<p>^ lolz.
10char</p>
<p>^Good idea, lookbeyond. Except, might I modify slightly and go to bed instead? :D</p>
<p>I think this is a game of telephone (ad com to counselor, counselor to OP, OP to CC) where the original message (which may have been an off-hand comment that the counselor read into too deeply) is not what we’re reading. Yale does not lose the cross-admit battle by a landslide and, as pointed out in an earlier post, there is evidence of Yale having won the battle in recent years. Many kids who get into Harvard are not admitted to Yale and vice versa. Yale would be beyond foolish not to take top quality kids because of a fear that Harvard would “steal” them since the kids might not get into Harvard in the first place. Something has been lost in translation.</p>
<p>It seems to me that if Yale acts rationally, it will admit its top applicants based on its typical yield, and will wait-list the next group of top applicants. If it loses a few more cross-admits to Harvard than usual, or if a few more decide to go to state schools for free, it might have to go to the waiting list, and its yield rate might drop a bit. So what? It still makes no sense to reject candidates you want in favor of candidates you want less.
But on the other hand, imagine that you’re a Yale adcom: Applicant X is a double Harvard legacy and URM with perfect grades and scores and a major science prize. He did not apply to Yale SCEA. Do you accept, waitlist, or reject him?</p>
<p>^ Do they consider applicant X in a standalone, or do they compare him to others they’ve decided on, or do they measure candidates one against the other in sets?</p>
<p>Choosing with future selections in mind (regardless of other stipulations), requires us to have information on more than one class of candidate…</p>
<p>…we can’t really speculate without that.</p>
<p>My point is that Yale might waitlist a person if (1) they believed that he would be accepted at Harvard (2) they believed he would choose to go to Harvard and (3) they care about yield and cross-admit records. But it seems to me that very few students would satisfy (1) and (2) clearly enough to warrant taking that action.</p>
<p>Then I suppose the grand majority that 1) 2) aren’t fulfilled by would be what the OP referred to as “mediocre”…poor choice of words.</p>
<p>I don’t think this admissions round will be any different from years past, save how small the admit percentage will be. Only because I think that there are more students, both qualified and unqualified applying this year.</p>
<p>w/e One day left.</p>
<p>In Descartesz’s study of the people who posted their results on CC after SCEA, the 2390-2400 range had a 19% less chance of acceptance than the 2350-2380 range and 26% more chance of being deferred. The samples are very small but it is an interesting finding.</p>
<p>“Admission results of reporters posting test scores by SAT/ACT score bracket
2390-2400 (22 scores) Admitted: 36%, Deferred: 59%, Denied: 5%
……….(note: ACT 36 = SAT 2390 by latest concordance table)
2350-2380 (18 scores) Admitted: 55%, Deferred: 33%, Denied: 11%
2300-2340 (41 scores) Admitted: 41%, Deferred: 51%, Denied: 7%
2250-2290 (26 scores) Admitted: 19%, Deferred: 61%, Denied: 19%
2200-2240 (16 scores) Admitted: 6%, Deferred: 75%, Denied: 19%
2100-2190 (18 scores) Admitted: 17%, Deferred: 39%, Denied: 44%
Below 2100 (15 scores) Admitted: 20%, Deferred: 40%, Denied: 40%”</p>
<p>I kind of want this to be true and not true - 36 ACT but way average extracurriculars, so I don’t know… I don’t think it’s true though. They can’t relax admissions in the toughest year ever.</p>
<p>I think the big thing to take from Descartesz’s study with our small sample size is the big jump between acceptance rates with 2300+ vs. 2200-2290. I don’t really think that there’s an appreciable difference between the 2350-2380 v. 2390-2400 at this point. We should use RD results to see if there’s a possibility of a difference.</p>
<p>mmmm i hope this is true…</p>
<p>im exactly 2200, with amazing recs (i read them, thats how i know), and pretty decent essays… and really focussed ECs.</p>
<p>but i stand no chance next to a person who has cured cancer…</p>
<p>It is possible, of course, that some of those “perfect deferreds” could become “perfect accepteds” tomorrow. Just three of them would raise the admitted rate to 50%.</p>
<p>As I posted on the SCEA stats thread, I think the stats show more about CC posters than Yale SCEA applicants. Stats posters tend to be confident either of their admission or of their ability to handle public rejection. CC posters who share stats tend to be a justifiably confident bunch (hence the very high admit rates across most bands). It is possible, however, that the “perfect” scorers put just a little too much faith in their scores and decide to post their stats at rates a little above that of those in slightly lower bands.</p>
<p>Or it could just be statistical noise. At any rate I’d bet the overall SCEA admit rates at Yale monotonically increase with test scores.</p>
<p>wow this is sooo not true. Yale’s been doing this for 300 some years. They pretty much know the yield when compared to Harvard, whatever that number may be (I don’t know who would choose Harvard but that’s just me…) I’m pretty sure Yale need not lower standards to protect yield. It’s Yale. They can accept whomever they want and still retain their astronomically high matriculation rate.</p>
<p>
Hmmm…I’m not so sure. I think the overall admit rates increase with overall quality of application package, including grades, scores, and outside achievements. It’s my suspicion that there is a subset of high-scoring applicants who are relatively lacking in outside achievements.</p>
<p>“It’s my suspicion that there is a subset of high-scoring applicants who are relatively lacking in outside achievements.”</p>
<p>^ In addition to a subset of mid-upper mid scoring applicants relatively choc full of outside achievements.</p>
<p>In the end, we’re really not doing anything by trying to short sell our admissions, so to speak.</p>