<p>The world is a competitive place.</p>
<p>The previous Stanford > Harvard years were under a different early-admissions regime and therefore cannot be compared to the SCEA era.</p>
<p>Stanford's subsequent adoption of SCEA had the effect of artificially BOOSTING its app numbers, while Harvard's subsequent retreat from open EA had the effect of REDUCING its app numbers.</p>
<p>They still can't be compared fairly.</p>
<p>No fairly to HARVARD perhaps, given the intervening policy changes, but more than fairly to your school.</p>
<p>Laughable to hear you, of all people, eschewing comparisons!</p>
<p>While that is undoubtedly true that applications are strategic, a phenomenon most graphically demonstrated with early applications, where students must carefully calculate how to "spend" their single best shot at admission to an elite, it is also true that applicants often react to numbers - and trends - from the previous year.</p>
<p>For example, last year, total apps at Yale were down several hundred, while they rose over 15% at Harvard. No one pretended it was anything but a cyclical phenomenon. This year, apps were up 8% at Yale, but virtually flat at Harvard. Who knows: next year, the surge may be in another direction, as strategic applicants calculate how to balance their desires with a realistic assessment of their chances.</p>
<p>As another example, take early applications at Harvard: for the Class of 2007, Harvard still had the less risky open Early Action - less risky because you didn't have to gamble all on your one shot at Harvard, but could cover your bets with a concurrent early application to MIT, Chicago, Caltech, Georgetown, etc etc. For that class, a full 36% of Harvard's total applications were received in the open Early Action round.</p>
<p>Now, conversely, with Harvard's switch to Single Choice Early Action (a switch which was, IMHO, ill-advised) its far more risky early application percentage has plummeted to 17% of total applications. At Yale and Stanford, however, which after that year switched to SCEA from "the other direction" - binding Early Decision - the change provided a welcome boost, as early applications rose from about 13/14% of the total to about 20% of their total applications this year.</p>
<p>less ppl applying to harvard is better for us.</p>
<p>remember, Saudi Arabia picked Harvard to donate some millions to create islamic studies... not yale or princeton.</p>
<p>gg hv</p>
<p>'Saudi Arabia' did not give the gift, it was prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, who has ties to terrorism. That aside, an identical gift was made to Georgetown. Still, I don't get the relevance of your point...</p>
<p>The donation didn't exactly "create" Islamic Studies. Harvard already has one of the strongest Near Eastern Studies programs in the US.</p>
<p>what IS SCEA anyway?</p>
<p>On SCEA,...Single Choice Ever After, an offshoot of the ASPCA, is a society that endorses and in many cases promotes the single lifestyle as a viable alternative in today's flirtatious academic environment. For a history of the movement, see Byerly's now famous injunction " Harvard, she is like a woman,..."</p>