The Myth of Yield Protection

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
bmore
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby bmore » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:38 am

I don't know what you call it. But in at NYU and Penn and crickets from Mich and UVA.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby 09042014 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:09 pm

bmore wrote:I don't know what you call it. But in at NYU and Penn and crickets from Mich and UVA.


Barely scraping into NYU isn't enough to call YP on Mich and UVA.

lawskyandhutch
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:01 am

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby lawskyandhutch » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:12 pm

The graphs are interesting, but I don't think they disprove YPing. E.g. Look at Penn: 30% in the top decile waitlisted or rejected. UVA: 50%. If there were no yield protection, I think such numbers would be closer to 100%. It's all the about the numbers right? Why else reject large numbers of people in, say, the 172-180 range? I think you've provided strong evidence of YPing at Penn and UVA.

The evidence is less clear at GULC. I don't know which decile has the people who would improve their numbers, but I think if there were no YPing they would admit close to 100% of such people.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby 09042014 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:27 pm

lawskyandhutch wrote:The graphs are interesting, but I don't think they disprove YPing. E.g. Look at Penn: 30% in the top decile waitlisted or rejected. UVA: 50%. If there were no yield protection, I think such numbers would be closer to 100%. It's all the about the numbers right? Why else reject large numbers of people in, say, the 172-180 range? I think you've provided strong evidence of YPing at Penn and UVA.

The evidence is less clear at GULC. I don't know which decile has the people who would improve their numbers, but I think if there were no YPing they would admit close to 100% of such people.


GULC doesn't YP.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby sundance95 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:41 pm

well-hello-there wrote:
Nightrunner wrote:Hey man, at least you led a decent discussion, where people talk about actual facts and stuff.

Seriously, I was really thrown off. I'm too used to 'Guess USNWR 15-25 Next Year!' threads, I guess. Thanks, OP.

lawskyandhutch
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:01 am

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby lawskyandhutch » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:43 pm

I think almost all schools do. Otherwise they'd be letting in enormous numbers of people.

What's your evidence?

OP's "monotonicity" argument is not evidence. Lack of monotonicity is pretty good evidence of YPing (e.g. American U.). But monotonicity is not evidence of lack of YPing.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby 09042014 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:53 pm

lawskyandhutch wrote:I think almost all schools do. Otherwise they'd be letting in enormous numbers of people.

What's your evidence?

OP's "monotonicity" argument is not evidence. Lack of monotonicity is pretty good evidence of YPing (e.g. American U.). But monotonicity is not evidence of lack of YPing.


It's not that huge of a deal if they let in more people than they need, because most people who get YPed wouldn't attend.

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby FiveSermon » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:56 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
lawskyandhutch wrote:I think almost all schools do. Otherwise they'd be letting in enormous numbers of people.

What's your evidence?

OP's "monotonicity" argument is not evidence. Lack of monotonicity is pretty good evidence of YPing (e.g. American U.). But monotonicity is not evidence of lack of YPing.


It's not that huge of a deal if they let in more people than they need, because most people who get YPed wouldn't attend.


Their selectivity rate would drop, their USWNR would drop, and they would take a hit to their ego.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby fatduck » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:59 pm

FiveSermon wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
lawskyandhutch wrote:I think almost all schools do. Otherwise they'd be letting in enormous numbers of people.

What's your evidence?

OP's "monotonicity" argument is not evidence. Lack of monotonicity is pretty good evidence of YPing (e.g. American U.). But monotonicity is not evidence of lack of YPing.


It's not that huge of a deal if they let in more people than they need, because most people who get YPed wouldn't attend.


Their selectivity rate would drop, their USWNR would drop, and they would take a hit to their ego.


While the OP's methodology was a bit flawed I think he did point out that law schools are probably not focusing on selectivity rate wrto maintaining USNWR ranking.

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby FiveSermon » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:01 pm

fatduck wrote:
FiveSermon wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
lawskyandhutch wrote:I think almost all schools do. Otherwise they'd be letting in enormous numbers of people.

What's your evidence?

