<p>so when they say we'll hear by june 30th, do they mean june 29th? or june 10th~ish?</p>
<p>a local friend heard around the 15th-20th last year [deferred to class of 2010]. anyone else?</p>
<p>Byerly probably has better sources of info, but from what I've heard, Harvard did just fine again this year. I'd be very surprised if they take as many as 40 off the waitlist, let alone 60.</p>
<p>gosh i really hope i hear from them before june...</p>
<p>To take as few as 40 from the WL will require a yield rate of 78.39% - or higher than the 78.02% last year. And this in a year when reliance on the high-yield early applicant pool was reduced from 892 to 821. (The SCEA yield rate was nearly 92% for the Class of 2009).</p>
<p>I'd be most surprised if the yield rate rises given the stronger push for diversity and higher number of top black and hispanic admits who will be heavily contested by other elites. </p>
<p>Last year, for example, the black yield rate, while the highest in the country at nearly 70%, was still less than the overall yield rate.</p>
<hr>
<p>That said, I have no advance word, and expect that we'll get the preliminary numbers either this Thursday or, more likely, the following Thursday.</p>
<p>Byerly, you said "And this in a year when reliance on the high-yield early applicant pool was reduced from 892 to 821."</p>
<p>How can you know this number (821), since SCEA admits also didn't have to notify until May 1st? Or are those numbers not enrollees but rather the number accepted? And if so, why did they accept less EA applicants this time (maybe to preserve selectivity % because of a slightly smaller # of SCEA applicants?)</p>
<p>These are the number accepted.</p>
<p>Both Harvard and Stanford consciously reduced the fraction of the class filled from the early pool this year, while Yale and Princeton filled record fractions of their class from the early pool.</p>
<p>In Harvard's case (and I believe Stanford's as well) this was part of a deliberate plan to de-emphasize early admission, regardless of the impact on the yield rate and to enhance diversity. </p>
<p>Both Stanford and Harvard plan to increase the overall size of the admitted class this year, even as the fraction coming from the early pool is reduced.</p>
<p>It was particularly odd to see Yale increasing its early admits to a record 724 even as it was planning to reduce class size from 1,323 to a targetted 1,310. Odd in that President Levin has so publically decried the emphasis on early admission programs and called for their abolition! </p>
<p>Furthermore, 249 of Yale's admits from the RD pool last year were, in fact, deferred SCEA applicants, so that 959 in total were admitted from the early pool for the class that eventually had 1,323 students. This does wonders for the yield rate!</p>
<p>Of course, we KNOW the criteria are identical for RD and SCEA applicants....</p>
<p>what Byerly fails to mention is that a record number of students applied early to yale, and though they did increase the absolute number of admits modestly, it resulted in an overall decrease in the early admission percentage. More applied so more were taken, though comparatively the least ever in Yale's early admission program. It is all due to a trend of increasing applications at Yale.</p>
<p>Yale goosed the fraction taken early the year BEFORE, too, (from 674 to 710) when its early app numbers actually went DOWN (from 4,050 to 3,926) !!</p>
<p>At the same time, they have been deferring a larger and larger fraction of the early applicants to the RD round ... nearly 2,000 this year ... rather than rejecting them. A far higher number of these "deferred earlies" has been admitted at Yale than at HPS in the 3 years of SCEA.</p>
<p>2010: 4,084 SCEA apps, and 724 admits (with extimated class size of 1,310)
2009: 3,926 SCEA apps, and 710 admits, for Class of 1,323
2008: 4,050 SCEA apps, and 674 admits, for Class of 1,312</p>
<p>The fraction of the class filled from the early pool (even WITHOUT counting deferred early applicants admitted later) has risen for 6 consecutive years at Yale, and will very likely constitute roughly 49.7% of the Class of 2010, vs. 48.5% at Princeton, 44.7% at Harvard, and 41% at Stanford.</p>
<p>Thank you for proving my point Byerly. My response was to your statement "It was particularly odd to see Yale increasing its early admits to a record 724 even as it was planning to reduce class size from 1,323 to a targetted 1,310. Odd in that President Levin has so publically decried the emphasis on early admission programs and called for their abolition!" And you righly showed that yale's admission rate for early apps did go down this year, despite the increase in raw numbers. It has hovered between 16 and 18% admission rate for some time now and it is sort of bizarre that you see huge trends in really nothing at all. The 2008 numbers I think are aberrant because that year Yale was adjusting to a huge increase in app numbers due to its switch to scea. It appears that Yale has now settled to accepting around 17% early, far less than its counterparts in Princeton and Cambridge. So I can't really see how you can deride yale for this point, when it admits the smallest percentage of its early applicant pool compared to its peers (I think with exception of MIT). Though you might tease posterx about apps/seat, there really is a different dynamic between yale and harvard's admissions policies because Yale has less seats to fill. And you for some reason always like to paint yale's difference in a negative light, no doubt due to your insecurity and obsession with old blue.</p>
<p>Yale now relies on the yield-boosting device of early admissions to fill a bigger fraction of its freshman class than ANY OTHER COLLEGE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! </p>
<p>More than Princeton, and even more than Penn - which has often been sneered at for relying on the ED crutch to help goose its USNews standing.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it is a bit shady to boast about the allegedly low "percentage" taken from the early pool when so many of those purportedly rejected are let in the back door as "deferred SCEA applicants."</p>
<p>If these err ... "highly motivated" deferees are taken into account, Yale actually admits as high or a higher fraction of its early applicants - through either the front door or the back door - as Harvard, Princeton or Stanford.</p>
<p>Many if not most who are deferred are seriously ticked off. Not exactly a good yield strategy.</p>
<p>"The recruiting program for the Class of 2010 has already begun," said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of admissions. More than 70,000 letters will be sent to high school students, and Harvard admissions officers will visit 70 cities this month in conjunction with three other colleges. "Thousands of prospective students and their families have already visited Cambridge over the past few months, attending group information sessions and tours" she said. Attracting the world's best students is now a year-round effort.</p>
<p>Does harvard really need to actively recruit the world's best students?</p>
<p>The days when ANY school could simply sit back and wait for people to walk in the door are long since past - particularly if you want a geographically, ethnically, academically, racially etc etc class.</p>
<p>Harvard is number 1 primarily because it works harder and recruits like crazy. It helps to have a great product, of course, but you still have to sell, sell, sell. </p>
<p>Stanford will now be joining the Harvard/Penn/Georgetown "national tour" of 300+ cities., having realized that if it wanted to become a true national university, it could no longer be overly-dependent on the in-state kids (42% of the student body). Taking these kids was like picking fruit off the lowest branches. It was too easy, and the admissions operation had gotten lazy.</p>
<p>I was told that Wait List admits this year will be very minimal - no more than a handful.</p>
<p>The yield for the Class of 2010 is 80%. There was an article in today's Gazette.</p>
<p>Would you happen to have a link?</p>
<p>I looked for it but they didn't have it up on-line, but today's print edition has it as its first headline - I saw it as I came into the Barker Center this afternoon.</p>
<p>A full 80%? I guess this is the end of the line, then. Curses.</p>
<p>"Capping off a year that saw a record number of early action applicants, early action acceptances and a near-record number of applicants overall, Harvard maintained its dominance in getting accepted students to enroll, with the highest yield among the nation's colleges at 79.7 percent, up 0.6 percent from last year. </p>
<p>This year's yield is the highest it has been in 25 years and will likely prevent the University from accepting anyone from the waiting list, according to a news release from the Office of Admissions and Financial Aid. "</p>