A record 22,717 apply to the Harvard College

<p>Hey, look at it this way: somebody has to make it, and it might be you. Since everybody has good stats for the most part, the decision may well be based on something else in your file that would help "round out" the class.</p>

<p>Amen to that, Byerly.</p>

<p>hopefully. i'm only cautiously optimistic.</p>

<p>Byerly--that's almost like saying "well, someone has to make it, and it might as well be you" about winning the lottery--this is INTENSE.</p>

<p>I'd like to think so Byerly, but I think it's only a very small maybe. I applied ... and I'm expecting nothing. I really loved the school, the programs, and the environment, but the 5.47% RD admit rate is absolutely ridiculous. I'm going to do my best on the interview, and hope for the best, as should every candidate. However, it is truly a "shot in the dark" for anyone who is highly accomplished but not the "wow, oh (expletive)" type candidate.</p>

<p>I think that Harvard could admit and have matriculate a class exclusively comprised of URM's, legacies, athletes/special talents, and those who have won important national awards or are extraordinarily accomplished beyond words (aka published research in a major medical journal with a professor for three years). It might sound cynical, but although Harvard could admit a few people that might "round out" the class, they really have no need to, with all the aforementioned groups.</p>

<p>Joey</p>

<p>Lottery: correct. This is all so sad to me; all thee Ivies posting record numbers of applicants, all with great stats, and nowhere to put them. Why can't these schools use their fat endowments to expand? We're talking about allowing smart people acces to society's richest intellectual reources, not super bowl tickets. They need to stop hoarding these resources and treating intellectual property like a commodity. There isnt room for the top 1% of SAT takers in any given year. I am totally laissez faire with regard to the rest of the economy, but this is different. It is in society's best interest to allow the most people access to the best education. Just a thought. I just hate to see all these amazing people feel cruddy about themselves when they are simply superstars. I don't think the Ivies are doing themselves a favor with all this...breeds resentment.</p>

<p>If they expand, they wouldn't be able to offer the same opportunities they offer now. Their relatively small size is part of what differentiates them from other colleges. </p>

<p>How people deal with rejection from the colleges of their choice is up to them, not the places that rejected them.</p>

<p>I don't know, H has always been a big dream for me and I've always wanted to attend. Who knows?</p>

<p>actually.. deferrals are a bit out of luck.. they won't read the deferrals again until they're done with all the RD apps... and however more spots are left might be filled by admitting deferrals...</p>

<p>also, remember this year the EA num of applicants increased.. and even previous years, the RD admit rate is around 7 - 8 percent anyway.. so 6 is not that bad....</p>

<p>Can anyone confirm Princetonwannabe's statement? It definitely holds credence (and makes sense) that they would read deferees' files after decisions have been made on RD applications. However, that wouldn't make sense because if we're going to be "thrown into" the RD pool (as they state that they do, which doesn't make sense to me as my admissions representative and another told me that they will be admitting 100-200 candidates from the deferral pool exclusively), then I don't know what to believe anymore.</p>

<p>I have never heard anything official about when the deferred applicantions are read again. I have not seen any evidence that deferred applicants are at a disadvantage when compared to RD applicants. In fact, my best guess is that deferred applicants are less of a longshot than are RD applicants because the students who are automatic rejections have already been eliminated from the deferred application pool. </p>

<p>As I have said before, typically in my metropolitan area, one student will get in EA, and one student will get in RD. For the last few years, the RD admit was someone who had been deferred EA. Perhaps one in 15 RA applicants gets in while one in 8 EA gets in from my area. Obviously, Harvard is a longshot for them all, but the odds are a bit more favorable for EAs (because the pool is stronger, not because Harvard gives them an advantage).</p>

<p>yeah.. sorry, i just read that from EITHER a is for admission, or how to get into an ivy league (forgot what its called, but written by senior harvard admissions officer)... whichever book it is, the book didnt explicitly state that harvard works this way..</p>

<p>that would only make sense to me... they've already read the deferred applicants once... they have 18000 more apps to read.. it wont make sense to reread deferrals before reading new RD applicants... i think EA deferrals have a better chance b/c EA pool for schools like harvard yale princeton stanford is a lot stronger than rd pool, so deferrals may seem a lot stronger.. in addition, EA applicants show that they want to go to the school. since more school want to inc yield, if an ea deferral and rd guy are close, they would admit the deferral.. but then again.. its harvard.. so either way, its next to impossible for most people to get in... just hope for luck :)</p>

<p>Princeton Wannabee's assumptions are incorrect.</p>

<p>The same subcommittee goes over all apps from each region, with all deferreds as part of the same docket.</p>

<p>I've checked numbers over the past five years, and the RD-deferred admit rate is virtually the same as the RD admit rate - perhaps a bit lower some years, but virtually the same overall.</p>

<p>The RD yield rate is over 70%, so I don't think Harvard is worried about the willingness of any admit to enroll. Chalk it up to Harvard arrogance!</p>

<p>If you want to get a better idea of how the process works, get The Truth About Harvard", by Dov Fox, a 2004 graduate. (2004, Princeton Review Publishing - 235 pp.)</p>

<p>Byerly,</p>

<p>do you know if its the same for princeton tho? they asked me to send in additional material by the end of the month.. so i assumed that they won't read my file again till all the RD guys are admitted..</p>

<p>The whole Princeton process changed after Hargadon retired last year, and they're moving to more of a committee-based system. I'm not sure of exactly what their schedule is now.</p>

<p>5.47% is assuming that half of the freshman class is admitted EA (or deferred EA and then accepted). If this is true, than Harvard's statement that applying early does not increase chances of admission is absolutely false.</p>

<p>If I didn't think the moderators would take offense, I'd direct you to a site where I had an interchange last night on this very topic with Prof. Andrew Fairbanks, one of the co-authors of "The Early Admissions Game."</p>

<p>Byerly,
As a fellow alumni interviewer, I beg to differ with your conclusion. From what I have seen, I don't think that applying EA tips applicants in. What I have seen is that the EA pool is stronger. I also have heard the Harvard dean of admissions give the exact same reason when explaining why a higher proportion of EA than RD applicants gain admissions.</p>

<p>I find it hard to believe that the applicant pool is so much stronger that only 5.47% get in otherwise. Afterall, many of those RD applicants applied single-choice EA to Yale, etc., or applied EA elsewhere like I did (EA Georgetown, accepted).</p>

<p>Byerly, would you mind PMing me that link? or e-mailing, at <a href="mailto:netshark2005@hotmail.com">netshark2005@hotmail.com</a> . Thanks.</p>

<p>But think about it, since Harvard is single choice EA, only the very top candidates would apply EA Harvard instead of applying EA elsewhere. Candidates who were sure that they needed a top 25 back-up, would pass on Harvard and give themselves an EA advantage elsewhere.</p>