<p>LOL again with the SAT scores .....</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>
<p>First, prove it.
Second, if what you say is true, that's because the EA applicants are stronger (including having better hooks). As you know, Harvard takes far more than scores into consideration.</p>
<p>For example, it may be that EA applicants with 1350 SATs have better chances of admission than do RD applicants with 1350 SATs because the EA ones are more likely than Rd applicants to be billionaire's kids or musical prodigies. This wouldn't mean, though, that applying EA would tip in an unhooked Harvard applicant with 1350 SATs.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, your blind defense of a weak position is admirable.</p>
<p>Let's go on a little run through logic, shall we? First, let's assume that top schools want high yield rates, and they also want top students to attend their schools. Now, early action is a good way to show that you want to attend that school. Therefore, schools will like their early applicants and reward them with lots of admits. </p>
<p>There's no proof that "the EA applicants are stronger" and they are probably a little weaker--kids who have little or no chance apply early to boost their chances, which also supports my first point. </p>
<p>What part of that didn't make any sense?</p>
<p>Zephyr,
We aren't talking about "top schools": We are talking about one top school, Harvard, that has the highest yield in the country. I also am speaking from experience having interviewed Harvard applicants, seen their resumes, and talked directly to adcoms including the head of admissions. there.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether students apply EA or RD, for most applicants, Harvard is their first choice even if to avoid embarassment in case they're rejected, they claim that some lesser ranked school is their first choice. With the amazing group of applicants that Harvard gets for both EA and RD, Harvard doesn't have to reward weaker EA applicants by accepting them.</p>
<p>With a one in 10-11 acceptance rate overall, there are plenty of strong applicants to choose from. </p>
<p>I also am speaking from experience -- as an alum interviewer who has seen a fair amount of applications from my area and from a major city where I used to interview. Hands down: In both places, the EA applicants as a group were stronger. Frankly, I have never been surprised by a person who has gotten in EA. Every one whom I have seen accepted has been extraordinary.</p>
<p>I have seen outstanding students deferred EA and then rejected, and I have seen outstanding students waitlisted and rejected RD. I have never seen a weak or mediocre applicant accepted EA or RD.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, those who believe that EA gives some advantage at Harvard that will tip you in despite your not having remarkable stats for Harvard's pool, go right ahead and apply. I hope you'll also post your stats as well as the outcome of your application so that we can see how much of an advantage EA confers.</p>
<p>Think about it: If Harvard were desperate to boost its yield, it could do that easily by having ED instead of nonbinding EA. It doesn't need to reward weak EA applicants with a highly coveted Harvard acceptance.</p>
<p>In addition, if it were concerned about yield, the students Harvard would most be concerned about would be its strongest students, who are likely to also get excellent merit aid offers that may include full tuition, room and board and sponsored international travel -- from other first tier colleges. Those are the students who get wooed with EA admissions or likely letters.</p>
<p>Everything you say is totally beside the point. </p>
<p>Applying early doesn't guarantee you will get in; but it DOES guarantee that your odds of admission will be higher - whether you are a strong candidate or a weak one, a legacy or not, a URM or not, a french horn player or not. </p>
<p>This has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt by "The Early Admissions Game."</p>
<p>Byerly, please forgive this question, as I have not read the book you cite: were the controlled studies described in your post done specifically on Harvard only, or on a number of schools including Harvard, or what? Because the continued use of the term ED is of course incorrect for Harvard.</p>
<p>Northstarmom: you obviously have years and years of experience as an alumni interviewer, but all the examples you give are anecdotal. So, no matter what you might offer in this regard, a good statistical study (assuming that's the case for Byerly's source) would be, I think, a more reliable way to assess the advantage of EA vs. RD.</p>
<p>All schools. And I also have "years of experience as an alumni interviewer", so that's not at issue.</p>
<p>"rthstarmom: you obviously have years and years of experience as an alumni interviewer, but all the examples you give are anecdotal. So, no matter what you might offer in this regard, a good statistical study (assuming that's the case for Byerly's source) would be, I think, a more reliable way to assess the advantage of EA vs. RD."</p>
<p>That's true. I don't think, however, that such a study exists for Harvard, though it may exist for other colleges. </p>
<p>In addition, why would the Harvard adcoms lie? From what I've seen, adcoms at other colleges are open about the fact that applying ED/EA confers an advantage at their colleges. For instance, I have heard that U Penn adcoms tell legacies that if they want to take advantage of their legacy status, they must apply ED. </p>
<p>Thus, applying EA is a tip factor at Harvard, why wouldn't adcoms admit it? Considering how willing to do research H alums and H wannabes are, if there are studies indicating that EA confers an advantage on H applicants, adcoms would be stupid not to admit that advantage.</p>
<p>If it is harder to get in EA, Northstarmom, then there were about 4,200 pretty dumb smart people who sent in their EA applications last fall.</p>
<p>Byerly and HarvardAlum98' are off-base once again about Harvard it seems. Neither of you actually address Northstarmom's valid points and instead debunk them in a frantic effort to assert your own repetitive positions.</p>
<p>Applying EA to Harvard only helps if you have...
