In my world, there would either be only RD or every school would have one ED and RD. Basta.
HYP admit half their class EA at a rate 4-5x higher than RD. The early admission advantage is substantial at HYP even accounting for legacies… athletes etc.
Stanford admits 1/3 their class EA at a rate 3x higher than RD and while there is still an advantage its substantial less than HYP. If Stanford admitted 1/2 their class EA following the HYP lead… their yield would be higher than it already is… and it’s already the highest of any university.
MIT EA and RD are essentially the same so there is NO advantage at all to apply early to MIT… sort of a wasted bullet. Ironically anyone smart enough to get into MIT would figure this out and apply somewhere else EA:)
Stanford is attempting to de-escalate the arms race by not posting… EA results… waiting till a late Friday to announce results and avoid the news cycle.
U of Chicago is upping the arms race.
It’s all one big game theory exercise. let the game begin:)
Stanford has become the most desirable school in the country through its admit rate and yield.
If it wanted to assert its position, it could do so by going EA, and dare HYP to follow it.
Stanford already won the arms race. It’s the IT school. And to add insult to injury, Stanford Law just took Harvard second spot after Yale in law school rankings.
Unless you have some hook (athlete, low SES, URM, legacy, first generation) SCEA is a terrible option and gives you very little for the tremendous risks you take.
@sbballer:
“MIT EA and RD are essentially the same so there is NO advantage at all to apply early to MIT… sort of a wasted bullet. Ironically anyone smart enough to get into MIT would figure this out and apply somewhere else EA:)”
Someone who applies EA to MIT can apply EA elsewhere, so there’s no wasted bullet.
SCEA does give you an out of applying to publics EA and schools where applying EA is required for scholarships.
But yes, still too many kids apply to the SCEA schools when they have a much better chance at an ED school.
SCEA makes you “forgo all other important options when it really matters”? Not sure an applicant applying for fin aid would agree with you. If you’re accepted ED, you give up most if not all of your bargaining leverage and generally have to take what you’re given. In this respect (as well as many others), I think ED, rather than SCEA, “largely benefits the schools that offer it”.
Agree that MIT and Caltech are more applicant-friendly, but I would suggest it’s because they feel they can be - their viable applicant pool is much narrower. If you’re among what they would consider their best applicants, they’re probably going to be on your shortlist.
As for “the risk the student takes in applying for SCEA”, I guess you mean giving up the right to apply ED elsewhere, since you’re generally allowed to apply to state schools or places with rolling admissions and “hedge your bets” in that way. I think the SCEA schools, understandably, don’t want to waste time evaluating kids early who, in exchange for a clear admissions boost, have told someplace else that they’re their first choice and they’ll go there if admitted. And they don’t want to reward schools that try to make themselves look more selective and compete with the SCEA schools by giving a big advantage to ED applicants.
That’s the truth that most don’t realize, you only gain an advantage at schools that have ED. EA does nothing for you without a hook or very unique application.
My Advice: Applicants for the class of 2022, if you don’t have a hook or something truly outstanding then you need to apply ED (which means no HYPS) or face some very long odds.
Georgetown and ND also have ®EA (so long as you don’t apply ED anywhere).
Evidently, the Catholics believe in choice. 
BTW, it’s clear that when some schools are going all-out to minimize their admit rate while others are looking to maximize some other facet (for instance, shaping the class that they want), only the easily gullible would judge a school by it’s admit rate.
That’s also why I prefer to tier by alumni achievements. If a school really is all that, it’s grads would do well regardless of how lightly it tries to game the admit and yield rates.
applying SCEA means that you can’t apply to MIT. which effectively means you’re wasting your bullet on MIT that confers no statistical advantage for early admission as opposed to HYP
So if the choice is between MIT and SCEA school… MIT loses if you want to increase you chances of admission.
The state schools are not the competition for SCEA. These schools can easily go EA or at least allow applicants to apply to other private schools who offer EA. Why don’t HYPS allow kids to apply to EA at MIT, Chicago, Caltech, …
There is gaming going on everywhere. Everybody plays the game that benefits them
@sbballer: But applying EA to MIT means you may apply EA to Georgetown, ND, Caltech, Chicago and other selective privates EA which you may not do under SCEA.
You seem unaware that there are more than 5 colleges in the US. . . .
In fact, as MIT EA has no restrictions at all, you may apply EA to MIT (and Caltech) as well as ED elsewhere.
In that sense, it’s actually a free bullet.
if you’re considering SMHYP… and you want to increase your odds of getting into one of these schools… HYP confers significant EA advantages, Stanford less so and MIT zero.
So applicants should take advantage of this and apply early to HYP… .less so Stanford and leave MIT for RD to maximize your chances of getting into one of these schools.
And for those students who are dead set on MIT… apply early to HYP as a backup… and leave MIT for RD.
Updated RD acceptance rates?
UChicago confirmed at 2 percent
it will be interesting to see how high U of Chicago’s Yield increases
@denydenzig - you forget, I think, that Harvard and Princeton actually tried getting rid of early apps a few years ago because they felt it disadvantaged students, but had to bring it back because they were losing too many of their top prospects to the competition.
Like I said above, HYPS could go ED tomorrow and clean everyone else’s clock, statistically. They don’t want to, because it’s not good for the students and it would also mean that there would be large numbers of top-quality applicants that each school would never see. I would guess if the ED schools gave it up and adopted unrestricted EA, HYPS would follow. Why not? They’d have a jump ball with a lot more applicants, and they’re need-blind, so aren’t racking up full-payers early. It’s ED and all the selectivity/yield/full-payer games it enables that have brought us here - and now the ED schools are addicted to it.
@sbballer said:
This, along with several other things that other commenters have already corrected, appears to be factually inaccurate. Per @spayurpets’ numbers above, the SCEA admit rate divided by the RD admit rate at Harvard is 4.3x, but Yale’s is 3.4x, Princeton’s is 3.6x and Stanford’s is…we don’t know, because they don’t break it out. It would be surprising if @sbballer really knew what it was, or why Stanford didn’t disclose it. Personally, I suspect it’s higher than Harvard’s because of the sheer number of applications Stanford gets, even if they admit a smaller proportion of their class SCEA than HYP. I think they don’t want to disclose it because the RD admit rate is so low, not because of some notion of de-escalating the arms race.
ok the admission ea advantage at HYP ranges from 4.3 to 3.4 over RD for 1/2 their admitting class.
Stanford’s EA rates are from the previous year… and they have never come close to admitting 1/2 their class EA… I believe Stanford’s EA/RD ratio was 2.8 last year but feel free to check it.
MIT EA and RD rates are basically the same.
In order of EA advantage for early admission vs RD its HYP>Stanford>MIT