Skip to main content

Yes, your yield rate is still falling



In 2015, I wrote this post on falling yield rates.  It was pretty obvious to many of us in the profession that this trend was widespread, and largely driven by a dramatic increase in applications against a more modest increase in actual students who could or would enroll.

It apparently wasn't so obvious to everyone.  Response was much stronger than I thought it would be, and I never had seen so many requests from people who wanted to share it with their trustees (btw, this is public; you never have to ask permission to share).

So I redid it, using trend data from 2005 to 2018.  First a couple of definitions:


  • Admit rate is the percentage of applicants who were offered admission (admits/applicants).
  • Yield rate is the percentage of admitted students who enroll (enrollers/admits).
  • Draw rate is not commonly known, and I wish I remember who first mentioned it to me in the 1980's.  It stuck with me and is a valuable metric, I think, as we attempt to measure market position.  It's Yield Rate/Admit Rate, and it sorts out the super-selective places even within the category.  For example, The Average Draw Rate is about .46; Stanford's is 18, and Dartmouth's is about 7.  It's intended to punish institutions who artificially inflate application numbers to appear to be more selective, as yield usually drops when you do that.  Of course, now many colleges manipulate this (even if they don't know it) by using ED, ED2, EA, etc. to drive yield higher.
  • The universe is about 2,000 four-year public and private, not-for-profit institutions that report admissions data to IPEDS.  Open admissions institutions are not required to do so.
There are just two views on this.  The first shows two charts.  On the top, you see the total applications, admits, and enrolling students over time.  Use the control at top right (purple box) to change the value on the blue line to show admit, yield, or draw, as you like.  The bottom chart shows the percentage increase since 2005 of those same numbers.

If you don't want to look at the whole universe, use the filters (orange boxes).  You can choose any subset of institutions you wish: Public institutions in the Southeast, for instance; or Doctoral institutions; or even a single institution if that's what you want.

The second tab (across the top) is for Enrollment people or anyone who wants to compare one institution to another.  Choose your focus institution on the top chart (Boston University is the starting value, but you can choose any institution); then create a comparison group on the bottom chart.  For instance, Michigan State might want to compare itself to Land Grant Universities in the Great Lakes Region.  Three clicks is all it takes.  Highlight the year to, well, highlight a specific year.

Let me know what you think, and, of course feel free to share with others at your institution.  This may answer a lot of "what" questions, and maybe a few "why" questions, but the answers don't always provide insight.

That's what they pay you for.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

On Rankings, 1911, and Economic Mobility

If you're alive today, you have lived your whole life with college rankings.  Yes, even you.  You may not have knows you were living in the time of college rankings, but indeed, you have been, unless you were born before 1911 (or maybe earlier.)  If you're interested, you can read this Twitter thread from 2020 where I discuss them and include snippets of those 1911 rankings as well as those from 1957, written by Chesley Manly. You can read for yourself, or you can trust me, that in fact the rankings as we know them have been surprisingly consistent over time, and most people would have only minor quibbles with the ratings from 1911.  Perhaps that's because they have always tended to measure the same thing. But what if we did different rankings?  No, not like the Princeton Review where they make an attempt to measure best party school, or best cafeteria food, or worst social life.  Something more quantifiable and concrete, although still, admittedly, a hard thing to get rig

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs