<p>"Gaming" the system does not work. I tried it, and the adcoms sniffed me out. Keep in mind, they do this for a living.</p>
<p>Apply early to your first choice. It's that simple.</p>
<p>i don't know the "early admissions game" book, but I myself won't rely on only one book. Opinion of one author is not enough for me to jeopardize my admissions w/o displaying progress from the senior year and higher sat scores. I will stick to what simply makes sense. Hey, if you want to act on the advice of the autor I wish the best of luck to you.
A question- Are you sure that the model presented by the author of the book also fits Princeton admissions. All schools are different.
I do believe in the validity of the point that colleges like Princeton love ED because it guarantees them people for sure- makes sense.</p>
<p>I don't think it would make any sense for Princeton to admit weaker candidates in ED. It would hurt the overall class performance and that is the last thing they would want to do.
I am speaking just of Princeton and the 100-150 point theory may not apply to it... Wouldn't that make most of RD people perfect SAT scorers then... (btw Princeton rejects 70% of them, and there were annualy only about 550)</p>
<p>it's not the opinion of one author, but rather the factual findings of three authors (two harvard profs and the former associate dean of admissions at wesleyan) after studying reams of admissions data from all the top schools. there are several charts in the book displaying princeton-specific data.</p>
<p>thanx, f.scottie. i guess i need to make a trip to the library since the book contains princeton-specific data.</p>
<p>Polish dude: Even if you apply ED, you can submit SAT scores through the November test date, and I believe colleges only accept scores through December. So, unless you think that extra month is going to help you dramatically, take the test in November, rush your scores to Princeton, and apply early. Very few early applicants get outright rejected in December; most are either accepted or deferred. Even if you are deferred, you can send in any later SAT scores or grades as they come in. In fact, regardless of whether you are accepted or deferred, Princeton, and almost any other school, will require a copy of your mid-year transcript by around February, so you will get a chance to show off your grades.</p>
<p>I don't believe that Princeton accepts underqualified students early just to increase their yield, and I agree that much of the SAT discrepancy between early and regular admissions might be a result of schools recruiting athletes and others with special skills but lower SAT scores. However, applying early helps your chances just because it gives you an edge over other, similarly qualified students. Princeton readily admits that it cannot offer admisson to all qualified students; there simply aren't enough spots. On the same note, I once heard a Harvard admissions officer say that if some tragedy wiped out their entire freshman class, they could replace them with an equally talented pool of students. However, if you apply early, your desire to attend the school will make you more attractive than a student with similar stats that Princeton could lose to other schools.</p>
<p>think about it this way, polishdude: would you rather be competing against 2,000 applicants for 600 spots, or against 14,000 applicants for 1,200 spots?</p>
<p>Sadly, the colleges are able to get away with the SCEA/ED scam precisely because there are so many trusting kids like polishdude, who buy the party line.</p>
<p>Thank you ICargirl. I think your response summes up really well the reality behind the ED. My situation is a bit crazy because my school offers a moderate number of ap's. This year I took two which made up for 3 periods every day but next year unlike any student in my hs, I will take 4 which will take 7 periods every day. I am doing this to save some time (and money If I don't get in into Princeton) and I just want to make sure that the admission officers will be able to weight my senior workload in their decision.
