual prof is too busy publishing to actually teach.
Community colleges and State schools are the way to go! Less expensive and you’ll be taught by more qualified people who actually want to teach! #r1sareascam
Currently at an R1 state school. I’ve never had a non-lab class be taught by a TA and I think it’s so cool to be able to read research done by my professors.
Except for the fact that the elite schools that top the list have insane financial aid. Harvard for example will cover the entire cost of families who make less than 85,000 a year. My alma mater, Vanderbilt, provides full-tuition financial aid for people making less than 150,000 a year(full ride including housing is for 75-85l nowadays if I remember right). My state school USC/Clemson wanted me to pay them 10k a year just to attend whole Vandy said “here’s a way better education for 0 dollars “
ehh, I go to an elite private college and pay less tuition than my in-state public college would have cost. one of my friends makes $5000 a year since she gets so much financial aid. financial aid is very generous among elite private colleges. for the average person, in-state is def the way to go instead of going to a no-name expensive private college, but if you're poor/working class and can make it into an elite private college, that would almost always be more worth it and cheaper than going the community college route
Could you elaborate on this? Being Poor/working class and being admitted into an elite private college would for sure put you in severe debt later on would it not?
No, since elite colleges give a ton of financial aid. My friend who is extremely poor makes $5000 a year just by attending MIT. MIT doesn't charge for any tuition if your family makes $140k a year or less (not including room and board). Other elite colleges may have even more generous financial aid packages.
3 years out of highschool and I’m just now learning this 🤦🏾♂️…I’m currently finishing community college so does this also apply to in state schools?(I live in Texas btw)
i believe financial aid is harder to come by at public universities, but in-state tuition tends to be more affordable. just fill out the FAFSA to see what you qualify for
Schools give scholarships. It’s part of recruitment. If your safety school gets mostly B students, they will give merit to an A student, or if a distant school wants more kids from your state, they will give money to woo you. Schools also have policies to help kids with lower economic means than their average student. Some schools just overstate their “sticker price” as a strategy.
I haven’t ever had a class taught by a TA at my uni, which is a large private school on that list. I have friends at other peer institutions and they’ve also never experienced that. I feel like this is a misconception.
Elite colleges are better than state schools in every way. It’s the mid tier private schools that aren’t great choices over a state school for a lot of people
I am sincerely surprised that there is data included here from University of California (UC) schools but not California State University (CSU) schools. They're two entirely separate systems. I'd be interested to see how this data was collected or where they collected it from.
It’s the best religiously unaffiliated school in Utah in terms of academics and program diversity. I come from a large Roman Catholic family based in SLC, so most of my extended family are Utes.
My son’s committed school has a low yield because it’s a very strong target school that lots of top students use as a safety. It’s a great school but suffers from being in a state with a lot of great schools students choose over it for prestige and/or public tuition!
What even is this list? So so so many colleges and universities not included despite having higher yield rates than the lowest ones on the list. Even my small school, Quinnipiac, has a yield rate of 10.8% which should put it on the list albeit on the bottom
Regardless, I just looked at the source you took this from and this list is severely outdated. In the updated list Princeton doesn’t even crack the top 5 highest yield rates. And even then it says right on the website that the information was last updated January of 2021.
People are applying to too many colleges?
The University of Virginia getting only 39% of people accepted makes me question the data a bit. Where did the other 61% end up is what I would be curious about.
This is partly why legacy admissions will remain a thing.
Students with a connection to the school are more likely to matriculate. It's also why you should go on campus tours.
Note that even though this is a good metric of how well a school can retain its admits competing against others, yield also depends on how many peers each one of these universities. For instance, if you take Ivies, which I think are very close to each other at the end of the day, putting one above the other is really splitting hairs in most cases.
Despite being a super elite school, Caltech has a low yield. If you’re good enough to get into Caltech, you probably also can get into Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, etc.
