<p>And I am going to be one of those automatic rejects :D</p>
<p>Byerly, I disagree with you about your opinion on EA. The applicant pool truly is EXTREMELY BETTER EA than it is RD. That explains the higher admit rate. It is completely illogical for Harvard to admit candidates it wouldn't admit normally EA if they are risking a lower-quality class than usual. It just does not make sense. Harvard, I tell you, does not have to worry about yield.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Byerly, I disagree with you about your opinion on EA. The applicant pool truly is EXTREMELY BETTER EA than it is RD. That explains the higher admit rate. It is completely illogical for Harvard to admit candidates it wouldn't admit normally EA if they are risking a lower-quality class than usual. It just does not make sense. Harvard, I tell you, does not have to worry about yield.
[/quote]
Obviously, your assumptions about H are incorrect; what Bye says is absolutely beyond dispute. Why they do it is a mystery to me however. Perhaps even with their high yield, they still feel they can improve it with EA.</p>
<p>Why does Harvard even offer an EA option? Primarily for defensive reasons. As Fitzsimmons has colorfully observed: "If we didn't have an early option, and our competitors did, the other schools would pick the meat off our bones."</p>
<p>Many top applicants who now have the option of applying early to Harvard would, absent that option, follow the old "one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" maxim.</p>
<p>"Obviously my assumptions are incorrect?" how do you manage that.</p>
<p>Your assumption that "Harvard...does not have to worry about yield" is incorrect. See Byerly post 64.</p>
<p>does anyone know how much international applicant num increased by?</p>
<p>IMO, with everyone applying to Harvard in a similar SAT/GPA range, they most likely put more emphasis on the interview and the essays--the only methods for truly distinguishing among a plethora of qualified applicants.</p>
<p>netshark2005,</p>
<p>agreed.. but i dont think as much as interview as they would put on essays... i think now, essays, recs, the presentation of the file, and interview will come into major effect.</p>
<p>well, the interview's value may vary depending on the admission committee's familiarity/reliability of the interviewer.</p>
<p>yeah.. lol for my princeton interviewer, they couldnt find anyone suitable in my area (vancouver, canada), so they got a guy who got his PHD at princeton to interview me and he couldnt answer questions regarding undergrad experience. :(</p>
<p>yeah, for my Gtown interview, they got someone who had only gone during Grad school...totally different experience. For my Harvard interview, the guy had never done an interview in his life (and he said so).</p>
<p>"i dont think as much as interview as they would put on essays... i think now, essays, recs, the presentation of the file, and interview will come into major effect."</p>
<p>which boils down to a human being that would be a good addition to their freshman class. </p>
<p>they're admitting PEOPLE, not merely numbers. the numbers are crazy enough anyway.</p>
<p>Amen to that. Harvard is definitely all about the intangible factors rather than the numbers. They really don't base admissions solely on numbers - as long as you meet the requirements, they base their decisions on your personality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard is definitely all about the intangible factors rather than the numbers. They really don't base admissions solely on numbers - as long as you meet the requirements, they base their decisions on your personality.
[/quote]
Like they can really get up close and personal with the "real you" from a twenty minute interview and a canned essay.</p>
<p>Neither xjayz nor mensa160 is completely right. Yes, personality, essays, and interviews matter, but only in cases that are on the edge. The vast majority of applications don't even make it to this edge. Harvard will and does accept applicants who might not have a pulitzer-level essay or great interview because of their exceptionally strong accomplishments. I think the applicant who is accepted on the basis of their essay is the exception rather than the rule.</p>
<p>It's not a good idea to generalize the admissions process for those who aren't a URM or athletic recruit, because every candidate is treated uniquely by the adcom. The whole picture counts: recs (very important), essay (important), EC's and awards (very important), and of course grades and SAT scores. A weakness in one of those areas can definitely be made up by exceptional strengths in other areas. For example, if you have a good essay but slightly weak grades, you better have good recs and good EC's. Weak EC's, however, would seem to be rather difficult to justify except in special situations. Two bland recs definitely won't help your case either. A weak essay is the only area which I think wouldn't hurt your case that much; essays are a place where it's possible to shine, but not necessary.</p>
<p>Just my two cents, feel free to disagree cuz I don't really care :)</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>But I am going to have to disagree with Byerly's arguments throughout this thread. The factors that s/he claims are comparable for EA and RD applicants--SATs, grades, etc. (this is stated in post 42)--may, indeed, be comparable. And by this standard, sure, it's much easier for an EA applicant to get in than it is for an RD applicant of the same caliber. </p>
<p>But as far as distinguishing applicants from each other, these standards are secondary to those that can't be measured; and I think Northstarmom was trying to assert that it's the factors that can't be measured--extracurriculars, hobbies, quirks, etc.--that make the EA round more competitive than the RD round. And, because Harvard openly admits that applying EA is indeed NOT going to give one an advantage, "weaker" applicants that know they could benefit from this advantage are going to apply to a school where they will benefit from it. That school isn't Harvard. </p>
<p>Harvard's a school that can afford to let go of a 1600/800/800/800/4.0 in favor of an Olympic medalist, prize-winning playwright, or internationally recognized opera singer who, by the numbers, is "less qualified." We all know this. Maybe we ought to entertain the notion that the EA round has more of those opera singers.</p>
<p>Well, we can agree to disagree, then. </p>
<p>The authors of "The Early Admissions Game" controlled for many factors, including legacy status, and (at Harvard) rankings of individual candidates from "1" to "6" by alumni and admissions officers. (Note that these rankings take into account not only academics as revealed by GPAs and SAT scores, but athletics, extracurriculars, and "personal qualities".)</p>
<p>The bottom line: no matter how you slice it, ANY candidate improves his/her odds of admission by applying early. There is absolutely no question about this. And any effort to explain away the 3 X (or this year perhaps 4 X!) higher admit rate for early pool applicants on the basis of the alleged "strength" of that pool is either greatly exaggerated or, in most cases, irrelevant. </p>
<p>One of the authors of "The Early Admissions Game", Andrew Fairbanks, reconfirmed this conclusion in a recent exchange I had with him yesterday.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, because Harvard openly admits that applying EA is indeed NOT going to give one an advantage, "weaker" applicants that know they could benefit from this advantage are going to apply to a school where they will benefit from it. That school isn't Harvard.
[/quote]
Ok,saxfreq, get this down. Harvard is LYING about that.The Early Admissions Game documents that fact. There is a huge advantage to applying EA at Harvard. No one who knows anything about this process disputes that. The Avery study took all the objections you state into account, and the adjusted for them before reaching it's conclusion about Harvard (and virtually every other) EA/ED program.</p>
<p>Why would Harvard need to lie? </p>
<p>But why would it matter, in the first place, if it's "Easier" to get in early? The fact of the matter is that it's Harvard. It's hard to get into, no matter how you look at it. I have strong faith in the institution and its dedication to accepting the best of the best. If that means (because the applicants in the EA round are stronger) more people get in EA, then so be it. It's not worth disputing.</p>