I know the cliche-- there is NO advantage in applying early “…only those students who are, in Fitzsimmons’ words, “100 percent certain” to be admitted in regular action are admitted early…”. In another word there is a higher standard for early admits. But statistically, early is 15% and regular is only 3%. Even if the standards were the same then the regular kids are just one fifth of the quality of early kids (or just vastly inferior) , which I would find hard to believe.
Is there such vast quality difference between early and regular applicants? If not, would early offer some advantage?
SCEA is not for everyone. It is SUPER competitive and self-selective, meaning the best-of-the-best student’s apply. If you are NOT a tippy-top scholar with an almost perfect GPA, and almost perfect test scores, along with interesting EC’s and a thought provoking essay, then your application stands a good chance of being overshadowed by those best-of-the-best students. Applying SCEA advantages those students who are at the top of their class, but it does absolutely nothing for an applicant who is not flying in the same stratosphere.
Having been through this with both my kids, here’s my advice:
If you have a 1520+ SAT, or the ACT equivalent, with lots of AP tests (all with 5’s) and an unweighted GPA above 95 (on a 1-100 scale) or an unweighted GPA of 3.9+ (on a 1-4 scale), and are ranked in the top 1% to 3% of your graduating class, then you should apply to HYPS in the SCEA round. Pick a school, whichever one is your favorite, and apply, as the odds tend to be better for high-end students in the early round, no matter what Admissions says otherwise.
If you have a sub-1520 SAT, or the ACT equivalent, or are just on the cusp, and are ranked in the top 4% to 10% of your high school’s graduating class, then you should NOT apply SCEA, as there is a high probability that your application will get buried by the Polly-Perfect’s of this world, and you stand a great chance of being deferred.
Instead, student’s with sub-1520 SAT’s, and ranked in the top 4% to 10% of their graduating class should apply to a broad range of non-binding colleges early and apply to HYPS in the RD round.
Thank you gibby. That is great information and insight. It seems this would be the first question many students would encounter during the process and there didn’t seem to be a lot of discussion on many of the top school forums.
Gibby, did both of your kids apply early?
^^ Yes, both my kids applied SCEA to Yale. My son was accepted SCEA, my daughter was deferred then rejected.
I wouldn’t just base it on GPA and scores you also need matching EC’s. Almost all SCEA admits would be admitted RD, it just lets them know early.
^^ While many colleges say “We take a holistic approach when reading applications” the reality is: the higher your test scores, and the higher your GPA, the better your chances – even if that means taking an applicant who seems to have had lackluster participation in EC’s: https://www.testive.com/college-admissions-college-prep-guide-ch1/
There’s a great scattergram on the Harvard Crimson Freshman Survey website that details the same trend for the classes of 2019, 2020, and 2021. Look under THE APPLICATION and you can cross reference GPA and test scores: http://features.thecrimson.com/2016/freshman-survey/makeup/.
He included that as well (emphasis mine):
Regardless, SAT/ACT scores (and to a lesser extent, GPA) can be improved between the SCEA and ED deadlines; with EC’s, it is what it is.
Additionally, while I agree with most of what @gibby said, I will make one small quibble:
I’m not going to argue with whether they all need to be 5’s, since nobody from Harvard admissions will say one way or another, but the “lots of AP tests” will be evauated withing the context of the school’s offerings. Applicants that limit AP courses, or whose schools offer few AP courses, are not disadvantaged, IMO, so long as the course rigor is the most rigorous available.
@skieurope No, look at what the advice was.
@CU123: Yes, and I stand by that advice.
Harvard is an academic institution, as such they prioritize performance and leadership in the classroom. Yes, Admissions holistically reads an application – meaning they consider all parts of the application. However, a student’s course rigor, GPA and test scores, including ACT, SAT, SAT Subject Tests, AP Tests (if AP classes are offered at your high school), are given MORE weight than extracurricular activities. Yes, extracurricular activities play a part in admissions, but aside from recruited athletes, it’s probably a rare occurrence when an EC will trump an undistinguished school record or lackluster test scores. For example, a child actor who has been tutored on set (basically home schooled), who doesn’t have a GPA in the sense that most students do, who’s test scores are good but not off the charts, would be an asset to the campus because of her extracurricular activities (think Emma Watson who was courted by all the ivies).
For most students though, it doesn’t matter what EC’s they’ve participated in – not initially. On first read, Admissions is looking to see if a student has made a long-time commitment to something outside of the classroom. The idea is that a student’s commitment, drive and energy to something beyond academics is a “transferable skill” that might be applied to another activity in college or later in life. It’s only during the final round, after a student has made the first cut, when a student’s specific EC’s come into play. After all, an Admissions committee doesn’t want to admit a class full tuba players. But to get to the final round a student’s course rigor, GPA and test scores must demonstrate that they are the best-of-the-best from their high school. That’s especially true in the SCEA pool when so many top scholars are applying.
I did, and I stated that I agreed with it, for the most part.
@gibby and I may quibble (or may not) on the definition of “undistinguished” or “lackluster.” A recruited athlete’s may not be 4.0/1600/36, but s/he still has to be able to handle the workload at an Ivy, and those stats would probably be considered “impressive” to that vast majority of US universities.
It may be naive on my part, but since none of us have seen the application packets, I’m thinking that the stats + the experiences as written in the essays probably would have gotten her (or Natalie Portman/Malia Obama/Rashida Jones/Sara Gilbert) in without the hook. The days of Amy Carter or JFK, Jr. being admitted to Brown based on celebrity alone are long gone, IMO.
@gibby Do you know for a recruited athlete if the Harvard coaches of niche sports like squash/ golf/ fencing/ etc have a big influence on admissions despite having not very outstanding grades/ scores.although the Academic Index would be in the 220 range?
^^ @justverycurious: Sorry, I don’t know; you should ask @sherpa as I believe his son is on the fencing team for Princeton and he would know more about how coaches of niche sports recruit and how much influence those coaches have in the Admissions process.
@justverycurious @gibby of the sports mentioned, I only have direct knowledge of fencing, and HY definitely recruit. However, fencers typically have pretty high stats that would give them a good chance of admissions even without the recruiting. The schools use fencer’s high AI to balance out lower AI basketball/football etc. The lower the AI, the better the fencer needs to be as a fencer. The HS fencing championship in NYC is typically traded back and forth between Stuyvesant and Hunter College High School. Not called “physical chess” for nothing.
@justverycurious - A coach in a niche sport will typically have a limited (as in barely sufficient to keep a full roster) number of recruiting slots. The most important things to the coach are 1) if you can make a strong contribution to the team, and 2) if you are academically strong enough to be admitted.
Generally speaking, if a coach wants you enough that they’re willing to “spend” one of their limited slots on you, a 220 AI should be sufficient.
Most importantly, if you’re supported by a coach through admissions and you’re academically qualified, your admission is nearly assured, asssuming, of course, there aren’t any skeletons in your closet.