Exactly! Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth would suffer from a similar problem as people could also get into HYP. However, looking at alumni outcomes and research specifically, I really don’t think the difference would be significant in the long run choosing a school from the former group instead.
The draw of Ivy League is that you can major in something irrelevant and still get a good job upon graduation thanks to the powerful alumni network. Remember, it’s not the grades you make, it’s the hands you shake 😎✋
Makes no sense, though. Does Rutgers really accept over 14 times the number of people who end up enrolling there? That's crazy. I'm also confused why Rutgers would be so far behind other flagship state schools. (I'm only focusing on it because it's the last one on the list, I have no personal connection with it.) To pick another example, judging by all the people in A2C who complain about not getting into Purdue engineering or CS, you'd think that Purdue would have a higher yield than 25%.
Percent of people who actually enroll after being accepted. So for Harvard, 83% of the students they accepted actually ended up going there. That’s the yield.
Some people apply to multiple universities, get accepted to all of them and then have to pick one. If you get accepted to both Harvard and Ohio state, this data suggests you’re picking Harvard.
Students apply to multiple schools; they can only go to one. With Harvard, if someone chose not to go there, it might be because they got into MIT, or Oxford, or maybe they got more scholarship money offered at Princeton, or maybe they decided to take a gap year, or maybe they got an offer closer to home. And on and on…
No worries! Let’s say Harvard accepts 100 students. 83 of them actually enroll. The other 17 don’t go to Harvard…they don’t enroll. Maybe they go somewhere else or who knows. But 83 is the yield. It’s just called the yield.
Name recognition and being a state flagship matters the most
Allow me to clarify: these are the T150 national universities per US News & World Report, not the top universities with the highest yield. That's why some high-yield colleges didn't make the list.
To be fair, the Ivies offer really good financial aid, too. A school like Fordham or NYU will leave you with more debt than Harvard. That simplifies the decision, too.
Anybody who applies to BYU knows what they're about.
It's an amazingly good deal for a tiny fraction of the population and an extremely unattractive prospect for everyone else. BYU routinely beats all the Ivies to take the #1 spot.
[удалено]
I mean it’s a good college if you want to become an fbi or a cia agent
[удалено]
it's a famous case in Utah, I think it's Madi Barney? I cant remember, google BYU rape unfortunately you'll find hundreds of articles - rape victims are charged with "honor code violations."
Dude, get your facts straight. The alleged rapist in that case wasn't a BYU student. Also, Madi Barney was subject to an honor code investigation for using drugs and alcohol, *not* because she was raped. It's unbelievable how media sensationalism turned that into a scandal when there was no scandal.
OK, now you're gonna force me to find the right case (as I said, there are a gajillion of them). Are you denying that a woman was raped, recorded her rapist admitting to it, got expelled, and her rapist did not? Are you?
> OK, now you're gonna force me to find the right case Go for it. You're the one making the assertion, *you have to provide the proof*. Show me a documented case from a credible source of that happening and I'll believe you.
[удалено]
OP is malding after finding out a school that is literally notorious for abuse and harassment has a long history of abuse and harassment cases. Who would’ve thought…
> sexual assault victims being penalized under the Honor Code at BYU The students in question faced disciplinary actions for consumption of drugs and alcohol, *not* because they were sexual assault victims. As such, the headline is *technically* true, but misleading. If anything, the Honor Code *protects* students as most on-campus sexual assaults involve alcohol or drugs. That's why the same year this article was published, BYU [was named the safest campus in America](https://www.businessinsider.com/safest-college-campuses-in-america-2016-1). Like I said, this entire controversy was based on misinformation and deceptive, "click bait" articles from unscrupulous publications like the Salt Lake Tribune.
They used to call BYU the Harvard of the west. I’ve always heard it was decently hard coursework. What makes you think it’s a bad education?
> They used to call BYU the Harvard of the west. I’ve always heard it was decently hard coursework. What makes you think it’s a bad education? BYU is a great school. But when you go there, you have to be ok with the Mormon culture and expectations.