I am a bit scared not to get rejected because my first SAT1 were far below the average for Princeton and I am just hesitant to send my app if I don't improve much. </p>
<p>I guess I should post this in the "what are my chances" section, but what the heck.</p>
<p>Byerly, lol, by calling me "trusting" you just had to made me read that ED book... No way now I can get away with that.</p>
<p>Not to mention that even if you are not going to be part of the 600 applicants that are accepted out of a pool of 2,000 in ED, chances are that you will probably get deferred if your stats are at least halfway decent. Then you have yet another chance to get accepted to Princeton RD, at even a better rate perhaps than the regulars who didin't apply early. I will go as far to say that your chances of admittance will be about 5 times times greater if you go ED instead of RD.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/AVEEAR.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/AVEEAR.pdf</a></p>
<p>Thank you guys for your support.</p>
<p>
[quote]
polishdude: Here's a link to an exerpt from "The Early Admissions Game" </p>
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>Wow, what a friggin hypocritical institution. On their main website, they wrote that there is no real advantage to apply early (and that the true factor lies in more competitive applicants in ED round yadi yadi yada), yet they are hosting a link to this?? </p>
<p>ugh..</p>
<p>You will note that the language on the admissions site is carefully couched so as not to expressly deny the points made by the book in question.</p>
<p>here's the language:</p>
<p>Are a student's chances of admission enhanced by applying Early Action?</p>
<p>No. There is no strategic advantage to applying to Harvard Early Action (or Regular Action for that matter). The higher acceptance rate under our Early Action program reflects the remarkable strength of this self-selected applicant pool. Early Action candidates have, on average, significantly stronger admissions credentials than those who apply Regular Action. That strength is reflected also in the good number of applicants deferred under Early Action who were subsequently offered admission through the Regular Action process - about 85 to over 200 students in each of several recent classes. For additional thoughts on our application programs consult "Early Action vs. Regular Action". </p>
<p>Yes. I was about to ask why the book was published by Harvard. It is very interesting... especially that the book itself is written by Harwardians (fooling around w/ lang.)</p>
<p>The language is tricky. They refer to "strategic advantage" and it could have different meanings.</p>
<p>afairbanks002
Subject: Early Admissions Game</p>
<p>This thread is interesting. I am one of the authors of the book in question. A couple of points: (1) in addition to controlling for SATs, class rank, and other demographic data, we also controlled for the Admission Officers' reader ratings themselves. So the argument that we didn't account for the intangible strengths of a file falls a bit flat; (2) I worked for an admissions office for 5 years, and I can state unequivocally that advantages were given to ED students for precisely the reasons that (Byerly) articulates - demonstrated interest and increased likelihood of yield. Granted - Wesleyan was not operating from the same position of strength as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but the incentive to give an advantage to early applicants always exists when there is a tangible difference in yield between Regular and Early admits.</p>
<p> .</p>
<p>I have great respect for Bill Fitzimmons. He wrote an excellent review of our book in Harvard Magazine last year that raised some interesting critiques of our work. If you look carefully at his text above, it does not necessarily refute our core finding. While it may be true that admitted EA students with comparable 'objective' criteria to their counterparts in the Regular pool may have stronger 'intangible' strengths - that does not address the issue of whether the standards are different between the two programs. Those intangible strengths may explain some of the differences in admit rates across the two admissions programs between applicants with similar credentials, but our analysis shows that even when controlling for those intangible differences, that most selective colleges and universities still admit early applicants at a significantly higher rate than their regular decision counterparts.</p>
<p>One of the downsides of the ED/EA debate is that often kids will overestimate the advantage of an early application. ED will not overcome a weak transcript. I also wonder how much the fact that schools like Princeton take virtually all of their athletes ED affects their admissions stats.</p>
<p>Another observation is that since so many outstanding candidates seem to apply early, if they are admitted they are not in the RD round for any school. Doesn't this weaken the RD pool at most schools?</p>
<p>One Princeton adcom told us they see the ED round as a chance to cherry-pick the top applicants (which I would assume include highly desirable athletes, scholars, and artist-scholars, although he was talking about academic excellence). I wouldn't see ED as a chance to be admitted if you are an inferior candidate, but as an opportunity to show loud and clear that you, as an excellent candidate, want Princeton above all others. How could they not pay attention to that? After all, the adcoms know that in the RD round, the excellent candidates they see may well be admitted and go elsewhere.</p>
<p>ICarGirl's comments bear repeating: "I don't believe that Princeton accepts underqualified students early just to increase their yield, and I agree that much of the SAT discrepancy between early and regular admissions might be a result of schools recruiting athletes and others with special skills but lower SAT scores. However, applying early helps your chances just because it gives you an edge over other, similarly qualified students."</p>