<p>The only reason that no one has been able to refute that statement is because, as far as I can tell, Yale does not release the information we would need to refute it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist! If Yale’s yield rate on its SCEA admits is higher than its yield rate on its RD admits, then it is quite possible that the SCEA policy is very effective for protecting its yield rate and absolutely does benefit Yale.</p>
<p>Your argument assumes that naturally anyone applying SCEA would rank Yale as their first choice, and all other EA schools behind it. That is a faulty assumption. There are plenty of students who would throw their applications into the Yale SCEA pool, just in case they don’t get into their <em>real</em> first choice.</p>
<p>If, as you proffer, SCEA provides no discernible benefit to Yale, why would they bother having it at all?</p>
<p>And applying “civil disobedience” theory to a commercial contract is absolutely silly. I can’t think of many things more anathema to education, than dishonesty and cheating.</p>
<p>Well, I am sorry you think it is silly. I think contracts like this that have no real negotiations involved and use the power of the institution to place unreasonable restrictions on the other party are a real problem. Personally, I consider that behavior an abuse of power and overly controlling, and I think that is equally anathemic to education and life in general. JMO of course.</p>
<p>Also, you are not stating my argument correctly. I have no question as to the benefit to Yale and others of the SCEA in terms of providing them with better information regarding the student’s intention than they would otherwise have, absent an ED. What I questioned was the benefit to Yale of not allowing the student to apply anywhere else regular EA, and for that matter RD if it is out of state and rolling admissions, presumably. The student doesn’t know they will get a yes from Yale, and now is reduced to rushing through deadllines to get all the apps in to other schools by January 1 in many, if not most cases. Given the rate that schools mess up applications, that is dangerous ground, especially around the Christmas break.</p>
<p>Please read my posts more carfully and state my arguments correctly. Anyway, I think there is little else to be gotten from this discourse, especially since now we are reduced to correcting misstated arguments.</p>
<p>Talk about not reading posts carefully, in response to this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…I wrote this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By assuming that the applicant complied with its contractual terms, Yale rightfully will review a student’s SCEA app under the assumption that the student did not rank any other EA college above it. I.e., that Yale is the applicant’s first choice over every other college that offers EA, and if admitted, the applicant is likely to choose Yale over every other college that offers EA.</p>
<p>While you are correct that Yale holds the contractual power in the SCEA process, there is absolutely no compulsion that a student apply SCEA if he objects to its terms. Yale is but one college of 3,000 or so, and certainly there are many comparable or even higher ranked colleges that do not require SCEA. Why do you feel compelled to lie or be “civilly disobedient” towards one college that is attempting to protect the quality of its product? Just vote with your dollars and talent and apply elsewhere.</p>
<p>As a point of clarification, Yale’s SCEA policy does not restrict a student from filing concurrent RD applications or applications to public institutions that practice rolling admissions. What’s precluded is concurrent ED and EA applications.</p>
<p>Also, bear in mind that it’s not just the student who violates SCEA who suffers the consequences if caught. When students do this, the credibility of the high school’s college counseling department is tarnished, and that can affect the chances of future applicants from the high school.</p>
<p>They don’t have to prove to your satisfaction that it provides them with a real benefit. Those are the terms. If you don’t like them, don’t apply to Yale.</p>
<p>Personally you know what I’m starting to think is a bigger scam? Deferring EA (or ED) candidates in vast numbers. Like MIT, which just deferred something like 70%-80% of EA candidates. So now they get to count all those kids in the denominator for their total acceptance rate and it looks better (that is, lower) than the college which did the right thing and just said “accept or reject”, or carried forth only a few carefully selected candidates for which there was a real need to see how first semester senior year shook out.</p>
<p>PG, I am not sure that this how it works as far as reporting the information. Of course, we should recognize that there always exists a chasm between what is reported in mid-December, in January, in April, and what … is reported to the organizations that track this kind of things. </p>
<p>However, unless I missed it there is nobody that tracks the NET number of applications for RD applications at schools that have also early decisions (or EA.) What is tracked is the TOTAL numbers of all applications. The number of ED applications are reported and SOMETIMES the number of EA applications is also reported. What does not happen is that the number of deferred applicants are counted TWICE, at least officially. </p>
<p>Again, this does not mean that some “supporters” won’t play the reporting game and decide to add the deferred to the new RD applicants and publish a higher number. In fact, this might even be a realistic approach since the deferred are pitted against the RD in what could be another round, and that this happens with fairness. </p>
<p>By the way, if you look for more games, pay closer attention to the schools that use MASSIVE wait lists, deliberately underaccept in April, and then accept a large percentage of students from their waitlists. The impact is twofold and most beneficial at school that rely to an extensive ED pool and use the waitlist … it helps to report a much lower admit rate! And it works! Think Penn. Think Duke! And think about all the schools that refuse to make their CDS public … for good reasons!</p>