what kind of yield do schools see?

[Captain Sisko]

Yield meaning % matriculated out of offers. I'd be interested in getting an idea of how many acceptances are actually given out, since the msar only lists interviews and students who accept offers. I would guess that it varies between public and private, and the bigger name schools. But a range would be nice to see.

thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[circulus vitios]

I think US News lists that data for many schools. In general, I believe schools accept about 2x more applicants than they have seats.

 

[Amba]

I think US News lists that data for many schools. In general, I believe schools accept about 2x more applicants than they have seats.

Closer to 3x as many. Well, most private schools on my list are between 31-48% yield, at least.

 

[AlteredScale]

Closer to 3x as many. Well, most private schools on my list are between 31-48% yield, at least.

I'm a bit confused with this. Do they do this because those extra accepted applicants will most likely defer? What happens if that isn't the case and they accept more people than they have seats?

 

[Aerus]

I'm a bit confused with this. Do they do this because those extra accepted applicants will most likely defer? What happens if that isn't the case and they accept more people than they have seats?

No, they do this because a student can only matriculate at one school (duh) and most applicants apply to many different schools and probably have multiple acceptances. You can't win them all.

If they hand out exactly as many offers as seats, they will under enroll and lose money. If they offer too many acceptances that they overenroll, many schools will give offers for people to defer, like full tuition paid for the first year or something like that.

The reason why LOI's are effective at all is because yield issues are a Dean of Admission's worst nightmare. People who are highly likely to matriculate help relieve that problem (granted that they are already qualified).

 

[darkjedi]

The top tiers generally see ~50-60% yield, which steadily goes down to ~20% for the less competitive schools.

 

[Captain Sisko]

The top tiers generally see ~50-60% yield, which steadily goes down to ~20% for the less competitive schools.

So in terms of acceptances, a school like Wright State will interview 450 candidates and matriculate 100. Is it realistic to say they offered to 80% of their interviewees?

Or for pitt, they interview 825 and matriculate 150. So they accept what, 35% of their interviewees? Seems like a wide spread, but is that realistic?

 

[TheBossDoctor]

For private schools, I'd say 25-40%. For state schools, 60-70% for IS applicants and 15-20% for OOS applicants. Those are the trends I've seen in USNews for the schools I'm applying to.

 

[smile8888]

The top tiers generally see ~50-60% yield, which steadily goes down to ~20% for the less competitive schools.

I am wondering, for a school like Northwestern specifically. According to USNW, their yield rate is only ~31%. They are without a doubt, a great top tier school, why are their yield rate so low? Is it because most applicants they accept also receive multiple acceptances at even better schools and they choose to go elsewhere?

 

[yehhhboiii]

I'm a bit confused with this. Do they do this because those extra accepted applicants will most likely defer? What happens if that isn't the case and they accept more people than they have seats?

generally schools accept about twice the number of seats they have and then they move to the waitlist to fill up spots that open up. sometimes schools misjudge and are forced to offer some sort of incentive to their students to open up space or have to unreject people to fill up their seats.

about ten years ago uf had a year where they had a whole bunch of great applicants choosing their school and expected that the year after would be the same. so they accepted a lot fewer people and put 50 people on the waitlist according to someone on sdn. they ended up taking up everyone from the waitlist and had to unreject people. this messed with miami and usf who needed to find students to replace those who chose uf after being unrejected

last year penn state overaccepted and offered people two years of full tuition if they deferred for a year. the year before, it happened at texas a&m which offered $2000 then $6550 to accepted applicants. i heard that utmb offered full tuition/fees when it happened to them as well although i don't remember when it was

 

[Harpsx]

So in terms of acceptances, a school like Wright State will interview 450 candidates and matriculate 100. Is it realistic to say they offered to 80% of their interviewees?

Or for pitt, they interview 825 and matriculate 150. So they accept what, 35% of their interviewees? Seems like a wide spread, but is that realistic?

Pitt accepts nearly 50% of their interviewees, many from the waitlist though.