1. SAT/SAT 2 scores(you don't feel you need to retake them)
2. Interview(you already had one that went well before EA deadline)
3. Teacher Recommendations(have given teachers adequate time to fill them out and they are from teachers who know you well)
4. Essays(you have already spent sufficient time on them and believe that they are an impeccable finished product)</p>
<p>Unless you have considered all of these points and thus believe that you don't need to retake any Collegeboard test because you have good scores on them all, have had a good interview, garnered laudatory recs from teachers, and have written superb essays, you are better off turning in a more polished application RD. Spending more time on retaking tests to get higher scores and writing more thoughtful essays for example can vastly increase you chances for admission to Harvard once the RD round coems along.</p>
<p>Byerly, HarvardAlum98', and other misinformed posters: The reason the Harvard EA round has such a high admission rate is becasue it is self-selective and only the applicants that are the most prepared and qualified will apply.</p>
<p>Post #50 doesn't address the issue of whether or not a person who already has test scores and recommendations in hand should apply SCEA or wait till the RD round. It's plausible that it would be advantageous to apply SCEA, especially because a high test gained earlier might be more impressive than a high test score gained later, and a person who can get his or her application together earlier looks more organized and prepared for college life. </p>
<p>After edit: after all, the SCEA deadline for Harvard is no earlier than the priority (for scholarships, or for housing) rolling admission deadline at some state universities, so there is nothing particularly "early" about early application to Harvard.</p>
<p>Personally, I have to agree with Byerly. Many people seem to believe that the EA or ED pool is generally stronger than the RD pool. However, for top schools such as HYPS, there really isn't that much of a difference. You get 1600's and 1200's in both pools. There are strong applicants that apply RD, and strong applicants that apply EA. Neither applicant pool is any stronger, for the most part.</p>
<p>So, if the pools are fairly similar, why is there such a difference in the percentages?</p>
<p>It's because applying EA really DOES give you a huge advantage. If you truly want to be accepted into Harvard, and if it really is your number once choice, apply early. If it doesn't work out, then apply to others. But believe me, you'll regret it for a long time if you don't try to apply EA. Just put in a lot of effort into your application, and cross your fingers. And take advantage of EVERY opportunity that comes your way, including EA.</p>
<p>Gurl Next Door: Feeling prepared to apply EA in and of itself does not mean you are an exceptional applicant. Thinking your essays are superb doesn't mean they are; hoping your recs will be suberb doesn't mean they are (unless you don't waive your right to see them), and interviews occur AFTER, not before the EA deadline. And not retaking SAT's has more to do with whether you think its likely you can improve them than just the numbers themselves. IN fact, your argument can be better used to reach the opposite conclusion: applying EA puts everyone at risk for having a less than stellar presentation: the interview is typically the first one, there's been less time to rework the essay and other ap materials etc. The only question that Northstarmom raises that seems relevant: was Harvard specifically looked at in the study Byerly cites.</p>
<p>Another comment: re anecdotal evidence: the two students who got into Harvard EA from our school in recent years (prior to this past year) were, while very smart, not the typical "academic superstars" everyone talks about, and they were not legacies, URM's or recruited athletes. They were neither vals nor sals, but they were very talented creative writers and did very well in debate/speech. I don't think they were viewed as shoe-ins to Harvard by any means Nevertheless, once accepted, I think everyone who knew them felt they would offer something special to the classes they entered.</p>
<p>"Personally, I have to agree with Byerly. Many people seem to believe that the EA or ED pool is generally stronger than the RD pool. However, for top schools such as HYPS, there really isn't that much of a difference. You get 1600's and 1200's in both pools."</p>
<p>What you said is based only on conjecture. No one actually knows how similar the entire pools are for EA or RD except adcoms.</p>
<p>I can say with some authority that in my relatively small region, the EA pool is definitely stronger than is the RD pool. However, for all I know, in urban areas like Byerly's perhaps the opposite is true or perhaps there is no difference.</p>
