<p>@kameron - not entirely true. By EA for certain schools, they’re referring to SCEA - like Yale or Stanford. Single choice EA allows you to only apply EA to one school - in cases like mine, where I wanted to apply to multiple schools like EA UChicago Notre Dame and MIT on top of Yale and Stanford, I was forced to forego applying to Yale and Stanford - effectively decreasing my chances there.</p>
<p>@intenex: True. I don’t think SCEA is a good system either — I was referring to a simple EA program, as Harvard used to have.</p>
<p>Actually, Harvard discontinued a Single Choice Early Action program, not Early Action. Princeton discontinued an Early Decision option.</p>
<p>Applying EA is perfectly fine so long as applications are exclusively submitted to other universities with the same policy. The most prominent disadvantage to EA, of course, is that it disqualifies one from applying to institutions with the SCEA alternative, as many would prefer to do.</p>
<p>Applying RD rather than ED/EA/SCEA at a university will present a increased difficulty in admission since the latter option may have been spent elsewhere or not utilized at all. But the absence of such programs eliminates any advantages conferred by virtue of when one applies. In essence, at Harvard, everyone is on an equal footing in that regard.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t blame the institutions with the fair policy of EA for the fact that certain institutions confer advantages through unfair SCEA programs. They’re where the real problem is.</p>
<p>Yes, by its very nature, SCEA has a dimension of restriction to it and prevents some degree of desired flexibility. Although I am not particular supportive of the ways in which early admissions programs present advantages at the expense of RD applicants (I indeed took advantage of one for that very reason), I will agree that SCEA is a less equitable policy than EA.</p>
<p>Hello everyone! I may be a Harvard hopeful as well, depending on how my visit influences me. I am also worried about the stereotypical Harvard atmosphere and would prefer to be in a more rural area, but I will see how greatly Harvard impresses me based on MY criteria.</p>
<p>I do hope Harvard can impress you FBI. 
But Cambridge isn’t exactly a cosmopolitan, is it?</p>
<p>It’s not terribly cosmopolitan, no, but neither is it rural. As I stated above, my passion for the school will be driven greatly by my visit this summer. Especially after this year, I have come to the conclusion that I do want to go to a good college, but I don’t want to sacrifice all other factors for academics. I really want to go to a place where I can grow, explore my passions, enjoy myself outside of the classroom and find a group of students with whom I “fit”. I still come out with a great education, but this is not my only concern; thus, the prestige factor of certain colleges has been lost to me. I also don’t want my entire college experience focused on getting into graduate school, as I feel has been the case with my high school’s focus on college. This is something I worry will permeate the atmosphere at Harvard and will take away from living in the moment and enjoying the four years for what they are, not where they will get you.</p>
<p>
If all you cared about was academics, I wouldn’t recommend Harvard, though there is another school in Cambridge where such a student would thrive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think MIT is as nerdy as some make it out to be.</p>
<p>Caltech, on the other hand…</p>
<p>Harvard hopeful here, too. I don’t have my hopes up, but I was in Cambridge all last summer and fell fell fell in love with it.</p>
<p>a quote from a dearest one:
You should enough hope to keep trying, but not too much hope to keep trying in vain.</p>
<p>Hahaha. :D</p>
<p>Might as well toss in my name here too… I always thought I’d shoot for MIT above all else, but a visit to Cambridge led me to completely shift targets. MIT has fallen off my colleges list, and Harvard now occupies its former top slot. A definite early applicant here.</p>
<p>But of course, getting in is a whole different story. My school has a bit of an impressive track record - it’s sent at least two students to harvard alone for the last eight years running, and the numbers add up pretty fast when you consider the other elite schools. </p>
<p>Pressure finally passes to the high school’s Class of 2011 to justify our town’s outrageously high taxes :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard has no early admissions program.</p>
<p>hi everyone. just wondering- how do u guys determine if a school is a “reach”, “match” or “safety”? I mean, I’ve looked on college websites for stats and some CC forums, but everything can seem so random… I don’t have much preference for location or school size or whatever, so right now, I feel like I’m picking colleges based on name. Which is not something I think I should be doing :)</p>
<p>
The obvious lack of knowledge in the first sentence leads me to assume that the latter half of this quote is equally as apocryphal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except for labeling schools as “safeties,” I am not a big fan of that system–it certainly has been abused on the chance threads (e.g., “Harvard-reach, Yale-reach, etc.”). For top schools, reading through the decisions threads will give you the best concept of your chances. For most schools, going off the published score ranges is fine.</p>
<p>^ The system is useless when referring to any T20 college. Applicants should just assume they are all “reaches”.</p>
<p>I didn’t know Harvard had no early admission program until very late either.</p>
<p>I guess I really was asking about the matches and safeties. I don’t want to end up not getting in anywhere because I overestimate my chances at a school.
And “apocryphal”? Nice word, but makes me feel inferior :)</p>