 

[Goro]

It's an art form really, as to how Admissions Deans overbook the Class to make sure they have enough bottoms to fill the seats. But about 2x is normal for my school, but i wouldn't be surprised if other schools have a higher attrition rate for acceptees.

I think US News lists that data for many schools. In general, I believe schools accept about 2x more applicants than they have seats.

 

[gyngyn]

It's an art form really, as to how Admissions Deans overbook the Class to make sure they have enough bottoms to fill the seats. But about 2x is normal for my school, but i wouldn't be surprised if other schools have a higher attrition rate for acceptees.

It's both an art form and an algorithm based on historical norms and desired outcomes.

 

[Captain Sisko]

It's both an art form and an algorithm based on historical norms and desired outcomes.

I don't suppose you can share your model? I'm not applying to any ca schools except sf, but I'd be curious to see it.

 

[TechToDoc]

Depends on the school, you should get an answer if you ask them directly. Brody and Chapel Hill both cited about 80% matriculation rates at my interviews, stressing that was much higher than usual.

 

[darkjedi]

I am wondering, for a school like Northwestern specifically. According to USNW, their yield rate is only ~31%. They are without a doubt, a great top tier school, why are their yield rate so low? Is it because most applicants they accept also receive multiple acceptances at even better schools and they choose to go elsewhere?

It may just be the way that Northwestern decides on who to extend interviews/acceptances to. They may tend to extend their interviews towards very top-tier candidates, who may eventually go on to places like UCSF or Harvard instead. Other schools may be more selective with their interviews/acceptances, and only accept those who they believe have a very good chance of accepting, such as those with demonstrated interest in the school.

 

[Amba]

I am wondering, for a school like Northwestern specifically. According to USNW, their yield rate is only ~31%. They are without a doubt, a great top tier school, why are their yield rate so low? Is it because most applicants they accept also receive multiple acceptances at even better schools and they choose to go elsewhere?

Cost of attendance/financial aid may play a role in this, as well.

 

[13132]

At my interview Georgetown said they usually sit their class twice basically, but last year many more than expected matriculated.

 

[alpinism]

I am wondering, for a school like Northwestern specifically. According to USNW, their yield rate is only ~31%. They are without a doubt, a great top tier school, why are their yield rate so low? Is it because most applicants they accept also receive multiple acceptances at even better schools and they choose to go elsewhere?

NW generally favors applicants from top undergrads with great stats. Most of these students are from the coasts and/or Ivys. Many get multiple acceptances at top med schools. Given the choice between staying on the east coast nearby friends and family or having to move to Chicago, most choose to stay. Same goes for applicants from CA, most choose UCLA or UCSF for the same reasons plus lower tuition and better weather.

 

[CarlosDanger]

I'm pretty sure the 2x acceptance/matriculation rule applies basically everywhere, theres no way a school has 20% yield. People who get into Harvard also get into Hopkins and UCSF. People who get into Northwestern also get into U. Chicago and Yale. People who get into Tufts also get into BU. Its not perfect but even top schools have turnover.

 

[premed2000]

When admission committees go about evaluating interviewed applicants and who to accept, do they take into account the likelihood of whether a particular student will attend?

The reason I am asking is that I've recently interviewed at one of my dream schools (LizzyM ~ 1.5pts above my LizzyM). And at the interview, most of my fellow applicants have already attended or will be attending interviews at schools that are even more prestigious. I am pretty sure that if they are accepted anywhere else, most of these applicants will be attending elsewhere. But as for me, if I get accepted at this institution, the chances are almost 100% that I will be attending this school. So how often do admissions committee asks themselves "will this student attend if we accept him/her?" or "Will this individual get an acceptance at somewhere better and will go somewhere else?"

 

[sazerac]

When admission committees go about evaluating interviewed applicants and who to accept, do they take into account the likelihood of whether a particular student will attend?

