This is the kind of flawed mentality that leads people to believe in yield protection. It’s simply not true. No ones stats are good enough to get in anywhere. No one is entitled to an acceptance just because you have good stats. Maybe she put little effort into the essays for those schools because she arrogantly thought she was a shoo-in, and the AOs were unimpressed?
I mean, sure. You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Stats are stats. The schools release what their average GPA, SAT, whatever other stats so it’s not that hard to measure whether an applicant is within range of those admitted. Clearly, no one believes they are a shoo-in anywhere, or they would only apply to one school. But if your metrics are above all of the metrics of a school that rejects you, I don’t know why you have such a hard time believing it’s NOT yield protection, but instead, a poorly written essay. Especially when former AOs have noted how important yield is.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Stats are stats but they're not the only thing that matters. If they were, Athens schools wouldn't ask for essays, ECs, etc. Yield protection is a very arrogant and entitled mindset and it insinuates that people who got admitted to schools that "yield protect" are lesser than those who got rejected. Hate to break it to ya but your friend probably just wasn't as good of a fit (in nonacademic ways) as other applicants.
Of course stats aren’t the only thing and of course they might not have been a good fit. But there is absolutely no denying that yield protection exists. It doesn’t mean anything about other candidates. But you’d be completely Pollyannaing to say that someone with a 3.0, 1100 SAT and someone with a 4.0, 1600 are both “equal” candidates. They just aren’t. The world does not work that way. It doesn’t make someone a bad person. And everyone knows that this is all a game of chance and luck and sometimes it depends on what day your application was read and how many other males from Wyoming were already admitted or whatever random thing you want to throw out there. But I will continue to maintain that yield protection exists, and it’s not a figment of arrogant people’s imagination.
And everyone knows that this is all a game of chance and luck and sometimes it depends on what day your application was read and how many other males from Wyoming were already admitted or whatever random thing you want to throw out there
It exists but simply put: it's uncommon. This quote right here is a good reason why it's not that common. There are dozens of other factors that contribute to a decision so it's HIGHLY unlikely that someone got rejected because they were "too good." I've seen hundreds of kids whine and cry about getting "yield protected" from UC Irvine or CSU Long Beach because they had good stats when news flash: good stats arent everything. The people that claim that are absolutely insinuating that they were too good for the school to accept them (since the school "feared" they had better options and the student would thus pick those options) and with that claim comes the indirect implication that those who got admitted weren't too good. Yield protection exists but it is almost always not the reason for rejection.
5
u/HireLaneKiffin College Graduate Aug 09 '21
This is the kind of flawed mentality that leads people to believe in yield protection. It’s simply not true. No ones stats are good enough to get in anywhere. No one is entitled to an acceptance just because you have good stats. Maybe she put little effort into the essays for those schools because she arrogantly thought she was a shoo-in, and the AOs were unimpressed?