<p>As I see it, the biggest factors affecting the yield rate at Yale have been: (1) a record number admitted in the early round (724 this year, for a class targeted at 1,310) plus a substantial number of high-yield SCEA deferreds taken in the RD round (249 last year.)</p>
<p>For the third time in the past four years, Harvard's freshman class next year will be less selective than Yale's.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure you've said in the past that the % of the class that H and Y fill through EASC is very similar, and always below the magic number.</p>
<p>Yes, Mexican Bulldog you are correct. Byerly likes to stretch the facts to present a case in favor of Harvard, when the facts show Harvard actually has historically always taken a significantly larger proportion of its class early than Yale's. The difference in EA percentages is the reason why it is impossible to make a fair comparison of the yield rates at the two schools. Rather, overall acceptance rate and the number of applicants per spot in the entering class, in which Yale blows Harvard away (at the undergrad as well as the Law School and other grad levels) is the only valid way to compare desirability and selectivity.</p>
<p>Yale admitted 724 SCEA this year for a class targeted at 1,310. (55.2% of the class, if all enroll)</p>
<p>Harvard admitted 821 SCEA for a class targeted at 1,684. (48.7% of the class if all enroll)</p>
<p>Although the number of early pool deferreds admitted later - in the RD round - won't be known for a while, the fact is that last year Yale admitted 249 of these SCEA-deferreds, while Harvard admitted about 95.</p>
<h2>Thus if all high-yield early pool applicants eventually admitted choose to enroll, they will constitute 54% of the class at Harvard ... and 74% of the class at Yale.</h2>
<p>To "Mexican Bulldog":</p>
<p>I have, indeed said in the past that ALL elites tend to enroll as many qualified applicants from the early pool as they possibly can - making sure to stay under the "magic" 50% line. In the last year or two, however, policies have begun to diverge: As Princeton and Yale continue to accept early applicants at record levels, Harvard and Stanford seem to have consciously scaled back.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the third time in the past four years, Harvard's freshman class next year will be less selective than Yale's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>how's that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You haven't shown all the work here to make a valid proof for your statement about selectivity of each admitted class. What you say COULD be true (but I don't think it is), but the way you would have to prove it is to show that the Yale applicant pool has more students with highly desirable characteristics than the Harvard applicant pool. I am quite sure that Harvard dominates Yale in how many [url=<a href="http://imo.math.ca/%5DIMO%5B/url">http://imo.math.ca/]IMO[/url</a>] medalists or [url=<a href="http://olympiads.win.tue.nl/ioi/%5DIOI%5B/url">http://olympiads.win.tue.nl/ioi/]IOI[/url</a>] medalists apply to it, and also in how many [url=<a href="http://www.cee.org/rsi/%5DRSI%5B/url">http://www.cee.org/rsi/]RSI[/url</a>] alumni apply to it. I rather suspect that much the same could be said about Olympic athletes, National Forensics League national winners, award-winning editors of high school newspapers, top graduates of top prep schools, and so on and so on. It would be interesting to see if there are published figures about exactly how many SAT I 2400 scorers there are in each applicant pool--Harvard gets very many of those--or how many SAT II trifecta 800 scorers or AP national scholars apply to each school. </p>
<p>In general, simply comparing the gross SIZE of each applicant pool is an invalid procedure, because of course there is some huge state university that has a larger applicant pool than either Harvard or Yale, but I don't see many people saying such a school is a better school. And comparing the base acceptance rate, that is how the size of the applicant pool relates to the number of students eventually admitted (a number which is, of course, constrained by the size of the college) isn't the correct procedure either, or else it would be easy for teeny, tiny schools like Deep Springs to dominate both Harvard and Yale in base acceptance rate, even if many high-quality applicants choose not to apply to the teeny, tiny school. </p>
<p>So please go back to your proof and try to fill out the missing steps. It is not convincing about the quality of a fine college like Yale for its fans to make invalid arguments in public online discussion. </p>
<p>Obligatory disclaimer: I am not an alumnus of any highly selective college, nor am I a parent of a student at one. I hang out on these forums to get information about current conditions at schools I had occasion to visit on business trips back when I was childless or my children were very little. It may be that one or more of my children will apply to some highly selective college. If so, it will be important for each of them to be able to obtain factually accurate information about each college, and to listen to logically valid arguments for and against attending each college to which they have the good fortune to be accepted. My agenda on this forum is that supporters of one college or another be accurate and logically valid when talking up their favorite colleges. That will best maintain and enhance the reputation of each college to which one of my children may someday apply.</p>