The reason I am asking is that I've recently interviewed at one of my dream schools (LizzyM ~ 1.5pts above my LizzyM). And at the interview, most of my fellow applicants have already attended or will be attending interviews at schools that are even more prestigious. I am pretty sure that if they are accepted anywhere else, most of these applicants will be attending elsewhere. But as for me, if I get accepted at this institution, the chances are almost 100% that I will be attending this school. So how often do admissions committee asks themselves "will this student attend if we accept him/her?" or "Will this individual get an acceptance at somewhere better and will go somewhere else?"

Yes, that is why they ask "why our medical school" on secondaries.

An interesting implication is that is is possible to be overqualified for a particular medical school assuming you have no convincing reason to actually matriculate there.

 

[darkjedi]

I'm pretty sure the 2x acceptance/matriculation rule applies basically everywhere, theres no way a school has 20% yield. People who get into Harvard also get into Hopkins and UCSF. People who get into Northwestern also get into U. Chicago and Yale. People who get into Tufts also get into BU. Its not perfect but even top schools have turnover.

It's definitely very variant. My school I know for sure has a yield of >60%, but I also know that Jeff has a yield of about about 30%. There are also a few schools with yields in the 20's range.

When admission committees go about evaluating interviewed applicants and who to accept, do they take into account the likelihood of whether a particular student will attend?

The reason I am asking is that I've recently interviewed at one of my dream schools (LizzyM ~ 1.5pts above my LizzyM). And at the interview, most of my fellow applicants have already attended or will be attending interviews at schools that are even more prestigious. I am pretty sure that if they are accepted anywhere else, most of these applicants will be attending elsewhere. But as for me, if I get accepted at this institution, the chances are almost 100% that I will be attending this school. So how often do admissions committee asks themselves "will this student attend if we accept him/her?" or "Will this individual get an acceptance at somewhere better and will go somewhere else?"

Yes, this is why I am a strong advocate of writing letters of interests to those schools you really like. Those schools will like to hear that you are very interested, and if they really are your top choice, a letter of intent is a risky, but sometimes worthwhile move.

 

[Goro]

Some schools have very specific missions, and so that why someone from southern IL would be taken over someone from Chicago if applying to SIU. Ditto for UCI/R in SoCAL.

Occasionally, when my AdCom is meeting, someone will say of a guy from, say, NJ, "he'll never come here" and that type of comment is always discounted.

When you go interview at a school, keep in mind that they think you're good enough to make it in their program, so you're interviewing them as well!

When admission committees go about evaluating interviewed applicants and who to accept, do they take into account the likelihood of whether a particular student will attend?

The reason I am asking is that I've recently interviewed at one of my dream schools (LizzyM ~ 1.5pts above my LizzyM). And at the interview, most of my fellow applicants have already attended or will be attending interviews at schools that are even more prestigious. I am pretty sure that if they are accepted anywhere else, most of these applicants will be attending elsewhere. But as for me, if I get accepted at this institution, the chances are almost 100% that I will be attending this school. So how often do admissions committee asks themselves "will this student attend if we accept him/her?" or "Will this individual get an acceptance at somewhere better and will go somewhere else?"

 

[circulus vitios]

Some schools have very specific missions, and so that why someone from southern IL would be taken over someone from Chicago if applying to SIU. Ditto for UCI/R in SoCAL.

Occasionally, when my AdCom is meeting, someone will say of a guy from, say, NJ, "he'll never come here" and that type of comment is always discounted.

When you go interview at a school, keep in mind that they think you're good enough to make it in their program, so you're interviewing them as well!

I guess he wasted a thousand bucks on a plane, hotel, car rental, time off work, etc. for the hell of it?

 

[Captain Sisko]

I guess I should say my motivation for asking the question is that I interviewed at an OOS public, a few states away. I was lucky to score an interview in that msar says about 6% of oos applicants are offered one, and I suspect the majority are from neighboring states. My last interviewer told me that if I didn't get in, I should move to that state and reapply. Now that I've had the tour, fallen in love with the place, and could see myself raising a family there (even after other interviews elsewhere) I'm kind of wondering what are my chances of getting in. Will my oos-status come back to haunt me after all, or was their "screen" done pre-interview?

