Ah, well. It was a long shot to begin with.
If they turn away 80% of their legacies, doesnât that mean that they are accepting 20%? Love them odds. Of course, itâs not clear from that statement as to why that 20% was accepted. Did they happen to be legacy or did legacy play a role in their admission decision - and if so, how?
My sonâs grand-uncle attended Yale but I donât recall whether he was able to state that information on the application or not. I doubt an endowment was left - I donât believe his kids (my first cousins) attended.
Bottom line, not sure why so many threads focus on whether Early gives a point or two difference (especially after recruits are subtracted,) while missing what matters more.
Itâs just human nature to search for any method of beating the odds when you enter into anything where the odds are stacked against you. We all want hope.
First method Iâd use is to focus on learning what they want and processing that. Not assuming your chances are as good as anyone elseâs and looking for a fractional gain via Early. Thatâs a bit of cart before the horse. Just saying.
Admit rates arenât the same thing as probability of acceptance. But there are correlations. For instance, if the admit rate is very low your probability of acceptance is probably going to be very low as well. Even if double - say, your chances are 10% versus an overall admit rate of 5% - that still means a 90% chance of getting dinged.
My understanding from the AO is that legacy admits have better than avg admit statâs. Anecdotally, since I also help with fund raising, every year we have to deal with disappointed alums/donors whose kidâs were more than qualified and got dingâd (talking 3.9+ UW GPA, 2200/1500+ SAT). That having been said, I suspect that a high statâs/subjectively qualified legacy applicant is going to be in a better position than an equally qualified unhooked applicant. I will point out that legacies only make up about 12% of the class at Yale, which is significantly below the close to 30% for our rivals in Cambridge.
Or was it legacy applicants as a pool? It canât hold for every legacy.
Legacy admits as a pool.
Sorry. I read it as legacy applicants. My mistake.
how does it matter? we already submitted the application and there is nothing more we can do
^ But discuss ad nauseum :))
âI will point out that legacies only make up about 12% of the class at Yale, which is significantly below the close to 30% for our rivals in Cambridge.â
https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup-yale/
Maybe slightly more, 14% vs 12%. But they sure have more good football players, as they showed up in droves at Fenway Park today. 
@Benji3025 not trying to pick a fight, but Iâm not sure I agree with that. Yale has a huge applicant pool. If someone applies SCEA who is pretty average, they can reject that person knowing that there are hundreds of others applying RD who can fill that place. Many outstanding students are forced to apply RD because they may be applying EA to other Ivies or prestigious schools. I wonder if your friends had other hooks, good essays/LOCs, or whatnot? However, I would agree that SCEA is probably less competitive than RD because Yale just wants to make sure they can fill spots and find out how many they need to admit in the RD round. Itâs funny though, because my opinion isnât very helpful for myself; I applied SCEA to Yale and am pretty average across the board. Maybe me disagreeing is just me trying to make myself be realistic about my chances of admission?
To clarify, @Benji3025 posted âaverage school/local ECsâ not applicants who were average overall.
No, you donât need to be a big winner.
But the subscores DO matter. Not just the composite. And sorry, with 10 times the number of apps as seats, sometimes it does boil down to looking for No. (Though yes, each applicant gets a fair read.) Whatâs important not to lose sight of is the enormity of the competition. And how much every piece of your app can matter.
The college has little incentive to pick âjust okâ or even borderline kids from the SCEA pool. And, it is very difficult for even top performing kids to create an above average application, supp, and LoRs. Partly, a result of assuming and treating the app/etc as a hs task. Donât assume this means adcoms donât look for the right qualities and match.
Bringing âdifferent features to the tableâ doesnât replace nailing the full app package.
@Benji3025 I think @lookingforward articulated what I meant to say a little better. I guess what Iâm wondering is, if someone has âhigh test scores 34+ but average (school/local) ECs,â what else could distinguish them from other applicants? Most who are applying have a 34+ anyway, so itâs not like this âhigh scoreâ would make a big difference. What else would make adcoms say Yes, especially when they have so many reasons to say No (reasons which are unrelated to the applicant, such as a large applicant pool)?
@lookingforward Youâre missing my point. Yes, you SHOULD try your best to make each individual part of your app stand outâIâm not telling people to shoot below their best. What I am advising against is using statistics and the size of the applicant pool to say âyou need this, this, and thisâ to be competitive in the SCEA applicant pool. NONE of us really know what Yale is precisely looking for, and while you should try your best to put your best foot forward, it is up to the AOs to piece together the class. Itâs pointless to say something like âonly unhooked applicants with 34+ are competitive for SCEAâ because there is so much more to the app that the AOs see and take into consideration that we do not.
Sure, subscores matter and nailing the âfull application packageâ matters. But while most of us view those attributes in a vacuum - each one separate from the others, independently suggesting the applicant is worthy of admission - not sure that Admissions actually views them that way. Is there a checklist of hurdles to clear and those who do are the only ones admitted SCEA, or are applications viewed more holistically and with some context (to opportunities, to prospective major, etc)? @Benji3025 is already a student at Yale so very aware of what shortcomings showed up on his/her application - and the applications of his/her chums who were admitted SCEA.
I have a fine idea of what Yale looks for. And how holistic works. And I know how the tippy tops are looking less for âunusualâ or quirky or one great spike- and more for a type. And one who doesnât understand that âtypeâ is missing the basis to make their best presentation. It is not a crapshoot.
But right, saying only 34+ etc etc is not defensible. But that doesnât mean âanyoneâ really has a shot.