African-American Admit Rates

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
21

<p>I am in general disagreement with each and every point made by Northstarmom.</p>

<p>A a minority herself, I cannot for the life of me understand why she makes the odd statistical claims she does, which have absolutely no supportable link, and go against every honest piece of data I have ever seen.</p>

<p>There is an absolutely HUGE advantage to appying early at Harvard, and this is true whether you are white, black, asian or anmything else.</p>

<p>To the extent that Northstarmom maintains otherwise, she is grieviously wrong, and is giving improper advice to potential applicants.</p>

22

<p>well then byerly, what is your opinion on this subject according to the data you've seen about URM applicants? A second opinion would be greatly appreciated.</p>

23

<p><em>APPLY EARLY</em> and triple the odds that you will be admitted, no matter what your SAT score may be. I cannot emphisize this point strongly enough.</p>

24

<p>where is <em>YOUR</em> proof, Byerly? :D</p>

25

<p>"And as for your recommendations, thanks for your input but you have nothing to base your advice on. I wanted to keep this forum from being about me but more about African-Americans at Harvard in general."</p>

<p>What I have to base my advice on is knowing the odds. Back in 2003, according to The Washington Post, there were only 192 black students in the country who scored higher than a 1450 on the SAT and only 72 scored a 1500 or above. </p>

<p>Clearly, black students like that are going to be highly desired by the top colleges. However, from what I've seen, even they have to have high grades and some standout ECs (at least on the local level) in order to get accepted by H, Y EA. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, I'm not being negative to you to make you feel bad. IMO what would be worse would be to give you false hopes and then to have you experience what I've seen many students on CC experience in Dec. They apply EA to Harvard even though they have stats are not remarkable for Harvard's entire pool. This means that they have stats indicating that if accepted to Harvard, they could graduate. Unfortunately, however, 85% of Harvard's pool has such stats: They are students who'd be viewed as great catches by most colleges in the country, but don't stand out in Harvard's pool.</p>

<p>Anyway, such students put lots of effort into their Harvard applications and then they end up deferred, as do about 2/3 of the students who apply EA to Harvard. Depressed and lacking confidence, they have to hustle through exam period and the holiday season to put together applications for other colleges. That is tough to do.</p>

<p>This is why, IMO it's far better for the majority of Harvard applicants to apply RD. </p>

<p>In your case, I am assuming that if you happen to be truly outstanding -- have a couple of unusual national achievements preferably in different fields, have SAT scores above 1500, are valedictorian or salutatorian at an excellent high school -- you probably wouldn't bother posting here the kind of questions that you've been posting. Thus, I'm assuming that you're probably close to an average Harvard applicant -- an outstanding student compared to most students who are applying to colleges across this country, but probably typical of Harvard applicants except perhaps for being a URM. </p>

<p>As a top URM, applying EA elsewhere could give you better than average chances of scooping up good merit aid from some fine colleges. (The same is true of many nonURMs, though due to their lack of rarity, they face longer odds than you probably do). Anyway, my suggestion is to go for the merit aid in the fall, and then apply RD for Harvard, since my thoughts are that EA isn't going to help you with Harvard, but could help you get merit aid elsewhere.</p>

<p>"The actual stats say that only 54% of Harvard students score over 1400. "</p>

<p>Where did you find that? I found that figure for the applicants. Haven't seen a figure for accepted students except that the 75th percentile for v and for math seems to be about 790. Consequently, it seems that if the median score (v,m) is 1400, then many accepted students are scoring in the upper 700s on at least one part of the SAT.</p>

26

<p>Byerly,
Have you personally seen the odds triple with URMs who apply EA?</p>

<p>Also, while it's true that EA applicants are more likely to be admitted in that one in three is admitted, I have seen absolutely no evidence from either adcoms or from my experience as an alum interviewer that the high acceptance rate means that Harvard accepts EA weaker candidates than it would accept RD. The students whom I've seen accepted EA were head and shoulders above the other EA applicants.</p>

