<p>Despite cancelling Visitas! Go Crimson!
Despite</a> Cancellation of Visitas, Yield for Class of 2017 Hits 44-Year High | News | The Harvard Crimson</p>
<p>im assuming scea had something to do w/ this?</p>
<p>I would think so, as Harvard admitted 895 students early this year, as opposed to 772 in 2012. The vast majority of SCEA admits (maybe upwards of 90%) accept a spot in the class.</p>
<p>There is an interesting quote about this in the Harvard Gazette: “Harvards yield is particularly notable because the College does not offer athletic or other non-need-based scholarships.” [Harvard</a> yield hits 82 percent | Harvard Gazette](<a href=“http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/05/harvard-yield-hits-82-percent/]Harvard”>Harvard yield hits 82 percent – Harvard Gazette) This might be a dig at Stanford as no Ivy League schools offer scholarships.</p>
<p>But if you look closer, that comment doesn’t make a lot of sense: </p>
<p>(1) Despite the lack of scholarships, Harvard athletes still go through a recruitment/signing process. Many of those who have completed their Harvard application and are admitted would have expressed a keen interest in Harvard. Moreover, a school that offers athletic scholarships might still lose an admitted athlete to another school that offers scholarships.</p>
<p>(2) And as slushy9 and Gibby suggest, Harvard places a huge emphasis on SCEA admits. The 895 early admits would fill up about 56% of Harvard’s freshman class if all accepted. And by admitting so many early action, the regular decision admits become exceptionally scarce, creating a greater impression of exclusivility. </p>
<p>By comparison, Stanford, despite having larger class sizes, had 170 fewer early admits this year than Harvard. And I think Stanford gives out about only about 60 or so full or partial athletic scholarships to incoming freshmen each year. So Harvard’s greater focus on SCEA applicants would surely more than offset any impact these scholarships might have on yield.</p>
<p>All that said, Harvard’s yield has been as high as 86%, so it’s clearly been the first pick of many students, SCEA or not. But the fact that Harvard’s yield is actually increasing in this era of increased competition/cross-applicants is both remarkable and (perhaps) explainable.</p>
<p>Does this mean fewer acceptances for next year’s applicants?</p>
<p>I don’t think so, as the TOTAL number of admits (SCEA and RD combined) have remained the same for the past 2 years. </p>
<p>The take-away from all of this for next year, at least from my viewpoint, is apply early, as Harvard is taking more than 50% of their class in the early round.</p>
<p>It’s just about a 50/50 split right now. I don’t think they will admit a larger number from scea next cycle though, given that 900 was pretty high and a big jump from the year before.</p>
<p>That said, there may be a good reason to apply early, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the SCEA admit rate dropped a good deal from the likely increase in applicants that round.</p>
<p>I thought Harvard might accept fewer people next year in anticipation of an even higher yield…</p>
<p>I think Harvard might accept a little more SCEA people next year. By doing so, it can boost its yield rate even higher and encourage the best applicants to apply early to Harvard instead of other schools. </p>
<p>However, I’m still not sure whether it is a good idea to apply early as once deferred the chance to getting in is much smaller than regular applicants. Harvard deferred too many applicants as compared to Stanford who only kept a very small pool of deferred students. I saw several Stanford EA rejects end up been accepted by Harvard or MIT or Yale this year. It is really a tough decision to decide to apply to which school during the early round.</p>
<p>Vivian_, </p>
<p>You seem to be relying too heavily on anecdotal evidence. The admit rate for those deferred in the SCEA Round is just about the same as those who applied in the RD round, which is still pretty darn low - 3%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, I find this hard to believe. What is your source vivian?</p>
<p>Harvard’s website said that “While it is impossible to predict individual admission decisions, past students whose applications were deferred have been admitted at various rates, often approximating the rate for Regular Decision candidates.”</p>
<p>Let’s assume the rate is roughly the same, given the fact that early pool is highly self-selecting and usually loaded with academic stars, top 5% of the class, legacies, athletes, URM, the deferred applicants should have a higher concentration of great candidates than regular pool where applicants can simply check one more school - Harvard in the common app to give it a shot. In addition, while Harvard is a wonderful school, some of those who were admitted early to other top tier schools such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, or UPenn’s special programs such as M &T would never bother to apply to Harvard regular. It is “reasonable” to assume that Harvard’s regular pool is not as concentrated with great candidates, as compared to its deferred pool though both are admitted in similar rates.</p>
<p>Your “reasonable” assumption stands – but how does that imply that an individual person who applies to SCEA diminishes his/her chances ultimately?</p>
<p>I still say your assertion that a SCEA applicant’s chances are “much smaller than regular applicants” to be a stretch. My two cents</p>
<p>I meant to say those who were deferred in SCEA have a smaller chance than regular applicants. If one is not an athlete, a URM, a legacy or an academic superstar or had done internship with a Harvard professor, it is not really true that one can have a better chance to be admitted if applying SCEA. It would be interesting to know how a Harvard admission officer would recommend to his or her relatives’ or friends’ unhooked kids. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I have seen students who cast a wider net by applying early to some kind of combination of MIT/Caltech/UChicago/Georgetown and enjoyed a wonderful winter break 
They thought by applying EA to these schools, they also learned to write better essays for a couple of schools they did apply RD.</p>
<p>No I understood what you meant. I contest your assertion that deferred SCEA students are admitted at a statistically significant rate less than the rest of the RD pool.</p>
<p>I agree with “it is not really true that one can have a better chance to be admitted if applying SCEA.” </p>
<p>But how does that translate to those who are deferred in SCEA round, going into comparison with the RD applicants – generate a smaller percentage chance? Please cite any figures.</p>
<p>AHA: I’ve actually thought of a scenario how that can be possible!</p>
<p>H might generate more unremarkable legacy apps in SCEA round. Rather than rejecting them outright, the get deferred (to lessen the blow to parents) even though they have no legitimate chance – even when RD comes around. Here’s a scenario where I can envision the SCEA deferree pool containing lots of “fluff”</p>
<p>In taking a closer look at the numbers it appears that the 1% increase in yield over last year may have been entirely due to the increase in scea admits. If you assume early admits to Harvard enroll at a rate of 90%, the numbers would look something like this:</p>
<p>…Accepted…Enrolled…Yield
SCEA…895…806…90.00%
Regular…1,134…859…75.71%
Total…2,029…1,664…82.01%</p>
<p>If you reduce the # early admits to 774 (same as for the class of 2016), assume 1664 is the desired enrollment, and keep the respective yield rates the same, then the numbers would look something like this:</p>
<p>…Accepted…Enrolled…Yield
SCEA…774…697…90.00%
Regular…1,278…967…75.71%
Total…2,052…1,664…81.10%</p>