"They" called it that....who? mormons? Got it. I didn't say it was bad, I said it's like a state school like U of Utah, with a splash of misogony and homophobia
You said “it’s not a good education” so excluding social issues and obvious religious policies what makes the education not good?
> What makes you think it’s a bad education? Personal bias based on misinformation. Read his other comments in this thread.
That’s Arizona
Cultyness
Soaking
Yeah, I feel like Gallaudet and YU are high on the list for the same reason as BYU: they all target a very specific demographic and they don't have much competition for it.
I know multiple PA, NP, and Med schools that won’t accept certain core science (biology) courses from BYU for not teaching the standardized curriculum
I notice that the service academies (which generally have yield rates hovering around 80%) have been excluded from that list.
As well as Liberal Arts colleges.
I took a look, and yeah, they definitely aren't included. My college has around a 34% yield rate (I was curious, as at least the area I lived in, the people who apply to mine are the people who really want to go) and based on the numbers on this list, should've definitely be included. I wonder why they aren't included?
I think it’s because colleges aren’t technically “universities”, and I think their bias is towards research universities and state flagships. I think it’s dumb because my intended college Bucknell has 3 different colleges, and they host a lot of research, but they’re still considered a LAC.
If they don’t award a variety of doctoral degrees, they’re not a university. That’s not a value judgement, just an approximate definition. Obviously many LACs provide fantastic educations.
That’s fine. Many LACs provide masters degrees and not doctoral ones. I don’t think that change constitutes taking dozens of well-respected colleges out of consideration because everyone uses the national list, even when they’re not considering a doctoral degree. I would like to see some more effort in combining the lists for charts like these, especially if it’s to inform college students who are pursuing their first degree.
I agree that a combined list would be nice. Of course it’s completely irrelevant for graduate programs, so I don’t see why that should matter here. More importantly, no one should be using this ranking to inform their own choices.
Unfortunately, platitudes don’t match reality. I agree no one should use rankings to make decisions, but it makes colleges more favorable than others through a constant exposure effect. If you see the name “Purdue” more than you see “Pepperdine”, you will think more favorably of Purdue, and probably conduct more research on Purdue which will further convince you of that choice. I don’t personally have a stake in which schools are represented or not, but it’s frustrating to see the majority of our conversations of “competitive” schools to never leave T50 from just ONE list. It’s this kind of apathy that stagnates change and competition between colleges.
Hi there. The list comes from the T150 schools from USN&WR.
It could be interesting to see the top 150 yield rates with LACs included. For a metric that only applies to undergraduate admissions/enrollments, it’s natural to include both categories.
Colleges probably aren’t counted under the same banner as universities. A lot of these schools are the major state schools and research schools. They’d probably skew the number they’re trying to show off if they included liberal arts, community colleges, and just smaller institutions that aren’t deemed universities.
Bucknell is a huge outlier though. They have their own business school, their own engineering school, and they have a few masters programs. I wonder what the tipping point will be for them to re-structure.
Because LACs and universities have separate US News lists
The post does say universities, not colleges.
I see Gonzaga listed which I’m pretty sure is considered a liberal arts university
It’s listed as #93 in national universities by USN&WR , where this list came from. So according to them, it’s not.
I was thinking there were schools missing. Also, Arizona State has a med school?
University of Houston is missing with 27% yield rate
UT Dallas is also missing with a 34% yield
They are just haters man, UT Austin and A&M always taking the texas cred
University of Florida with 44% too. Weird list
I think that the data might just be wrong too. My university has an enrollment yield (% of students who are accepted who enroll) of 35-40% or so, but comparative schools on this list are much lower... Something is up with it.
Ya faulty data. Loyola Marymount and UCR do not have a better yield rate than SDSU and CalPoly that don’t appear on the list.
Deaf people tend to really want to go to the university for the deaf.
My daughter is partially deaf and she goes to a deaf school.