OP's "monotonicity" argument is not evidence. Lack of monotonicity is pretty good evidence of YPing (e.g. American U.). But monotonicity is not evidence of lack of YPing.


It's not that huge of a deal if they let in more people than they need, because most people who get YPed wouldn't attend.


Their selectivity rate would drop, their USWNR would drop, and they would take a hit to their ego.


While the OP's methodology was a bit flawed I think he did point out that law schools are probably not focusing on selectivity rate wrto maintaining USNWR ranking.


Has to be a factor though. I mean when Columbia is sending me fee waivers when I'm not even near their medians, I know something is up.

User avatar
jtemp320
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby jtemp320 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:01 pm

mst wrote:
helloperson wrote:Here is what needs to be answered to better answer the YP question:

Which applicants were accepted at higher ranked schools in the T14 and rejected at lower ranked schools, and which lower ranked schools are doing the rejection? Numbers don't tell the whole story, but the overall tendency of schools to accept a certain candidate do, by the very definition of application strength.

For instance, if a candidate with low numbers gets into CCN but rejected from berkeley or UCLA, I would consider that yield protect, especially if you control for GPA.


Berkeley doesn't YP really. They just like other factors. UCLA doesn't really yield protect that much either... they have relatively high numbers (gpa wise) for a non t14, and I have a feeling at UCLA a lot of the applicants are dinged for no GPA, which is considered more important there because Cali can't do affirmative action and going after gpa rankings is their way of getting around it.

Me, personally. I got into CCN. I never found out about Berkeley or UCLA but my bet is that I was below 25 percent for the former and below 60 for the latter, with the latter being due slightly to YP... but questionably so... or at least more questionably than the clear-cut cases of UVA.


I agree about Berkeley but in the UCLA thread I've seen a lot of high LSAT and GPAs get WL'd... I'm almost at 75th for GPA and way above 75th LSAT and am LA born and raised - customized my PS for UCLA - and haven't heard a thing. I'd very seriously consider UCLA with enough $ as I am very settled in LA and am debt adverse despite being in at CLS, NYU, B, P...but I have a bad feeling I'm headed for the WL. I won't blame my Chicago waitlist on YP but if I get WL at UCLA I'm not sure what else I could have done...

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby fatduck » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:04 pm

FiveSermon wrote:
fatduck wrote:
FiveSermon wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:It's not that huge of a deal if they let in more people than they need, because most people who get YPed wouldn't attend.


Their selectivity rate would drop, their USWNR would drop, and they would take a hit to their ego.


While the OP's methodology was a bit flawed I think he did point out that law schools are probably not focusing on selectivity rate wrto maintaining USNWR ranking.


Has to be a factor though. I mean when Columbia is sending me fee waivers when I'm not even near their medians, I know something is up.


If anything that's an argument for why schools wouldn't bother yield protecting to increase selectivity when they can just mass-mail fee waivers to students they would never accept.

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby FiveSermon » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:05 pm

If anything that's an argument for why schools wouldn't bother yield protecting to increase selectivity when they can just mass-mail fee waivers to students they would never accept.


Why lower selectivity ratings on students who obviously wouldn't come? School that doesn't YP vs school that does YP. One is bound to have the higher relative selectivity rating. Schools are cut throat also you know.

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby Knock » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:07 pm

YP definitely exists, although I agree with the sentiment that people cry yield-protect a lot when it probably isn't.

User avatar
swampthang
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby swampthang » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:08 pm

FiveSermon wrote:
If anything that's an argument for why schools wouldn't bother yield protecting to increase selectivity when they can just mass-mail fee waivers to students they would never accept.


Why lower selectivity ratings on students who obviously wouldn't come? School that doesn't YP vs school that does YP. One is bound to have the higher relative selectivity rating. Schools are cut throat also you know.


I believe for UG admissions they call this the WashU method.

Sandrew
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:01 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby Sandrew » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:22 pm

fatduck wrote:While the OP's methodology was a bit flawed I think he did point out that law schools are probably not focusing on selectivity rate wrto maintaining USNWR ranking.

