On Thursday, The Daily reported that, as of now, Stanford’s undergraduate admission yield rate for the Class of 2012 is an unprecedented 72 percent, while peer institutions such as Harvard and Yale announced that they plan to go deep into their waitlists to fill up their classes. It is commendable that the University wishes to offer acceptance to as many qualified applicants as possible, and equally positive that so many high school seniors are eager to accept that offer. It is also testament to the success of Admit Weekend that so many ProFros — many struggling to pick between Stanford and other attractive options — chose The Farm.

But these soon-to-be freshmen will need a place to live, and the current housing crunch has been a hot topic on campus thus year. In light of the strain on our current housing infrastructure, the University should either expect a higher yield rate — and use the waitlist if necessary — or develop a feasible solution for its housing woes.

Next year’s incoming class size is currently 1,727, and the Office of Admission’s target class size is 1,670 freshman. With Harvard and other schools offering admission to between 50 and 150 waitlisted students, it is entirely possible that some members of the Class of 2012 will get off the waitlist at other schools and opt to forgo the Stanford experience. Nonetheless, it appears that the high number of admitted freshmen could lead to over-enrollment, despite Dean of Admission Richard Shaw’s March statement that his office was being cautious to avoid such a situation.

If over-enrollment does occur, the University will likely face fall housing problems once again. In February, Associate Director of Student Housing Imogen Hinds told The Daily, “[Student Housing is] challenged with finding enough bed spaces to accommodate all of the Stanford students that would like to live on campus during certain quarters of the year,” she said. “We have had to convert various non-traditional spaces into student rooms and, based on equity standards, up-rate some student rooms to allow for an additional resident.”

The anticipated opening of the Munger graduate housing complex is likely to relieve some of the crunch, but it is evident that Stanford is bursting at the seams. Even though housing alone is not the sole determinant of happiness in college, less-than-ideal housing situations can reflect negatively on a student’s Stanford experience, especially for freshmen new to dorm life.

Given the last two year’s yield rates of 69 and 70.8 percent respectively, it does not seem surprising that 72 percent of those offered admission this year accepted — this is certainly not an enormous increase in yield beyond what the Office of Admission could reasonably be expected to anticipate. As a result of Harvard and Princeton discontinuing their early admission policies, it is understandable that the yield was especially difficult to predict. In light of the attendant housing crunch, however, the University might have hedged its bets by admitting fewer students and going to the wait list if needed. It is unclear whether other institutions’ decisions to admit more conservatively and accept more waitlisted students is a better method, but it would seem to preclude the over-enrollment problem that Stanford may face next year.

While we are constantly reminded of the outstanding qualifications of the applicants to Stanford and sympathize with admission officers who must deny acceptance to thousands of exciting applicants, the prospect of over-enrollment leads to tough choices. Already the Office of Admission plans to halve the number of transfer students from 40 to 20, a move that Director of Admission Shawn Abbott called a “negative consequence” of such a high yield. In an Apr. 2 Daily story about the discontinuation of transfer acceptance at Harvard and Princeton, Abbott said that Stanford remains committed to accepting transfer students, “especially a cohort from community colleges” — but this initiative is obviously complicated by a reduction in space for transfers.

By no means do we wish to encourage an arms race of lower acceptance rates between top colleges. The Office of Admission should continue to offer admission to as many qualified applicants as possible, and if converting a roomy double into a livable triple is the price we pay for admitting another intelligent and talented student, so be it. But in weighing its decisions for the Class of 2013, the Office of Admission should realistically assess its past yields and the current housing situation in order to avoid the problem of potential over-enrollment.