 

[occams_razor]

It's definitely very variant. My school I know for sure has a yield of >60%, but I also know that Jeff has a yield of about about 30%. There are also a few schools with yields in the 20's range.



Yes, this is why I am a strong advocate of writing letters of interests to those schools you really like. Those schools will like to hear that you are very interested, and if they really are your top choice, a letter of intent is a risky, but sometimes worthwhile move.

why is a letter of intent risky? (Assuming the person is honest and only sending it to one school)

 

[LizzyM]

I guess he wasted a thousand bucks on a plane, hotel, car rental, time off work, etc. for the hell of it?

Exactly! We discount comments from the peanut gallery about who won't come to our school. If they showed up for the interview, we assume they have (or had at the time of the interview) an interest in the school. They might turn us down but we're never going to land a date with a prom queen if we don't go out on a limb and ask.

In fact, we know that X% of those applicants offered admission are going to turn us down and if some year we were wrong and 100% accepted our offer we'd be very surprised and in deep trouble (over-subscribed).

 

[CarlosDanger]

.

 

[darkjedi]

why is a letter of intent risky? (Assuming the person is honest and only sending it to one school)

It is risky because you should only send it to one school. However, if that school decides to waitlist you, you are painted into a corner, as you no longer can use the letter of intent to another school you may have a 'better' chance at.

Generally speaking, you should try to use language that doesn't directly use "number 1 choice" language until you are very sure about where you want to send something like that.

 

[Aerus]

It is risky because you should only send it to one school. However, if that school decides to waitlist you, you are painted into a corner, as you no longer can use the letter of intent to another school you may have a 'better' chance at.

Generally speaking, you should try to use language that doesn't directly use "number 1 choice" language until you are very sure about where you want to send something like that.

I doubt Letters of Intent are taken that much more seriously than Letters of Interest. It's not binding. Even if they find out later after you've already matriculated, I doubt they will do anything (if they even think it's worth the trouble to find out about).

 

[gyngyn]

I doubt Letters of Intent are taken that much more seriously than Letters of Interest. It's not binding. Even if they find out later after you've already matriculated, I doubt they will do anything (if they even think it's worth the trouble to find out about).

Nobody with any sense believes any of these letters. That's why they have little, if any, effect.

 

[darkjedi]

I doubt Letters of Intent are taken that much more seriously than Letters of Interest. It's not binding. Even if they find out later after you've already matriculated, I doubt they will do anything (if they even think it's worth the trouble to find out about).

Nobody with any sense believes any of these letters. That's why they have little, if any, effect.

I can personally attest that letters of interests work. It depends on the school of course, but they are certainly taken seriously at some schools, including mine.

If anything they tend to give an excuse for someone in the adcom to hand review your application for a quick second. That extra second can potentially make the difference between an interview invite/acceptance or waitlist.

 

[Aerus]

I can personally attest that letters of interests work. It depends on the school of course, but they are certainly taken seriously at some schools, including mine.

If anything they tend to give an excuse for someone in the adcom to hand review your application for a quick second. That extra second can potentially make the difference between an interview invite/acceptance or waitlist.

I was talking about letters of intent. Letters of interest do have some effect, depending on the circumstances (what school, your competitiveness of app, the current admission situation, etc.).

But Letters of Intent shouldn't have much more impact than a regular Letter of Interest, as they are not binding in anyway. They're just a Letter of Interest with stronger empty words.

 

[gyngyn]

I can personally attest that letters of interests work. It depends on the school of course, but they are certainly taken seriously at some schools, including mine.

If anything they tend to give an excuse for someone in the adcom to hand review your application for a quick second. That extra second can potentially make the difference between an interview invite/acceptance or waitlist.

Maybe they just don't work in California?

 

[LizzyM]

At least one Dean thinks a letter of intent is no more than a letter of interest. And many think that the senders aren't serious in their commitment and the letters aren't binding so -- eh, who cares.