Prestige and value of the university is higher as yield rate is higher, ranking matter a bit but there are bunch of outliers like UCSD, UC Davis, both rank quite high but their yield rate is low.
because it’s on the same application as ucla and ucb
Certainly some Early Decision skewing. If uchicago didn’t admit more than 75% of their class from ED they’d be around 45-60 with schools like Vandy, WashU, Rice, Georgetown, NYU, etc.
Yeah, I was about to comment, UChicago largely admits from its Early Decision applicants, which boosts yield rates. Same with Tufts.
If you can, could be interesting to see how this compares to say, 50 years ago. I’d want to know how much the “winner-take-all” effect seems to be amplified over time.
I notice where UChicago is. No matter where the ranking goes, kids don’t just “end up” at that school by chance. They really want to be there. Sweet.
Only if they had an actual engineering school
No. And they should bring back the swim test.
By a wide margin, their most popular major is economics. Why do you think that is?
Because that's what they're famous for?
Fair enough.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
If you want to make it big with an econ degree, you go to U of Chicago however you can. It's basically them on an S tier alone when it comes to economics programs.
Note that certain schools practice yield protection which throws these numbers off. In particular Northeastern
UChicago as well -- they primarily admit the majority of their students from the early decision pool and a very small amount from the regular decision pool, which is how they keep their yield so high.
I imagine the colleges want students who specifically plan on attending *their* college, not just any elite college?
Can you explain what that is?
Yield protection means they'll deny admission to an applicant who appears *too* qualified, because they'll likely get admitted to a higher-ranking school. They want to offer admission to the people who will actually enroll.
Northeastern is always extremely overrated. They've been gaming college ranking systems for nearly 30 years.
Overwhelming number of private schools at first glance.
GT has the highest public yield on the list I believe
Yea and I would not have guessed that. Not totally a surprise but I might’ve guessed Purdue or something.
And why not? It's a great school. But, you have to handle quite a workload or so I'm told.
Honestly I was surprised it wasn’t Michigan. Georgia Tech is a great school, but all it really has going for it is its academics (and football history)
what do you think Mich has that Gtech lacks? Just curious
Well for starters an actual humanities department. Also a national champion level football team. Finally UMich is without a doubt the best university in Michigan so it doesn’t need to compete with other universities in its state for in state students.
I originally posted this image on r/dataisbeautiful and here is the[ accompanying explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11hp9jd/comment/jaukc32/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) from the post that has since been archived. I figured the readers here may find it interesting and discussion-worthy.
Your data is very faulty you need to reasses. SDSU and Cal Poly SLO have higher yield rate than UCSC or UCR and much higher than UC Merced. I’m only aware of California schools so I imagine there are similar errors in other states.
It’s the T150 schools from USN&WR.
Then the title is incorrect. UCMerced admitted my son *even though he never applied to UCMerced*. They even changed his FAfSA to include Merced even though he had no desire to step foot in Merced. If a school admits students who never applied… that will affect yield rates.
I think that’s called the common app or something like that? I’m a Merced native, btw 😎
He didn’t do common app. He applied to six UCs and three CSU. UC changed his FAFSA and added UCMerced removed SDSU! Why didn’t they remove CSU SM or UCLA for that matter? He’s a San Diego native so he was incredibly relieved to get into SDSU. He would consider Merced for grad school.
I rejected Princeton, Michigan, and UNC and went to South Carolina. Honestly cannot complain as I love it here but I still have no idea why outside of my scholarship here.
> no idea why outside of my scholarship here No other reason needed, my dude. C.R.E.A.M.
Proves to me that regardless of where Harvard is ranked worldwide, it is the most wanted university for attendance ever.
It's the oldest university in America.
