Skip to main content

Yes, your yield rate is still falling, v 2020

I started doing this post on a regular basis several years ago, in response (if I recall) to a colleague talking about their Board of Trustees Chair insisting that "all we need to do" to bring enrollment back to its former level is to get the yield rate up.  

That's the equivalent of saying all you need to do is straighten your drives and cut ten putts from each round, and you'll be a great golfer.  Moreover, it's based on the assumption that a falling yield rate is based on something you're doing or not doing.  The challenge is much larger, and a lot harder to address.  It's not a switch you flip.

So we've got this: A look at applications, admits, and enrolls over the last twenty years, and three key ratios that are based on those numbers: Admit rate, or the percentage of applicants offered admission; yield rate, or the percentage of those offered admission who enroll; and the lesser-known draw rate, which is calculated by dividing the yield rate by the admit rate.  It's a much better indication of market power and market position, and it's much harder to manipulate than admit rate; in fact, if you try to manipulate admit rates, it's likely the cost will be a lower yield and a drop in draw rate.

Side note: Talking about admission data is a lot more fun when I am not tempted to add test scores to the mix.

The displays:

Admissions overview shows applications, admits, and enrolls for all colleges reporting data (with the exception of some very small colleges, some seminaries and Yeshivas, and other colleges with spotty data.)  It also shows the admit rate, yield rate, and draw rates over time.  You know how the filters work; use them to limit the data displayed, including showing a single institution if you wish.  Hover over a bar or line for the details.

The takeaway: Applications have gone up dramatically because more students are applying to more colleges.  This doesn't change the fact that one student can only go to one college at a time

Most applications by state just shows which institutions in each state received the most applications in 2020.  Choose a region if you want to get to your data of interest quicker.

Admit rates by gender at highly rejective colleges addresses the concerns of some about disparities in admit rates by gender.  You can see overall admit rates, as well as those for men and women.  Since this mostly comes into play at colleges where they select a class rather than admit a class, this only shows colleges with overall admit rates of less than 40%.

Rates just displays the rates for each college.  Choose a year, region or control if you wish.  You can sort the data by any column by hovering over the axis and clicking the little icon that appears.  Click three times to sort ascending, descending, and alphabetically.  You can always reset using the controls at bottom right.

Finally, you know I always ask you to tell me what surprises you on the views.  I found a surprise: Applications to the Ivy League fell for the first time since 2004, when people cared a lot less about this stuff.  The interesting thing to me is that no one had mentioned this, as far as I can remember.  And, as a reminder, applications to these universities were due a few months before COVID shut everything down, so while COVID might have affected enrollment numbers and yield rate, it's unlikely to have affected application numbers.

Dig in, dive in, and let me know what you see.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Changes in AP Scores, 2022 to 2024

Used to be, with a little work, you could download very detailed data on AP results from the College Board website: For every state, and for every course, you could see performance by ethnicity.  And, if you wanted to dig really deep, you could break out details by private and public schools, and by grade level.  I used to publish the data every couple of years. Those days are gone.  The transparency The College Board touts as a value seems to have its limits, and I understand this to some extent: Racists loved to twist the data using single-factor analysis, and that's not good for a company who is trying to make business inroads with under-represented communities as they cloak their pursuit of revenue as an altruistic push toward access. They still publish data, but as I wrote about in my last post , it's far less detailed; what's more, what is easily accessible is fairly sterile, and what's more detailed seems to be structured in a way that suggests the company doesn...

Educational Attainment and the Presidential Elections

I've been fascinated for a while by the connection between political leanings and education: The correlation is so strong that I once suggested that perhaps Republicans were so anti-education because, in general, places with a higher percentage of bachelor's degree recipients were more likely to vote for Democrats. The 2024 presidential election puzzled a lot of us in higher education, and perhaps these charts will show you why: We work and probably hang around mostly people with college degrees (or higher).  Our perception is limited. With the 2024 election data just out , I thought I'd take a look at the last three elections and see if the pattern I noticed in 2016 and 2020 held.  Spoiler: It did, mostly. Before you dive into this, a couple of tips: Alaska's data is always reported in a funky way, so just ignore it here.  It's a small state (in population, that is) and it's very red.  It doesn't change the overall trends even if I could figure out how to c...

Changes in SAT Scores after Test-optional

One of the intended consequences of test-optional admission policies at some institutions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was to raise test scores reported to US News and World Report.  It's rare that you would see a proponent of test-optional admission like me admit that, but to deny it would be foolish. Because I worked at DePaul, which was an early adopter of the approach (at least among large universities), I fielded a lot of calls from colleagues who were considering it, some of whom were explicit in their reasons for doing so.  One person I spoke to came right out at the start of the call: She was only calling, she said, because her provost wanted to know how much they could raise scores if they went test-optional. If I sensed or heard that motivation, I advised people against it.  In those days, the vast majority of students took standardized admission tests like the SAT or ACT, but the percentage of students applying without tests was still relatively small; the ne...