Of the two myths addressed in the post (the other being that T14 schools YP, about which I've been corrected), I care more about the myth that YP is motivated by USNews rankings. My methodological flaws, which I acknowledge are dire and defeat my thesis about certain of the T14, do not implicate this view. YP is not scandalous. I recognize this view is contrarian, which is precisely why I felt the need to construct such an elaborate defense (also, as an empiracist, I just enjoy it). Anyway, thanks for drawing attention to this point.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby 09042014 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:27 pm

FiveSermon wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
lawskyandhutch wrote:I think almost all schools do. Otherwise they'd be letting in enormous numbers of people.

What's your evidence?

OP's "monotonicity" argument is not evidence. Lack of monotonicity is pretty good evidence of YPing (e.g. American U.). But monotonicity is not evidence of lack of YPing.


It's not that huge of a deal if they let in more people than they need, because most people who get YPed wouldn't attend.


Their selectivity rate would drop, their USWNR would drop, and they would take a hit to their ego.


The number of people who are too good for your school compared to the applicant pool is probably fairly low. And selectivity rate is a fairly low percent of the USNews methodology.

On the other hand, not giving acceptances to people because you think they are too good can make it harder to fill up a class at a higher median. If instead of WL'ing them you give decent scholarship offers, you could get them to attend. Also there are many people who have bad cycles. They have CCN numbers but strike out there and end up attending NU or Gtown because they got YPed at MVP.

Also not everyone is as over informed about the law school rankings as TLSers are.

The reason why MVP are the only T14 to YP is because they are trying to claw their way to a higher ranking any way they can. Falling out of the top 10 could hurt their rep.

Finally some deans have some integrity. Dean Pless says he doesn't YP and his LSN proves it.

bmore
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby bmore » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:28 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
bmore wrote:I don't know what you call it. But in at NYU and Penn and crickets from Mich and UVA.


Barely scraping into NYU isn't enough to call YP on Mich and UVA.



OOH, why did you say that? I asked a question. I didn't call it YP. Others said it to me. Why would you say barely scraping by? I really am not sure why I deserved the snark but maybe the inability to comprehend why you would respond as such explains why I haven't heard yet. Thanks.

FiveSermon
Posts: 1507
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby FiveSermon » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:29 pm

The number of people who are too good for your school compared to the applicant pool is probably fairly low. And selectivity rate is a fairly low percent of the USNews methodology.

On the other hand, not giving acceptances to people because you think they are too good can make it harder to fill up a class at a higher median. If instead of WL'ing them you give decent scholarship offers, you could get them to attend. Also there are many people who have bad cycles. They have CCN numbers but strike out there and end up attending NU or Gtown because they got YPed at MVP.

Also not everyone is as over informed about the law school rankings as TLSers are.

The reason why MVP are the only T14 to YP is because they are trying to claw their way to a higher ranking any way they can. Falling out of the top 10 could hurt their rep.

Finally some deans have some integrity. Dean Pless says he doesn't YP and his LSN proves it.


It is fairly low but it is one of the few parts of the rankings that schools can actively control.

Also I'm not even sure if what V does can be called YP. They need to coin a new term since it's more like trolling applicants.
Last edited by FiveSermon on Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby 09042014 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:30 pm

Sandrew wrote:
fatduck wrote:While the OP's methodology was a bit flawed I think he did point out that law schools are probably not focusing on selectivity rate wrto maintaining USNWR ranking.

Of the two myths addressed in the post (the other being that T14 schools YP, about which I've been corrected), I care more about the myth that YP is motivated by USNews rankings. My methodological flaws, which I acknowledge are dire and defeat my thesis about certain of the T14, do not implicate this view. YP is not scandalous. I recognize this view is contrarian, which is precisely why I felt the need to construct such an elaborate defense (also, as an empiracist, I just enjoy it). Anyway, thanks for drawing attention to this point.


You don't get to call yourself an empiricist when you change your formula til you get results you want.

Run the data with the published forumas that were posted a couple pages ago and repost.

