Skip to main content

Yes, Your Yield Rate is Falling

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education pointed out the things colleges are doing to bolster their yield rates.  This of course, raised an interesting question among many outside of higher education: What's a yield rate?

Colleges admit many more students than they want to enroll, of course.  But let's say you want to enroll a class of 1,000.  How many, exactly, do you need to admit?  Most of the students you admit will have more offers than the ones you send, and they can only enroll in one place. So, if you admit 2,000, you need exactly half of them to enroll, which would mean a yield rate of 50%.  If you're not confident you can get that kind of yield, you admit more: 2,500 with a 40% yield rate gets you that same number (40% of 2,500).  But with most institutions, yield rates are closer to 30%, so that means 3,333.  Or thereabouts.

Alas, many colleges are afraid of that admit rate (the percentage of applicants admitted) getting too high, because for many parents and students, a low admission rate is a proxy for quality: An admit rate of 15% means (to some) that an institution is better than one with an admit rate of 30%.  And so on.  Part of what they do is generate "softer" applications, via a variety of methods I've talked about many times, ad nauseam. But the problem is that you don't know precisely who a soft app is, so you can't just take the same number of students, because the soft apps (with lower propensity to yield) will bring down your yield rate.  So admit rates fall, but ultimately, so do yield rates.

Managing and reviewing more applications is expensive, and if you care greatly about that admit rate, you try to keep it as low as possible and still make your class, by raising the yield.  Looking at demonstrated interest is one way; using financial aid more strategically is another; and finally, good old fashioned tactical approaches are another still.  Many places use all three.

Here is what our wheel spinning and tail chasing has spawned: Thirteen years of increasing applications, increasing admit rates, and decreasing yield and draw rates (draw is a better measure of market position vis-a-vis competitors because it punishes you if you try to appear more selective at the price of yield).

The first view here shows colleges in groups, starting with all 1,432 public and private not-for-profit, four-year, degree granting colleges in the US that admit freshmen in the traditional Carnegie classifications (Baccalaureate, Master's and Doctoral, excluding Baccalaureate-Associates colleges). You can use the filters to look at any combination of variables you'd like to see how things have changed.

The second view (using the tab across the top) allows you to use the filter to select any single college. And, if you're like most people, the first ones you select will be the big names, who trends appear to move in the opposite direction of the industry as a whole.  Which means, that for all those institutions trying to look like they're in the RBL (REALLY Big Leagues), all your effort has put you farther behind.

What do you see? Leave a comment below.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Baccalaureate origins of doctoral recipients

Here's a little data for you: 61 years of it, to be precise.  The National Science Foundation publishes its data on US doctoral recipients sliced a variety of ways, including some non-restricted public use files that are aggregated at a high level to protect privacy. The interface is a little quirky, and if you're doing large sets, you need to break it into pieces (this was three extracts of about 20 years each), but it may be worth your time to dive in. I merged the data set with my mega table of IPEDS data, which allows you to look at institutions on a more granular level:  It's not surprising to find that University of Washington graduates have earned more degrees than graduates of Whitman College, for instance.  So, you can filter the data by Carnegie type, region or state, or control, for instance; or you can look at all 61 years, or any range of years between 1958 and 2018 and combine it with broad or specific academic fields using the controls. High school and indep

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects. I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you. However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in