<p>And being outstanding EA applicants wasn't enough to be admitted, as I also saw some outstanding applicants deferred and later accepted. I haven't personally seen such outstanding EA applicants eventually rejected, but I can imagine that it could happen.</p>

<p>I've noticed on CC outstanding URM and other candidates get deferred. I also know at least one very experienced alum interviewer who is a URM, who encouraged their offspring to apply EA elsewhere, RD to Harvard. The student had some nice state awards in a couple of unrelated ECs, SATs in the upper 1300s, excellent grades. The student was deferred and waitlisted by H, accepted RD by another of the HPYS group, and got a nice EA acceptance by a top 25.</p>

<p>Given the legacy, URM and other characteristics of the student, I was surprised that the student's parent didn't suggest an EA Harvard application, but the parent said that based on what the parent had seen in previous years with H EA, the parent felt that applying EA elsewhere would boost the student's chance of getting at least one excellent acceptance.</p>

<p>Anyway, OP, whatever you decide, I wish you well. It's a tough decision to make in a very competitive world, and none of us can read the adcoms' minds.</p>

27

<p>Byerly, you make many good posts, but I think you're totally off on the EA thing. You are totally ignoring who EA applicants, on the whole, are. There are almost all of the recruited athletes, all of the legacies, all of those being pulled in by the development office and more and more URMs every year. The very astute counselors at my school, which is a top prep placing 30% at ivies, will tell you that if the average kid off the street has an EA/ED advantage at the top schools, it's very slight.</p>

28

<p>The point you make here, Northstarmom, is totally, entirely irrelevant. The "Early Admissions Game" demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that at <em>each and every SAT score level</em> your odds of admission are substantially higher if you apply EARLY.</p>

<p>If you apply EARLY your odds od admission are higher than any applicant with an SAT score 100-150 points higher.</p>

<p>All that talk about the "strength" of the early pool is totally, entirely IRRELEVANT!!!</p>

<p>It is the worst possible advice you could possibly give to tell anybody to apply RD ratrher than EA if they <em>really</em> want to go to Harvard.</p>

<p>With all due respect, I sincerely hope that you will stop doing it.</p>

<p>The only people who are interested in Harvard as their first choicewho should <em>not</em> appky early are people applying early elsewhere for strategic reasons.</p>

<p>And to Suze: all those factors have been take into account by the aiuthotrs of "the Earty Admissions Game." The idea that the HUGE admissionms edge for the eary applicants id due to the alleged "strength" of the EA pool, or to disproportionate inclusion of legacies or athletic recruits is total BUNK.</p>

29

<p>^^ your post doesnt make any sense at all. You are basically making conclusions based on SAT scores.</p>

30

<p>That is totally and absolutely incorrect.</p>

<p>Before you venture opinions on this topic, I urge you to read "The Esarly Admissions Game." You are a victim of propaganda.</p>

<p>Believe me, no one could possibly exceed me in their devotion to Harvard, but Harvard and <em>all other elites</em> dodge the truth when it comes to the huge edge given earely applicants.</p>

<p>If you choose to be taken in by the propaganda, then you will pay the price.</p>

<p>I am far more concerned that a fellow alumni interviewer such as Northstarmom seems to have swallowed the dishonest party line on the matter of the EA admit rate.</p>

<p>EA admit rate: 21%
RD admit rate: 5%</p>

31

<p>No offense, but you look fustrated. Chill. And no, I am not a victim of propaganda. Northstarmom has provided a coherrent argument, but I still fail to see you provide a good support for your argument. Comparing SAT scores doesnt help.</p>

32

<p>"EA admit rate: 21%
RD admit rate: 5%"</p>

<p>I cant argue with these stats, but they DO NOT indicate that WEAKER applicants have a better shot EA rather than ED. All it shows is that more applicants are accepted early, which also can be because they are recruits, legacies, or people with highly incredible stats.</p>

33

<p>Your childlike faith in propaganda in the face of statistical data is breathtaking - particularly since you have not read the book in question and are totally unaware of the fact that certain factors were taken into account by the authors.</p>