<p>In my own area, the one 1600 we'd seen in several years applied and got in EA. The 1200s have appled RD and have been rejected. </p>
<p>Talented, creative writers with good stats and strong evidence of their talent who also have done amazingly well in debate/speech might be more likely to get in EA than would outstanding, but more typical candidates (such as the plethora of aspiring physicians with local/regional sci fair wins and/or national/state math competitive games wins). </p>
<p>Excellent creative writers are more unusual in the pool than are excellent scientists and excellent mathematicians. Presumably, too, it might be harder for Harvard to attract excellent creative writers and aspiring humanities majors because such students might prefer going to a liberal arts college.</p>
<p>Thus, when it comes to these categories of students, H might be likely to accept them EA in hopes that the early acceptance would make the students feel good enough to turn down places like Amherst come spring. It also would be obvious to adcoms that due to the relative scarcity of strong humanities students, the students would be accepted when the entire pool is in. </p>
<p>People unfamiliar with Harvard's way of building classes might not realize why the EA decisions were made, and might think that, for instance, aspiring biochem majors who may have been rejected after applying RD were rejected because they didn't apply EA, not because Harvard has an overabundance of wannabe doctor applicants.</p>
<p>Once again.... the alleged "strength" of the EA pool vs the RD pool is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!! </p>
<p>This is just a red herring utilized by adcomms (including those at my beloved Harvard) to disguise the truth; ie, that candidates with equal records are FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE ADMITTED IF THEY APPLY EARLY.</p>
<p>Any school the pretends otherwise is lying to you. The Harvard adcomms never answer the question directly; rather they attempt to change the subject by talking about the alleged "strength" of the EA pool, etc etc. Many people (including, apparently, Northstarmom) are taken in by this circumlocution.</p>
<p>People who give advice to students and their parents should become informed. I have yet to see a comment from someone who does not believe EA or ED increase chances for admission and who has actually read The Early Admissions Game. The evidence is overwhelming. It may be possible to debate details of the study, but it is silly to pretend it does not exist.</p>
<p>"That's true. I don't think, however, that such a study exists for Harvard, though it may exist for other colleges. " Yes, such a study does exist for Harvard. It is included in the book. When you read the book, you will see the data for Harvard.</p>
<p>Amen .</p>
<p>In understanding why it makes sense that "candidates with equal records are FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE ADMITTED IF THEY APPLY EARLY", yield, I'm sure, is the biggest factor. However, regarding how a school such as Harvard builds a class, I imagine that they start by admitting some exceptional researchers/premeds, some exceptional singers, dancers, debaters, creative writers, etc, etc, etc. Now lets say there are more exceptional researchers, singers, dancers and debaters applying RD. By that time, many of those slots are already filled. Seeking diversity of interests and strengths, Harvard may simply not need many more of the equally exceptional researchers/premeds, singers, dancers etc. etc. in the class they are "building". Hence, it may be much harder for those RD students to be selected. Early seems better to me, even without the study.</p>
<p>I've been following this thread for a few days, because I am also interested in how EA affects admissions decision. I've thought about it, and here is how I see the matter. The EA pool has stronger applicants as a whole when compared to the RD pool. Harvard would want to accept as many of these strong applicants (accept more of the EA pool than the RD pool). </p>
<p>This increases the EA admit rate, making it APPEAR as if it is easier or more advantageous to apply EA than RD. After the EA and ED pool, they will accept people from the RD pool to round out the class. But, they would accept less from RD, because they aren't as strong as the EA pool, making it APPEAR that it is harder to get accepted under RD. But, if you are only an average student, you would have more chance under RD, because you wouldn't be competing with the stronger applicant pool that is in EA.</p>
<p>In otherwords, I agree with Northstarmom, because it seems the most logical. I'm not an admissions officer and I don't have the experience that Northstarmom and Byerly possess, and I could be very wrong. But, I really can't see how EA is advantageous if you are an average student without a "hook".</p>