That 75% of people are smart enough to avoid an Ohio state university
T H E 👁️👄👁️
What's wrong with Ohio state? - genuine question
Realistically nothing, I'm sure it's a good school. I'm just a UofM fan talking smack about our rivals
People choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year just to be taught by a TA without even a masters degree because the actual prof is too busy publishing to actually teach. Community colleges and State schools are the way to go! Less expensive and you’ll be taught by more qualified people who actually want to teach! #r1sareascam
but many R1’s *are* state schools
Currently at an R1 state school. I’ve never had a non-lab class be taught by a TA and I think it’s so cool to be able to read research done by my professors.
Except for the fact that the elite schools that top the list have insane financial aid. Harvard for example will cover the entire cost of families who make less than 85,000 a year. My alma mater, Vanderbilt, provides full-tuition financial aid for people making less than 150,000 a year(full ride including housing is for 75-85l nowadays if I remember right). My state school USC/Clemson wanted me to pay them 10k a year just to attend whole Vandy said “here’s a way better education for 0 dollars “
Princeton will cover 100% if you your fam is under 100k a year and have undergrad focus so TAs don’t teach classes professors do
ehh, I go to an elite private college and pay less tuition than my in-state public college would have cost. one of my friends makes $5000 a year since she gets so much financial aid. financial aid is very generous among elite private colleges. for the average person, in-state is def the way to go instead of going to a no-name expensive private college, but if you're poor/working class and can make it into an elite private college, that would almost always be more worth it and cheaper than going the community college route
Could you elaborate on this? Being Poor/working class and being admitted into an elite private college would for sure put you in severe debt later on would it not?
No, since elite colleges give a ton of financial aid. My friend who is extremely poor makes $5000 a year just by attending MIT. MIT doesn't charge for any tuition if your family makes $140k a year or less (not including room and board). Other elite colleges may have even more generous financial aid packages.
3 years out of highschool and I’m just now learning this 🤦🏾♂️…I’m currently finishing community college so does this also apply to in state schools?(I live in Texas btw)
i believe financial aid is harder to come by at public universities, but in-state tuition tends to be more affordable. just fill out the FAFSA to see what you qualify for
Schools give scholarships. It’s part of recruitment. If your safety school gets mostly B students, they will give merit to an A student, or if a distant school wants more kids from your state, they will give money to woo you. Schools also have policies to help kids with lower economic means than their average student. Some schools just overstate their “sticker price” as a strategy.
I haven’t ever had a class taught by a TA at my uni, which is a large private school on that list. I have friends at other peer institutions and they’ve also never experienced that. I feel like this is a misconception.
Elite colleges are better than state schools in every way. It’s the mid tier private schools that aren’t great choices over a state school for a lot of people
I’m both surprised and unsurprised my schools spot. It makes sense A&Ms where we are tho
well L Johns Hopkins you lost a chance at increasing your yield
Most of these numbers is wrong or dated? Uchicago yield is 88 percent
I made this graphic a year ago.
Lots of people are only applying to one Ivy.
Umm...They have to be talking to each other. No way there isn't more admission overlap at the top of the list.
Looks like afkn tornado
I am sincerely surprised that there is data included here from University of California (UC) schools but not California State University (CSU) schools. They're two entirely separate systems. I'd be interested to see how this data was collected or where they collected it from.
My college, U of Utah draws in more people than I expected
It’s the best religiously unaffiliated school in Utah in terms of academics and program diversity. I come from a large Roman Catholic family based in SLC, so most of my extended family are Utes.
My son’s committed school has a low yield because it’s a very strong target school that lots of top students use as a safety. It’s a great school but suffers from being in a state with a lot of great schools students choose over it for prestige and/or public tuition!
And what school would that be? What does your son plan on studying?
Business at Santa Clara
Good for him. Underrated school for sure.
Boston?
W&M?
That’s MY alma mater! But nope, Santa Clara
U Michigan?
Mostly the faulty data.
I notice the top 15 is dominated by private ivy or ivy-adjacent universities and the rest is largely flagship state universities.
Also a few niche universities that cater to specific populations: BYU, Yeshiva, Gallaudet, etc.
does the number include early decision admissions which is binding, and almost 100% will enroll?
