<p>You hear all of these claims that the EA pool is much stronger, but do the statistics support this. If, in fact, this was true wouldn't a larger number of EA defereds get in RD. From what I've seen on this board, only 3% of Harvard early defers get in RD, compared to the ~7% RD rate. Obviously the EA pool is not that strong, and they defer a large number of candidates that have little or no chance in RD. Am I missing something...?</p>
<p>The strength of the EA pool is evidenced by the higher EA acceptance rate. The standards technically don't change from EA to RD so the only defers who get in RD are those who do something significant, such as becoming an Intel Finalist, between December and March.</p>
<p>I'm not exactly sure that's true. Byerly will probably chip in here sometime but...
even though the colleges say otherwise, the EA pool isn't really all that much stronger than the RD pool.
Also, in most years, the deferred applicant admit rate has been about equal to the overall RD rate.</p>
<p>but then again....</p>
<p>athletes, legacies, and other recruited kids all apply early, skewing the acceptance rate</p>
<p>I could actually go as far to say that the Harvard EA pool might actually be WEAKER stats-wise than RD</p>
<p>I see where you're coming from but there's a gap in your logic.</p>
<p>The ones getting deferred are the borderline candidates. The ones who are locks were already taken out of the EA candidates. The ones who are strong applicants were already mostly taken out of the EA candidates. The reason you get deferred is that the college doesn't see you as someone who necessarily belongs.</p>
<p>I can't think of a simpler way to explain it, but basically, the deferred candidates are just ones who Harvard is hesitant about rejecting. You'd expect a very small acceptance rate among those people.</p>
<p>I've heard different things from different people.</p>
<p>I remember reading that there was a study done on EA/ED, and (for Princeton at least) the early pool was actually substantially WEAKER in terms of average SAT scores, even though there was a higher admit rate. The authors of the study concluded there was about a 100 point SAT equivalent "boost" to applying early.</p>
<p>Most colleges say there is no advantage in applying early, but could there be an ulterior motive for saying this? Most EA candidates apply to their first choice college, and hence, the EA pool has a much higher yield rate than RD. Even if the early action pool wasn't as strong as RD, it would still be in a college's best interest to admit as many reasonably qualified candidates (for Harvard 2250+), as they would benefit from the higher yield overall. If students KNEW for certain that this was the case, many would refrain from applying to their "first-choice match" schools and instead apply to their "reach" college, ultimately destroying any EA yield advantage. </p>
<p>The point topnotch cites is valid, though I feel deferral is usually just a polite word for denial in most cases. I personally believe that Harvard has "deferral" to maintain a sort of emergency pool of "possibly qualified" candidates Harvard can have on hand just in case the RD pool was sour for some reason. You can't really conclude that the EA pool is weaker simply because the middle ~75% only have a 3% admit rate in the RD pool, as the other 20% that were outright accepted could be weaker than most of the RD admits.</p>
<p>One would imagine that Harvard <em>might</em> publish the average accepted SAT scores of EA/RD applicants to dispell this "myth"...</p>
<p>If you're looking at the average stats, EA is probably stronger.</p>
<p>But if you're looking at the stats of those accepted, I would bet that RD is stronger.</p>
<p>Think about it this way, though.</p>
<p>Do stronger applicants tend to apply EA more readily than less strong applicants?</p>
<p>Since I can think of no reason for less strong applicants to refrain from applying EA (other than perhaps the fear of wasting $65), I would venture to conclude that less strong applicants apply EA in the same rates as stronger applicants.</p>
<p>If that is the case, how can one expect the EA pool to be stronger?</p>
<p>Perhaps those more organized and prepared will be able to apply early, whereas under-achievers will not bother to apply till the last minute on the RD deadline. Also, maybe those who are more organized and motivated will be able to decide on a first choice college while the less directed will apply to a bunch of colleges without bothering to form any preferences, then spend much of their time in April touring campuses.</p>
<p>Just some thoughts.</p>
