Widgets Magazine

Stanford undergraduate yield rate rises to 78.9 percent

The Office of Undergraduate Admission at Stanford reported on Monday that 78.9 percent of admitted students had accepted their offer of admission to Stanford to join the Class of 2018. This represents a 2.9 percent jump from

Yield Graphic

(Victor Xu/The Stanford Daily)

the 76.7 percent yield for the Class of 2017 and the highest yield of enrolled students in Stanford’s history.

This means that roughly 1,690 students have enrolled to join the Class of 2018 out of the 2,138 students who were admitted.

These numbers are still preliminary, and are subject to change until the final class statistics are presented in September, according to Colleen Lim M.A. ’80, associate director of undergraduate admission.

“Any way you look at it, the Class of 2018 is extraordinary,” Lim said. “We anticipated that our overall yield would increase due to Stanford’s outstanding reputation and … the 8.5 percent increase in applications, but we were very pleased with these amazing results.”

Lim noted that the incoming class has a 50/50 split of male and female matriculants and represents students from all 50 U.S. states and 57 other countries.


Contact Nitish Kulkarni at nitishk2 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Nitish Kulkarni

Nitish Kulkarni '16 is a senior majoring in Mechanical Engineering. He writes about technology and breaking news, and runs online content sections. Email him at nitishk2 'at' stanford.edu.
  • tree

    Could someone please explain what the significance of yield to admit ratio is and why it’s cool that Stanford’s is greater than Harvard’s this year? Thanks!

  • Xyz

    Yield and admit rates are the 2 most notable factors released every year by top colleges. (other is cross matriculation rate which is hardly ever released). So a high yield and a low admission rate would in turn give a high yield/admission rate ratio, which can be used to compare colleges current popularity.

  • Lala

    That changed after 2006 sir. Now I’d say Stanford wins more than 70% over Yale now. I knew 35 people (including me) who were Stanford-Yale cross admits and 28 chose Stanford. I know it doesnt represent any substantial group, but the general popularity of Stanford over Yale is obvious now. (it was 50-50 in 2012 as seen in the link posted above.

  • Puma_01

    The New York Times chart is an estimate based on a survey and not reliable. Stanford released (perhaps inadvertently) the actual figures in a 2010 faculty senate report (that has since been pulled from its website). The report revealed that in 2006 Y-S cross admits actually chose Yale 70% of the time. However, it also confirmed that by 2010 the split was 50-50. That is the only time I’ve ever seen an official report with these types of figures and I doubt Stanford will again release this type of information any time soon.

  • LFPadmin

    Those numbers are blatantly wrong. There is no way in h*ll that Stanford beats yale by 40%. If anything, Yale still has a slight lead, as indicated by Puma_01’s comment. I figured that i’d face a bit of bias on a Stanford board, but please try to be realistic. Yale is Yale. Its name alone is enough to drive most East Coasters crazy. Though I HIGHLY doubt that you know 35 Y/S cross admits, your numbers are not indicative of a general theme (are you from Cali? That might explain it…). At my school (in TX), 11/11 cross admits chose yale. The “general popularity” of which you speak is only apparent in California and the western states. Please, show some integrity.

  • Puma_01

    Another point LFPadmin, Stanford has always had a high percentage of California students, but that percentage has actually gone down in recent years. 20 years ago it was about 45%. It is now only about 39% of undergraduates. So it would be hard to attribute Stanford’s dramatic increase in yield to geography.

    I think the attached chart (published by the Yale Daily News) really captures how dramatic things have changed in Stanford’s favor in recent years. For the Class of 2010 the admit rates of Harvard, Yale and Princeton were all lower than Stanford. But by the Class of 2014, Stanford trailed only Harvard. Today, even Harvard has been left in the dust.

  • tree

    But why not just look at each individually? Why does the ratio matter?

  • W8list

    Check cc thread. Apparently 2 heard of so far. One girl from Cambridge, another guy from Guam

  • curiousgeorge

    Com’on marcus, it is just different game on yield by each. In Stanford’s case, the rest of EA applicants were deferred. Can S disclose the number of deferred who were admitted as RA? The preference of these group would be the same as those EAs. Using the EA admission rate to explain yield pump does not stand well before more data is disclosed.

  • curiousgeorge

    I agree. Lala, you may try this simple math: suppose the claims that S wins over all Ivys + M on yield by the big margins you have anticipated (i.e. S:Y > 70:30 this year from 50:50 in year 2012, and so on). Suppose the cross-admit numbers do not decrease from the previous years (actually students tend to apply to more colleges these days, and assume S admission does not single out applicants admitted by Ivys + M). Please come up with a valid path that S yield leads Y’s by only a few points! 🙂

  • LFPadmin

    It’s also important to consider the fact that 40+% of S’s class comes from Cali… as in, they don’t have to move to a new state. This is certainly not the case for Yale. I’d be more interested in seeing S’s east coast cross admit data vs Y’s west coast cross admit data.

  • marcus

    Curious, do you ever fact check? seriously step it up hombre.

    Among Early applicants, Harvard deferred 68.1% of applicants. Princeton deferred 78.9% of applicants. And Yale deferred 57.6% of applicants. How about Stanford, you ask? They deferred only 8.5% of the pool.

    This year, Princeton rejected 1.3% of applicants, Harvard 7.8%, and Yale 25.8%. Stanford’s rejection rate? 80.7%!

    it’s pretty obvious that Harvard.. and Y/P do a lot of gaming with their stats as these deferral stats demonstrate.

    oh.. btw Stanford’s admit rate next year will be sub 5%. but no fear, Harvard is a respectable safety.