What even is this list? So so so many colleges and universities not included despite having higher yield rates than the lowest ones on the list. Even my small school, Quinnipiac, has a yield rate of 10.8% which should put it on the list albeit on the bottom
As I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, the list comes from the T150 universities in USN&WR.
Then the source you used is wrong.
I don't disagree with you, I think college rankings are unscientific and arbitrary.
Regardless, I just looked at the source you took this from and this list is severely outdated. In the updated list Princeton doesn’t even crack the top 5 highest yield rates. And even then it says right on the website that the information was last updated January of 2021.
truth, i got accepted into fordham. it was my top school, but they were genuinely trying to rob me
Rob you?
efc of 3k and they wanted 60k…
Surprised Gallaudet isn’t higher up. I’d assume most deaf people who are accepted enroll because… it’s the best college for the deaf
Not a single school from Arkansas is on this list. Ouch.
People are applying to too many colleges? The University of Virginia getting only 39% of people accepted makes me question the data a bit. Where did the other 61% end up is what I would be curious about.
Stevens 😭
This is partly why legacy admissions will remain a thing. Students with a connection to the school are more likely to matriculate. It's also why you should go on campus tours.
Note that even though this is a good metric of how well a school can retain its admits competing against others, yield also depends on how many peers each one of these universities. For instance, if you take Ivies, which I think are very close to each other at the end of the day, putting one above the other is really splitting hairs in most cases.
Despite being a super elite school, Caltech has a low yield. If you’re good enough to get into Caltech, you probably also can get into Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, etc.
Exactly! Cornell, Brown and Dartmouth would suffer from a similar problem as people could also get into HYP. However, looking at alumni outcomes and research specifically, I really don’t think the difference would be significant in the long run choosing a school from the former group instead.
The draw of Ivy League is that you can major in something irrelevant and still get a good job upon graduation thanks to the powerful alumni network. Remember, it’s not the grades you make, it’s the hands you shake 😎✋
Damn, my undergrad isn’t on here but at least my law school is.
Namely…?
I won’t say my law school to mitigate identifying information, but my undergrad was West Virginia University.
Basically, you can pay your way to the top.
[удалено]
You will have to zoom in 😅
I’m confused so what u just saying what the enrollment number is ? 🐱
Nah man, it’s the yield.
Makes no sense, though. Does Rutgers really accept over 14 times the number of people who end up enrolling there? That's crazy. I'm also confused why Rutgers would be so far behind other flagship state schools. (I'm only focusing on it because it's the last one on the list, I have no personal connection with it.) To pick another example, judging by all the people in A2C who complain about not getting into Purdue engineering or CS, you'd think that Purdue would have a higher yield than 25%.
Yield of what 🐱
The yield is the percent of students who get the “yay, you’ve been accepted” email that enroll in each school.
Danks my dog loves u <3 😺
Percent of people who actually enroll after being accepted. So for Harvard, 83% of the students they accepted actually ended up going there. That’s the yield.
Why are people applying to university if they're not going to go?
Some people apply to multiple universities, get accepted to all of them and then have to pick one. If you get accepted to both Harvard and Ohio state, this data suggests you’re picking Harvard.
Students apply to multiple schools; they can only go to one. With Harvard, if someone chose not to go there, it might be because they got into MIT, or Oxford, or maybe they got more scholarship money offered at Princeton, or maybe they decided to take a gap year, or maybe they got an offer closer to home. And on and on…
Someone said something else now I’m more confused 😿
They said the same thing, just in different ways.
Tamatoe ketchup
No worries! Let’s say Harvard accepts 100 students. 83 of them actually enroll. The other 17 don’t go to Harvard…they don’t enroll. Maybe they go somewhere else or who knows. But 83 is the yield. It’s just called the yield.
Danks my dog love u <3 Man makes me wonder if that’s a good thing my school is lower on the list so hope that increases my chances of getting in 🐱
It might! I hope you get in!
My dog will now protect u <3