<p>weaker applicants are less likely to apply EA because they have a better shot somewhere else. That is, they're more likely to get in if they apply ED or EA to a school with less stringent, but still tough admissions standards. Because Harvard doesn't let you apply to any other school early, weaker applicants have more reason to "shoot for the stars" in the RD pool rather than risk losing out on Harvard AND whatever school they had a better shot at (maybe along the lines of Tufts or Georgetown). I would say for the most part, EA applicants are either sure-ins or borderline students hoping to maximize their chances of admission. The RD pool is bound to include more students for whom Harvard is simply a shot in the dark or too much of a reach to be worth the single-choice. duality's theory is true, though, of schools like MIT or UChic.</p>
<p>Duality--Not true, I think. Harvard's EA is single-choice, making it as good as a non-binding ED. So a student who has little-to-no chance of getting into Harvard may try it out RD, if only because it's Harvard, while not wanting to "waste" their early application there. I mean, I have a friend who is applying to Harvard just to frame her rejection letter. This is the kind of thing driving Harvard's acceptance rates down :p</p>
<p>Totally agree, very well said too.</p>
<p>Check the revealed preferences study, which has looked closely at this issue with data from actual admission files.</p>
<p>i didn't realize harvard was actually a perfect school for me until early december; so there you have a counterexample against the idea that all RD applicants are shooting for the stars (not saying that I'm not, just I could be a shoo-in for all anyone else knows)</p>
<p>The fraction of the class filled via EA at Harvard and Yale:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yale accepted 704 EA last year. If they all enrolled, that would constitute 54% of the class - if it matched the previous year's 1,305 total.</p></li>
<li><p>Harvard accepted 885 EA last year. If they all enrolled, that would constitute precisely the same 54% of the class - assuming it matche the previous year's 1,638 total.</p></li>
<li><p>Last year, of course, 91% of Harvard's EA admits enrolled, while 88% of Yales EA admits enrolled.</p></li>
<li><p>Keep the following tidbit in mind, however: last year, Harvard accepted an estimated 139 (from 2,788!) EA deferreds, while Yale accepted 249 from its much smaller group of EA deferreds. (Doubtless, these EA deferreds can be counted on to enroll at a higher rate than "normal" RD applicants.)</p></li>
<li><p>So arguably, at the end of the day, Harvard admitted enough EA pool applicants to fill 63% of the class last year - if they all had enrolled - and Yale admitted enough from this loyal applicant pool to fill a whopping 70% of the class of 2008 - again, if they all had enrolled!</p></li>
<li><p>Now, without considering this "hidden" group of anxious and willing EA deferreds to be "EA admits", what fraction of the respective classes at Harvard and Yale will be filled from the EA pool for the Class of 2009? Assuming last year's EA yield rates hold, 49% of Harvard matriculants will have been EA admits, while 48% of Yale matriculants will have been EA admits.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Obviously, both are striving to admit as many from the EA pool as possible, while staying under the "magic" 50% line</p>
<p>The fraction of the class filled from the early pool declined a bit at Harvard for the Class of 2009. Definitive stats for Yale are not yet available.</p>
<p>Byerly, you are insinuating that the higher rate of EA admits is a result of the school intentionally filling as much of the incoming class from the EA pool as possible, rather than a reflection of the true strength of the EA pool?</p>
<p>Umm...one blink for yes, two for no?</p>
<p>
[quote]
i didn't realize harvard was actually a perfect school for me until early december; so there you have a counterexample against the idea that all RD applicants are shooting for the stars (not saying that I'm not, just I could be a shoo-in for all anyone else knows)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>of course not all...and certainly not the vast majority...
I'm just saying there's probably a higher percentage of such applicants in the RD pool than in the EA pool.</p>
<p>I believe that the two principal factors preventing most elites from admitting more from the early pool than they do currently are: </p>
<p>(1) the size of the pool; and</p>
<p>(2) the fear that openly filling more than half the class from the much smaller early pool would have a dampening effect on RD applications and thus, on balance, prove counterproductive.</p>
<p>but which applicant pool would you is more competitive? i guess its hard to say because you certainly got a lot more underqualified people rd, but then again there are at least 5 times more applicants and a lot of them are people who got deffered yale and princeton etc. so i dunno (wishing i had gotten it together to apply ea)</p>