User avatar
classix
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby classix » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:38 pm

Great thread. Facts and charts are always refreshing, no?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby 09042014 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:44 pm

FiveSermon wrote:
The number of people who are too good for your school compared to the applicant pool is probably fairly low. And selectivity rate is a fairly low percent of the USNews methodology.

On the other hand, not giving acceptances to people because you think they are too good can make it harder to fill up a class at a higher median. If instead of WL'ing them you give decent scholarship offers, you could get them to attend. Also there are many people who have bad cycles. They have CCN numbers but strike out there and end up attending NU or Gtown because they got YPed at MVP.

Also not everyone is as over informed about the law school rankings as TLSers are.

The reason why MVP are the only T14 to YP is because they are trying to claw their way to a higher ranking any way they can. Falling out of the top 10 could hurt their rep.

Finally some deans have some integrity. Dean Pless says he doesn't YP and his LSN proves it.


It is fairly low but it is one of the few parts of the rankings that schools can actively control.

Also I'm not even sure if what V does can be called YP. They need to coin a new term since it's more like trolling applicants.


While you can control it, it probably hurts the schools GPA/LSAT medians a bit. People above both medians are very valuable to a law school for USnews purposes.

A school like Duke doesn't need to YP, it's already got a low acceptance rate.

Also IIRC WLing someone doesn't even lower your acceptance rate because it's a 0/0. It's just preventing a 0/1 from being added.

I bet at best YP breaks ties in USnews.

User avatar
awilson11
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:25 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby awilson11 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:16 pm

I think that the majority of "YP!" claims are ego massaging, but I have read somewhere (and spoken to application counselors) who claim that it is real. Also, there are cases, like r6_philly, who was waitlisted at UCLA with a 3.9 CS degree and 170+ LSAT, plus a masters from an Ivy, while being getting $ at UVa. I am impressed by the statistical analysis that you did on LSN data (as any sabermetrician would be), but I think that the outliers in your model are proof of *some* YP, rather than the analysis proving that it does not exist.

To be clear, I'm tempted to scream YP about my WL's at Duke and especially UCLA, based on other people who I know have gotten in/$$, but my numbers really aren't so much better than their medians (they actually are below some of them) that I would be an auto admit.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby 09042014 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:18 pm

awilson11 wrote:I think that the majority of "YP!" claims are ego massaging, but I have read somewhere (and spoken to application counselors) who claim that it is real. Also, there are cases, like r6_philly, who was waitlisted at UCLA with a 3.9 CS degree and 170+ LSAT, plus a masters from an Ivy, while being getting $ at UVa. I am impressed by the statistical analysis that you did on LSN data (as any sabermetrician would be), but I think that the outliers in your model are proof of *some* YP, rather than the analysis proving that it does not exist.

To be clear, I'm tempted to scream YP about my WL's at Duke and especially UCLA, based on other people who I know have gotten in/$$, but my numbers really aren't so much better than their medians (they actually are below some of them) that I would be an auto admit.


Neither Duke nor UCLA YP. Sometime schools just don't like you.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: The Myth of Yield Protection

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:33 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
awilson11 wrote:I think that the majority of "YP!" claims are ego massaging, but I have read somewhere (and spoken to application counselors) who claim that it is real. Also, there are cases, like r6_philly, who was waitlisted at UCLA with a 3.9 CS degree and 170+ LSAT, plus a masters from an Ivy, while being getting $ at UVa. I am impressed by the statistical analysis that you did on LSN data (as any sabermetrician would be), but I think that the outliers in your model are proof of *some* YP, rather than the analysis proving that it does not exist.

To be clear, I'm tempted to scream YP about my WL's at Duke and especially UCLA, based on other people who I know have gotten in/$$, but my numbers really aren't so much better than their medians (they actually are below some of them) that I would be an auto admit.


Neither Duke nor UCLA YP. Sometime schools just don't like you.

My current cycle definitely shows a lot of schools just not liking me. My application was very specific and I don't think it's a coincidence that the same schools I want to attend also want me to attend while schools that were not high on my list waitlisted or rejected me.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 6 guests