  • curiosgeorge

    marcus, you just keep missing the relevance–Can not have a good argument if you keep doing it your way :-). The numbers you gave are not relevant to the ones that really matter in this context(various EA rates and their impacts to the matriculation yields). The key piece of data missing that matters in this context is the # RAs each college took out of its deferred list. The percentage deferred does not really matter, as long as not all deferred got RAs later.

  • curiosgeorge

    To be more clear, S could have admitted all the deferred(even a small percentage from EA pool), if it wants to play the yield game. Who knows before the actual relevant data comes out? S definitely has as much control to its yield as other colleges.

  • marcus

    you’re obviously oblivious to stats. distributions are bell shaped not square. Stanford defers only 8% (despite your fiction that the rest are deferred). Harvard defers 68% – your pet theories don’t hold water. come back with stats.. not your unlikely low probability rationalizations. seriously that’s the best you got?

  • marcus

    Harvard is gaming yield…. 24% EA (that’s ridiculously high) and deferring 68% (laughably high).
    Stanford 10% EA deferring 8%.

  • curiousgeorge

    stats happens to be my specialty:-). It won’t give you valid result if the data it uses is manipulated. Before you prove that your data is not manipulated, your stats don’t mean anything. 🙂

  • marcus

    you’re confusing your rationalizations with probability… a common aliment these days:) btw.. that’s how I make money:)

  • curiousgeorge

    Buddy, I wish the money you would make of that way is good:-).

    Any school, including S, could lower down its EA rates by pushing some of the EAs to the RA stage, without impacting its eventual yield. This is because deferring an EA decision is not going to affect applicant’s desire level to matriculate this school. Suppose school “S” defers an EA applicant, then admits him during RA. If this applicant likes “S” so much, he will matriculate S eventually, and the impact to the yield is none. If this applicant was not sure if “S” was definitely the school to matriculate, he would have applied for another school’s RA regardless of the EA admission decision from “S”. Therefore, the impact to the yield is still none. It is clear that a lowered published EA rate will not negatively affect a school’s yield. The admission office must know this, and it won’t hurt its yield by publishing a low EA rate.

    Again, EA application pool should be of much higher quality and a much higher EA rate is very reasonable.

  • fx

    Percentage increase over a percentage? Come on, people don’t usually speak that way. That reporter Nitish Kulkarni needs to brush up on his elementary school math.

  • marcus

    rationalize much? why does Harvard count incomplete and withdrawn applications? and increased their EA admissions rate dramatically the past couple of years? Yield and admit gaming. it’s ok you can say it:)

  • curiousgeorge

    Harvard’s 2018 EA rate is 21%, BTW:-) It is understood for Stanford biased to envy Harvard’s ability to attract top applicants, but changing facts easily.invalids your points. Stanford has been recognized as one of the elite schools and has earned vast respects for being able to attract more and more applicants over the last few years, but for elite schools, it is the number of “relevant” applicants (who are considered as “fit”) that matters. Ferrari’s market size is limited. The market is always there. Ferrari does not need to brag on the number of people who have the dream to own one someday!

    To see some stats of this year’s EAs from both Stanford and Harvard, check out the link http://www.collegedata.com/cs/admissions/admissions_tracker_result.jhtml?method=selectCollegeWithDefaultYear&schoolId=444&classYear=2018&profilesCount=654

    The average profile data for Harvard EAs appears to be better than Stanford EAs on SAT, ACT and un-weighted GPA. And traditionally Harvard is very consistent to attract top talents in extracurricular activities.

  • marcus

    Lols.. once you lost your deferred action theory.. (claiming Stanford defers the rest when it’s Harvard that plays that game) you’re onto another.. the curious Ferrari theory. I see that Stanford has higher GPA figures, ACT scores than Harvard for EA class of 2020. so your pet theory that somehow the EA pools are different are just that. your rationalizations. fact is Harvard gets an A in yield and admissions gaming.. high EA admit ratios, high deferred action percentages, counting incomplete and withdrawn applications.

    Your rationalizations better apply to other liberal arts colleges. HYP. Stanford is an engineering and liberal arts college. Harvard is weak in engineering. these days the only job a liberal arts degree at Harvard is going to guarantee you is as a barista at starbucks. just saying:) thanks for playing.

  • curiousgeorge

    🙂 Biased mind will never get it. Alright then. Thanks too.

    Last few words on your bragging about engineering job: Coding workers are being replaced by those from developing world. Leaders/thinkers hire coders, and sometimes lay off some of them. They make rules on how things suppose to work. The truly top students know how to choose the best one for their future (not just today).

  • marcus

    I’m more of Prius guy myself.. but good luck with your Ferrari:) and your rationalizations. I’ll stick with probabilities and stats. btw.. Stanford’s admit rate will be sub 5% next year.

  • en jay gee

    Yield is largely irrelevant without admit rate. For example, a rolling admissions school that admits 100% of applicants will likely also have close to a 100% yield, since people would only bother applying if they decided to matriculate.

    Yield-to-admit ratio might also be considered a measure of the degree to which a school is a “backup.” If people were to value all the schools they applied to equally, and were admitted at the same rates to each, then yield would logically also be equivalent. Hence, schools with ratios less than one would on average be considered a backup.

  • tree

    Why is a school with a 100% admit rate likely to have a 100% yield rate? I would expect a school like that to have a really low yield since it seems more like a backup.

  • marcus

    oh look at that curious.. who’s trying to be more like Stanford? LOLS! like I said a liberal arts education gets you a barista job at Starbucks.


  • marcus

    looky here.. another college trying to be like Stanford. Lols


  • marcus

    built by Stanford guys.. how ironic curious.. don’t you think?

  • Candid One

    This editor is an engineering major. Arithmetic is beneath him.