<p>The applicant pools of Yale and Harvard overlap significantly. No Yale applicant will stop from applying to Harvard because they consider themselves too good for H, and vice versa.</p>
<p>If anything, I suspect Harvard gets a higher number of "ultra-reach" kids who apply just because "why not?", given the at least historic advantage in reputation. Those of us who went through high school recently have seen this happen.</p>
<p>Sometimes Harvard's largest overlap has been with Yale, but more often with Stanford in recent years, I believe.</p>
<p>Ok, I hope that means something to you.</p>
<p>Help me with this one: who are the "ultra-reach" kids who you "suspect Harvard gets a higher number of" - and higher than whom?</p>
<p>My own terminology for someone who has no chance.</p>
<p>So they have no chance at Harvard. Where DO they have a chance? Do they have a chance at Yale or Princeton?</p>
<p>Probably not.</p>
<p>If you got, say, a 1200 and have little that stands out elsewhere, your chances of getting it are closing in on 0. Your average student who would consider most of the Ivies far reaches will sometimes apply just to Harvard "for the heck of it". More often than not, it's the first name that comes to most minds when thinking of the most selective college. Personally, I've seen this happen several times. Whether or not it's a widespread phenomenon, I can only speculate - but I speculate that it does. I vaguely recall a distribution of Harvard applicant SAT scores that seemed to corroborate my hyp.</p>
<p>In any case, I don't think that you can really back up the claim that Yale's applicant pool is weaker than Harvard's - as the previous poster insisted. To get a rough measure of applicant pool strength, it might be good to see how many SAT 1400 +/- or higher applicants there are. Sure, you'll exclude a few admitted athletes, big legacies, etc. but for the most part you'll also be subtracting the kids who knew it was a long, long shot in the first place.</p>
<p>So then let me understand ... if Harvard and Yale (and Stanford?) are getting roughly the same number of applications, then, according to your theory, the applicants to Harvard are of generally lower quality, with more applicants having "say, a 1200 and little that stands out elsewhere"?</p>
<p>Interesting theory. Dlo you have any data, or supporting links demonstrating it?</p>
<p>I take it the relative numbers of 1400-scorers, 800-scorers, and valedictorians don't give you any hints to the contrary?</p>
<p>No, and I can't be bothered really.</p>
<p>My comment is based on observation and is speculatory; and it's directly in response of tokenadult's own speculation:</p>
<p>"I am quite sure that Harvard dominates Yale in how many IMO medalists or IOI medalists apply to it, and also in how many RSI alumni apply to it. I rather suspect that much the same could be said about Olympic athletes, National Forensics League national winners, award-winning editors of high school newspapers, top graduates of top prep schools, and so on and so on."</p>
<p>Just as tokenadult believes that more top students apply to Harvard (and not to Yale), I'm suggesting that it could also be true that Harvard receives a fair number of longshot applications - which helps its admit % stay low.</p>
<p>Regarding this issue, what I do firmly believe is that:</p>
<ul>
<li>There is very significant overlap between Yale and Harvard's applicant pools.</li>
<li>The quality of students they take in and enroll are similarly comparable.</li>
<li>Yale's recent increase in "selectivity", however small, is very real.</li>
</ul>
<p>So you really have no idea, but believe "it could be true" that the overall quality of the Yale applicant pool is higher because (you suspect, but cannot prove) Harvard has more applicants who have "say, a 1200 and have little that stands out elsewhere?"</p>
<p>Again, the point makes more sense when taken in the context that if tokenadult will speculate that Harvard receives all of the top applicants that Yale doesn't, then I might as well speculate myself that Harvard receives a lot of not-so-good students that Yale doesn't (explaining the about 2,000 application difference). While this claim is as unscientific as tokenadult's, it is based on personal observation - if that counts for anything.</p>
<p>The one important point to take out of this whole rather pointless discussion is that few top kids apply to H without considering Y for academic reasons. Or the other way around.</p>
<p>Well, isn't "tokenadult" citing real numbers at the high end, while you are simply speculating with no numbers to go on that Harvard gets most of the bottom-end apps? </p>
<p>And if you think actions by top applicants considering both schools are significant, don't choices made by common-admits provide some guidance - particularly if the common pool is "very significant" - as you say it is?</p>
<p>Well.. that's just the thing - he really doesn't.</p>