<p>EA tempts so many people throughout the nation.
Esp since this will be the last year that Harvard will offer EA option, so many people I know are madly shooting for this once in a life time chance...</p>
<p>Not an exception, I am also trying to apply early but I feel like I will be so much more ready if I could apply regular.
YET, i still can not resist the temptation of high acceptance rate of EA (even if URM skews data)....</p>
<p>DO you really think I should just hold back and apply regular later?
OR, is it possible to send better essays later if I get deferred?</p>
<p>IS it true that if you apply early and get deferred, you still have a higher chance of getting in compared to those who applied regualr?</p>
<p>Zzibuya- the higher acceptance rate for early students is a result of the highly qualified early applicant pool, not lower standards that they're applying. That's what skews the data- mostly strong students apply to Harvard early. You're mixing up correlation and causation.</p>
<p>You won't get an advantage by applying early. Unless your application is ready, you shouldn't send it in (although if you do get in, it's good to get in earlier so it's off your mind).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Esp since this will be the last year that Harvard will offer EA option, so many people I know are madly shooting for this once in a life time chance...
[/quote]
I don't see why people would be "madly shooting" to apply SCEA if they weren't already going to anyway. You only apply to colleges once (generally), so even if this wasn't the last time Harvard offered SCEA, you'd still only have one shot to get in early (unless you take a gap year and re-apply).</p>
<p>Anyway, if you think you can have an excellent application done by November 1, if you have finished all testing (except maybe Nov 4 SATs), if your essays can get you in, if your teachers have your recommendations ready, if you school has the school report and transcripts ready, then you might as well apply SCEA.</p>
<p>Well, then, I should choose to hold on to the early app.
Still, I am frustrated to see that I am just missing this chance that, accrording to many, gurantees you with many more previleges. (yes, I know many of you would disagree.)</p>
<p>BUT, is it true that those who have applied early and have been deferred will be considered with more care in the regular round than those who merely apply regular?</p>
<p>Applying early shows you were pretty serious about getting in and organized enough to get your act together earlier. I would say they take a closer look at EA apps in the regular round.</p>
<p>By all means, apply early if you can get your act together. No matter what anybody tells you, it will improve your chances of admission - statistically - no matter what category you are in.</p>
<p>There is little risk, since almost nobody is rejected at this stage, and SCEA applicants who are deferred are generally admitted later at virtually the same rate as those applying, for the first time, in the "regular" round.</p>
<p>I concur with post #9. Next year it won't matter for Harvard, because Harvard won't have an early round, but this year one might as well apply early to Harvard if Harvard is a college of interest.</p>
<p>But only if you are truly ready. If your application is weak, it won't matter that you applied early. Closer scrutiny helps only if it does not uncover more defects!</p>
<p>I see. Well, I can't help blaming marching band for taking my tons of hours during summer and first quarter for my lack of preparation for the early round. It is too big of a good chance to miss.</p>
<p>"No matter what anybody tells you, it will improve your chances of admission - statistically - no matter what category you are in."</p>
<p>This statement contains a misunderstanding of statistics that shows up a lot in college discussions. The reason that there is a statistical difference in acceptance between EA applicants and regular applicants is that the EA pool is generally statistically stronger. The statistic is a compilation of data, not a probability.</p>
<p>This is a common statistical misunderstanding- that of correlation implying causation. Here's an analogy (unrelated to colleges): New York City has a 25% African-American population, while Los Angeles has a 10% African-American population. If you live in Los Angeles, would moving to New York City increase your chances of being black? Of course not- this idea is clearly ridiculous.</p>
<p>Harvard admissions applies the same standard to early applicants as they do to regular applicants, they state so publicly. The fact that they accept a greater percentage of early applicants is no proof to the contrary.</p>
<p>Saying that applying early improves your chances because a greater percentage of EA applicants are accepted is statistically invalid. It's like saying, "Over 80% of all applicants accepted to Harvard end up going to college in the immediate Boston area. If I only apply to schools in and around Boston, I have a better chance of being accepted!" The statistic is true, but the interpretation isn't.</p>
<p>Studies of early rounds of admission decisions (notably the book The Early Admissions Game) dig more deeply into the data. The data always trump theorizing and analogies. To Harvard's credit, Harvard will now go to a single-deadline system beginning with high school class of 2008. For high school students in class of 2007, it is indubitably expedient to apply in the early round.</p>
<p>Saying that the early pool at <em>ANY</em> school is "statistically stronger" is just plain wrong. I challenge you to cite supporting SAT scores etc. for both the early pool and the regular pool at <em>ANY</em> school - <em>ANYWHERE</em> at which this is true. (Hint ... you won't find any such stats, because they are never posted, for obvious reasons: they do not exist, at Harvard or anywhere else.)</p>
<p>You may be a math student, but you clearly are uninformed when it comes to early admissions. I commend to you the "Early Admissions Game" where it is demonstrated beyond a doubt that all these claims about the alleged "strength" of the early pool as an explanation for an admit rate that is often 3 or 4 times higher than for the "regular" pool are so much horse manure.</p>
<p>After correcting for all factors, legacy status, athletic recruit status, URM status, etc., it remains true that for <em>comparable</em> applicants, those in the early pool have an admit rate equivalent to their counterparts in the "regular" pool with SAT scores 100-150 points higher.</p>
<p>The statistics suggest that the high admit rate for early applicants goes BEYOND what is known to be stronger about the early pool in most colleges. In other words, early application provides, probabilistically, a boost to all applicants in the early pool, both the strongest and the weaker. </p>
<p>Anyway, Harvard is getting out of that business, so for Harvard applicants it is only this year's (and, now, only this week's) concern.</p>
<p>The question in post #19 is interesting. It may be (I would guess that it would be) that the early round in Harvard will have a different balance of decisions (admit, defer, or deny) from what it has had in previous years. We'll know soon enough.</p>