<p>Herewith, two excerpts from an online exchange I had with one of the authors on this very point:</p>

<p>"afairbanks002
Subject: Early Admissions Game</p>

<p>This thread is interesting. I am one of the authors of the book in question. A couple of points: (1) in addition to controlling for SATs, class rank, and other demographic data, we also controlled for the Admission Officers' reader ratings themselves. So the argument that we didn't account for the intangible strengths of a file falls a bit flat; (2) I worked for an admissions office for 5 years, and I can state unequivocally that advantages were given to ED students for precisely the reasons that NYC Fan (ie, Byerly) articulates - demonstrated interest and increased likelihood of yield. Granted - Wesleyan was not operating from the same position of strength as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but the incentive to give an advantage to early applicants always exists when there is a tangible difference in yield between Regular and Early admits.</p>

<p>……………………….</p>

<p>I have great respect for Bill Fitzimmons. He wrote an excellent review of our book in Harvard Magazine last year that raised some interesting critiques of our work. If you look carefully at his text above, it does not necessarily refute our core finding. While it may be true that admitted EA students with comparable 'objective' criteria to their counterparts in the Regular pool may have stronger 'intangible' strengths - that does not address the issue of whether the standards are different between the two programs. Those intangible strengths may explain some of the differences in admit rates across the two admissions programs between applicants with similar credentials, but our analysis shows that even when controlling for those intangible differences, the most selective colleges and universities still admit early applicants at a significantly higher rate than their regular decision counterparts."</p>

34

<p>"I worked for an admissions office for 5 years, and I can state unequivocally that advantages were given to ED students for precisely the reasons that NYC Fan (ie, Byerly) articulates - demonstrated interest and increased likelihood of yield."</p>

<p>He is talking about ED admissions. But HARVARD accepts EA admissions. These are two different things. I DO agree that it is advantageous to apply ED but not EA. Do you have any stats comparisons (gpa, sats, rank, etc) to actually prove the advantages of EA applicants over RD applicants? And please, stop posting that I am blinded by "propaganda."</p>

35

<p>I give up. You just don't want to admit the truth for some bizarre reason. </p>

<p>I hope most potential applicants - to Harvard or to any other elite - are more capable of discerning the truth.</p>

<p>READ THE DAMN BOOK!! It was written by two Harvard professors - one a world class economist and the other at the Kennedy School,( a classmate of mine), plus the former director of admissions at Wesleyan.</p>

36

<p>Well I hate to be a bother, but does anyone have any comments on the OP's original question?</p>

37

<p>I am, so far, the only one who has addressed the OP's question.</p>

38

<p>Byerley is completely correct about admission rates for early applicants versus regular decisions ones. Any high school student who disregards his statements is only hurting him or herself.</p>

39

<p>The admission rate data is true. However, because a distinctly higher proportion of students is admitted EA than RD does not mean that EA is an advantage for weak or even average Harvard applicants.</p>

<p>What Harvard's admissions staff, including the director, state is that the EA pool is distinctly stronger than is the RD pool. That has been m experience also as an alum interviewer. They also say that the students admitted EA are students whom adcoms are certain would still be admitted when the entire applicant pool is available.</p>

<p>That, too, has been my experience. In my area, the EA admits have been head and shoulders above the other applicants. This includes having typically two outstsanding and rare EC achievements.</p>

<p>Anyone who thinks that EA somehow gives weak or average applicants an advantage should just look in CC's archives to view the difference between the students who were EA admits and those who were deferred. When it came to URMs, seems that the only EA admit that I can remember from here had excellent stats and also was low income and, I think, first generation college.</p>

40

<p>Again, for (at least!) the 10th time, what you say is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT!</p>

<p>It matters not (if true, which may or may not be the case, since Harvard refuses to release data demonstrating that it is so) that the EA pool is "distinctly stronger."</p>

<p>Can't you understand this???</p>

<p>The point is that <strong><em>AT ANY GIVEN SAT SCORE</em></strong> an applicant's odds of admission are substantially greater EA (21%) than they are RD (5%).</p>