<p>
[quote]
The number of students who have accepted their offers of admission to Yale for fall 2008 has remained at a level consistent with past years, despite dire predictions reflecting the uncertainty in the Ivy League admissions playing field this year. </p>
<p>So far, the Universitys yield the percentage of accepted students matriculating stands at 68.9 percent, compared to 69.4 percent at a similar point in the admissions cycle last year, Dean of Admissions Jeff Brenzel said in an interview Thursday. Out of the 1,892 offers of admission made in the early action and regular admissions rounds, 1,286 students have committed to attending Yale in the fall, while an additional 25 students have postponed matriculation to fall 2009.
...
<p>Harvard thought their's could rise with the financial aid incentives or fall due to discontinuing Early Action. They also thought Yale's would rise because it was the only one of HYP to still have early admits. Harvard's down <1%, Yale's about the same, apparently others will mirror last year's figures too. Interesting.</p>
<p>It's great to see Yale playing the same kind of spin game that our presidential candidates do. In fact, Yale was expecting to gain a competitive advantage when it refused to follow Harvard's and Princeton's admirable lead in getting rid of early admissions - a practice that benefits the advantaged and that most high school guidance counselors agree is not good for students. Yale's overall yield number would indicate that they did not get the competitive advantage they were expecting. Hopefully this will cause them to consider eliminating early admissions for next year.</p>
<p>Of course, the more interesting stats (and the more relevant stats for the issue of early admissions) have yet to be released - namely the yield breakdown between early and regular admits, and the impact on overall class diversity.</p>
<p>The problem with keeping EA is that an influx of ppl whose first choice is e.g. Harvard will now apply to Yale b/c Harvard doesn't have an early admit program. Under the old program, those kids would likely just apply to Harvard/Princeton/etc early (and pending acceptance) would never apply to Yale. Hence instead of trying to keep up yield with kids who definitely want Yale as their first choice, Yale is forced to sort through a more qualified and larger applicant pool and maintain same yield. If Yale were ED instead of EA (like Princeton was), they wouldn't have this risk... but maintaining an EA program is very risky and no one knew *** was going to happen...</p>
<p>Moreover, Yale reevaluated EA after Harvard and Princeton pulled their programs and concluded that it doesn't hurt the applicant pool. In fact, they noted that a HIGHER proportion of minority and low-income students applied under the EA program.</p>
<p>That's a claim I don't recall ever seeing - would be interested in seeing your source for that. </p>
<p>I went to grad school at Yale and love the school, but I really think they made the wrong decision on this one. Levin had been critical in the past of early admissions programs (in terms of what is in the best interests of students), but seemingly jumped at the chance to get a leg up on Harvard and Princeton when those two schools took the lead on getting rid of early admissions last year.</p>
<p>Here's a pretty Yale-sympathetic story on this issue from the Yale Herald, which nonetheless makes the following relevant points:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In 2003, after announcing Yales decision to abandon its binding Early Decision program in favor of non-binding early action, Yale President Richard Levin, GRD 74, baldly stated at the annual meeting of the National Association of Independent Schools that early admissions programs do not serve the interests of high school students. Three years later, explaining Yales decision to retain its early action program in the wake of Harvard and Princetons elimination of their own, Levin seemed to reverse his earlier comments. Describing non-binding, single-choice early action as popular with high school students and their counselors, Levin said the program solves the major problems inherent in the system we had before. This disconnect between the Universitys views only four years ago and Yales policy for tomorrow has prompted questions both from within and outside the Yale community regarding the right direction for college admissions in the twenty-first century.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Richard Ludlow, SM 07, offered another interpretation. Since freshman year, Ludlow, an Economics major, has been developing an online database of student profiles at universities across the country designed to help prospective applicants find students similar to themselves in terms of grades, test scores, and demographics. Ludlow hopes the database will allow students to inform themselves of their chances for admission at school nationwide. Keeping early action gives Yale a competitive advantage over Harvard and Princeton because basically, once a school says yes to you, you start to fall in love with it. Ludlow said. With an early option no longer available at Harvard and Princeton, he said, some students for whom those schools are a top choice will now apply early to Yale, be admitted early, and enroll contrary to their initial preferences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale, of course, has its money on Ludlow. Should the new policies at Harvard and Princeton encourage the strongest students from across the nation to send their first application to Yale, the University may very well return to the coveted spot atop the US News and World Report college rankings, an honor it hasnt held since 1996.
