<p>Why do you post all these success stories from random newspapers of students getting into Harvard, but post no stories of students getting into Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc? I'm sure you can find them. So, why just Harvard?</p>
<p>maybe because YPS isn't as good as H</p>
<p>Because Byerly is a Harvard alum primarily interested in the accomplishments of Harvard students. Why should he search the papers for articles about students who went to schools that he has no emotional attachment to?</p>
<p>That is only part of the reason. </p>
<p>Fact is that there may be more such stories (particularly from small-town newspapers) relating to Harvard (hometown kid makes good) than to all other elites combined.</p>
<p>The reason for this is debatable, but I assume it is largely due to Harvard's iconic status.</p>
<p>Right. Byerly is a Harvard alum who cares primarily about Harvard. This is the Harvard board and Byerly is...well, Byerly. His job here is to help advance Harvard's standpoint.</p>
<p>With all due respect, I don't see it as my "job to help advance Harvard's standpoint", but rather to: </p>
<p>(1) provide information about admissions, and</p>
<p>(2) dispel the occasional misinformation that is posted about this topic where it comes to my attention</p>
<ul>
<li>at Harvard and at other schools - for those seeking the facts.</li>
</ul>
<p>My apologies then. I based what I said on the fact--as the original poster pointed out--that you gather information primarily on Harvard, as can be expected on the Harvard board, and from an alum. Sorry if I misphrased that originally (which I can see how I did...).</p>
<p>Nothing to apologize for... and good luck!</p>
<p>Byerly ~ Since this thread has been started, I too have a quick question.</p>
<p>I think you've written that Harvard admissions originally "expected" to take 40 or so applicants from the waitlist this year (boy, I hope I'm remembering this correctly). My question is this: when did this information emerge into the public domain?</p>
<p>I'm wondering if other schools would have known about Harvard's intent to make use of the wiatlist this year, and expected to lose a few students to Harvard as a result.</p>
<p>By the way, do you still see 65 as a likely number to be called from the waitlist? I noticed that MIT is now making good use of their waitlist, for the first time in several years.</p>
<p>I believe my "guestimate" was 40-60, but this was based on an historical and theoretical analysis - and not on last-minute, inside info.</p>
<p>Harvard initially admitted 2,109 applicants - slightly higher than the 2,102 admitted last year - but also announced that class size would be increased from 1640 to a target of 1,684.</p>
<p>At the same time, a deliberate effort was made to reduce reliance on the (high yield) early pool, from whence they took 821 vs. 892 last year.</p>
<p>Assuming last year's yield rate - slightly depressed by reduced reliance on the early pool, the 2,109 admits would result in a class of 1,640, as last year. </p>
<p>The additional admits to meet the greater class target size were, in fact, "programmed" to come from the waitlist pool, which has many talented and desirable people in it.</p>
<p>Assuming a precision and historic replication unlikely to be achieved in real life, this would mean about 44 spaces to be filled from the WL.</p>
<p>Will it work out this way? Who knows? Personally, I think the reduced reliance on the early pool and the more aggressive effort to recruit lower-yield admits who are URMs, from lower economic quadrant families, etc., will lead to a slightly lower yield rate - which means more than that "formula" number of 44 from the WL.</p>
<p>If the yield rate is exactly the same as last year, without the countervailing factors I've mentioned, then there will be 1,648 admitted prior to WL use. If, as I <em>guess</em> these factors will result in a yield rate no higher than 77.5%, then there will be about 1,634 in the class prior to WL use, and about 70 might be conceivably taken from the WL - allowing for "summer melt" of around 10.</p>
<p>Getting to your point, it is certainly possible that these WL people will already have matriculated at one of the "rival" elites - meaning that a certain amount of "musical chairs" jumping will take place between now and the middle or end of June.</p>
<p>This, as they say, is indeed the "sharp elbows" stage of the admissions process!</p>
<p>Thank you, Byerly. I have been thiking about this for a couple of weeks now, and it only just occurred to me today that what happens at Harvard is essentially the core development for all of the elite universities, since each student elevated from the Harvard waitlist to Harvard enrollment probably causes several "downstream" vacancies to appear. Quite a few of these may begin at elite peer institutions.</p>
<p>70 is a big number.</p>
<p>yay. byerly's post cheered me up</p>
<p>The difference between 65-70 and the 25+ last year is basically the planned increase in enrollment (made possible by the huge increase in the study abroad program, which has opened up beds for additional admits.)</p>
<p>You are right, reasonabledad, that the echo-effect of waitlist admits at Harvard can reverberate all the way down the academic food chain!</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Also, increasing the use of the waitlist to manage the change on two fronts, reduced early action candidates and increased enrollement, allows Harvard to make the transition with 100% yield waitlist candidates. Perhaps not the primary factor but a factor.</p>
<p>Actually, the best way to increase yield is to <em>reduce</em> enrollment - as Yale is doing.... helps the admit rate, too! The difference between a 100% yield and an 80% yield on 44 admits is about 9 kids ... not enough to make much of a difference.</p>
<p>Now if a school had a 44% yield, like Duke, for example, or a 33% yield like WUStL, use of the waitlist can make quite a difference.</p>
<p>True enough . . . but every little bit helps to maintain that high/astronimical level.</p>
<p>If that were the goal, they'd be taking MORE from the early pool, not fewer. </p>
<p>Harvard and Stanford seem to have acted in concert in cutting back on early admits this year, even as Yale and Princeton were both filling a record fraction of their seats in this fashion.</p>
<p>Byerly--Thank you! :)</p>