Admit and yield rates for the last 2 years have been consistent. You can see the data and reviews there
https://www.quantnet.com/resources/mit-master-of-finance-program.9/
Speaking of reviews, I don't think we have any recent reviews from
@aaronhotchner and his cohort?
MIT (in general, not just Sloan) has been...
optimizing the yield and selectivity numbers for years, and I think the rule that students have to fly thousands of miles to interview may be part of their most recent strategy. Ceteris paribus, I'd expect yield numbers to increase.
I'm all for MIT optimizing their yield numbers, but not at the expense of applicants. This policy is unfair to students with more limited financial means, as well as students who are currently working. If every school did this, it would add $5K to the cost of the admissions process for ~five schools.
I'm not asking the people who come up with MFE rankings to penalize schools who do this, but I am asking them to consider adding a correction to the matriculation numbers for schools that demand on-site interviews when it comes to his rankings. Schools that allow Skype interviews, or at least Saturday interviews for working applicants, do everyone a huge kindness. One way of correcting the matriculation numbers is to look at how many students were offered interviews but did not fly out for them.
MIT is trying to optimize under constraint and they think they've found a somewhat unbounded situation for optimizing matriculation numbers reported. The only question is whether the rankers will start correcting when applicants need to fly 5000 miles for an interview, when they need to do 10,000 jumping jacks, or when they need to sign a promissory note stating that they'll pay schools $200K if they're accepted but do not attend.
@Andy Nguyen please consider a correction in the yield numbers for mandatory on-site interviews. It will result in more accurate rankings that are harder to game. More importantly, it will discourage other programs from following suit next year.