<p>Personally, I really liked having EA as an option. I am not sure how it affected my choice, but it was nice to have months to consider Yale and what it had to offer. The month of April is very, very short for applicants, and it's almost impossible to really get a good feeling for a school in such a short amount of time. Likewise, you don't want to get your hopes up for a school that you haven't been admitted to yet. So I guess it comes down to this: does EA help Yale? Maybe (see below)... but in a way that benefits the student, too.</p>
<p>It was nice to hear back in the form of likely letters, too, and I think it's actually really great that schools send those out so that students have a way to start planning for the May 1st decision date.</p>
<p>Back when Harvard and Yale both had EA and Princeton had ED, yield rates were at basically the same level as they are right now. Yale's financial aid is as strong as Harvard's, and Princeton is generally pretty close. I don't think aid played a huge role here. So holding that as a constant, I'd say that EA didn't have such a huge impact on yield rates. Just an idea...</p>
<p>Ihavehope13, I think having EA does give school a competitive advantage, especially with Y's recruiting tradition. In our area, local alumni association offered receptions just for EA students. Besides keeping EA, Y sent out a lot more likely letters to non-athlete students compared to H and P.</p>
<p>There is a camp at Yale that agrees with the Harvard and Princeton view that early admissions "advantages the advantaged" and should be abolished. Last year, that camp was outvoted by the camp that saw an opportunity to gain an advantage in the admissions game vis a vis Harvard and Princeton. But if, as appears to be the case, the hoped-for advantage did not materialize, I'm not surprised that they may revisit the issue for next year. Particularly if they end up with a less diverse class this year than Harvard and Princeton (and I have some reason to believe this may be the case, though here I would characterize my belief as no more than slightly informed speculation - they have not released numbers on this yet).</p>
<p>I know that if Yale eliminates EA, I might be tempted to apply somewhere else early decision (that I want to go to equally as bad, but not sure financially if ED would be the right move).</p>
<p>And I know that colleges worry about exactly this sentiment, which makes me admire all the more Princeton's and Harvard's courage in doing the right thing and stepping out as leaders on this issue. It also makes me believe all the more that reaching some level of critical mass in getting rid of EA at all the top schools is important to making it stick. I really hope that Yale, at least, and preferably a few more (like Stanford), take the plunge this year.</p>
<p>Of course, your burning desire to apply somewhere early does not fit well with your screen name. ;)</p>
<p>SCEA does not "advantage the advantaged" in a significant way. Unlike binding ED, which eliminates the succesful applicant's opportunity to compare financial aid packages, EA, including SCEA, is not binding. Yale SCEA applicants are free to apply concurrently to schools with rolling admissions (generally large publics). Moreover, they are at complete liberty to apply to any and all schools RD and compare and re-negotiate financial aid packages before making a commitment.</p>
<p>I certainly agree that EA is better than ED. And I also agree that for those who are savvy enough to use it and are successful, early admissions can be a real positive. (My son was admitted early to his first choice school and it made his senior year of high school much more enjoyable.) But statistically speaking, there is just no question that early application pools, whether they're EA or ED, are heavily weighted towards the advantaged. And high school guidance counselors across the country applauded when Harvard and Princeton (and UVA) took the lead in eliminating their early admissions (unfortunately, they led, but no one else followed). </p>
<p>I think the real test for Yale, given that they seem not to have captured a yield advantage this year by keeping EA, will be whether there's been any impact on their ability to build a diverse class. If they've been hurt in this area, I think they'll seriously consider eliminating EA for next year. If not, they'll probably continue to hold out and see if they can get a yield advantage next year. The problem is that Harvard and Princeton have made clear that if no one else follows them, and if it turns out that their admissions are hurt by not having EA, they will reinstate it. Which would be a shame in my view.</p>
<p>P.S., an interesting (and relevant) quote in this article from the head of admissions at Harvard:</p>
<p>
[quote]
While Harvard and Princeton dropped early admissions this year, Yale and Stanford maintained their early programs. In an interview last week, Fitzsimmons said he initially calculated that dropping early admissions would lower Harvard’s yield by as much as seven points. </p>
<p>He said that he expects to have lost more students in the admissions battle between Yale and Harvard this year, due to Yale’s decision to keep its early action program. Yale’s yield remained steady at 69 percent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously Harvard and Princeton had the courage of their convictions that eliminating early admissions was the right thing to do, as it is clearly not the self-interested thing to do.</p>
<p>Frankly, I am insulted by H&P's reasons for dropping EA. They imply that URMs are not smart or savvy enough to apply EA.</p>
<p>With all the information readily available to everyone on the internet, students with even a little bit of initiative can find all kinds of information. Students should NOT rely solely on their guidance counselor to walk them through the admissions process. Students need to be more proactive and resourceful.</p>
<p>Although we live in a pre-dominately "white" community (read 99%) with an excellent school system, we have received most of our information (summer programs, application process, scholarship information) from web sites.</p>