<p>last year it was close to 18%, but the early accept rate was certainly higher this year</p>
<p>Rowmom wrote:
</p>
<p>I don’t think $800k in retirement savings and around $700k in home equity is middle class regardless of where you live and I live in one of the top 10 cost of living places in the country. </p>
<p>Data10 wrote:<br>
</p>
<p>That sounds right.</p>
<p>"21% early. 4% late. Lots of high school counselors failed to see that coming. "</p>
<p>It was 3.3% in RD last year and it will be lower this year. </p>
<p>92% yield for 992 - 912.</p>
<p>Remaining seats - 1660 - 912 = 748</p>
<p>At 75% yield for RD applicants - 997 admits but Harvard will gamble on yield and admit 975 or so.</p>
<p>So if they receive 30,000 more apps and have 3k in deferred status the admit rate for RD will be about 3% or less.</p>
<p>It made me feel bad since I might give incorrect advice (;apply as RD, not SCEA) to my daughter. But “no strategical advantage by SCEA” was what admission officers told me, though.
<a href=“https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/application-timeline/restrictive-early-action[/url]”>https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/apply/application-timeline/restrictive-early-action</a>
Relieving thing is that Harvard may not be a top choice for her. :(</p>
<p>Harvard admitted almost 250 more students early since 2016 class for not so big increase in applicants. I don’t doubt most of the applicants have been of a great caliber in each of those classes and would not be surprised if they found another 400-500 kids admit worthy from those pools each year.</p>
<p>However, it is not appropriate for the adcoms to spout “no advantage” when they have filled up 55% of the class in this round, especially when they know perfectly well they can fill the 5-6 times over with the applicant pool and not lose much in the caliber of the applicants. The only way that position can be justified is if they are saying you are buying a lottery ticket in either pool in which case your odds are significantly better when applying early.</p>
<p>I believe that applying early shows not only interest, but also preparation, and a lack of procrastination on the part of those students who apply early to the admission office. It shows that Harvard is more than likely the student’s top choice in the case of being offered admission, as is confirmed by the higher yield rate in SCEA vs RD and the poll data found here [The</a> Harvard Crimson | Class of 2017](<a href=“http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html]The”>The Harvard Crimson | Class of 2017).</p>
<p>Just my humble opinion, but I believe that many of the students who apply early exhibit these appealing characteristics which are a part of gaining admittance simply by readying their applications prior to the November 1st deadline.</p>
<p>Based on what tidbits I have heard about dad2013’s daughter, she is quite prepared and has been admitted where she applied early.</p>
<p>However, I am not certain she has the same chance of being admitted to H at this point in RD where as she had a great shot during REA. We have to remember those applying RD to Harvard may already hold an admission at another top school because they applied early there. To be candid, Harvard app needs the least bit of work among the top 20 schools since they don’t “require” any additional essays outside of commonapp.</p>
<p>FYI, my daughter first worked Harvard supplemets over any of colleges. But I asked her to apply to other colleges (;EA private colleges and other public colleges) since there would be no differnce between SCEA and RD especially for Harvard application. I tried to convince her that H may not be the best way for her career and there are many alternative and better ways but we’re still debating. Anyway, she is now ready to apply H as a RD. We will see a result in March/April next year. Thanks for texaspg remembering me from other threads. :)</p>
<p>I agree that there probably isn’t a great advantage to applying early, other than that if you’ve done great things over the summer but aren’t sure about how you’ll be doing later on, it’s probably advantageous to apply early. </p>
<p>I applied early with a strong junior year record (national competition wins, prestigious programs, etc.), guessing that my senior year couldn’t possibly live up to the hype (though I was probably being a little pessimistic, year is going well). Got in :).</p>
<p>Knowing a pretty weak candidate, however, who got in during regular, I don’t think that there a large difference between early and regular. Remember that there are hundreds of athletes who invariably apply early and the early group is <em>strongly</em> self-selected.</p>
<p>Harvard has made it clear that there is now a significant advantage to applying early. 21% vs 3%. Even when you back out approx 200 recruited athletes from the SCEA admits, the percentage of admittance is still significantly greater. It is unfair for them to say otherwise.</p>
<p>@Blindwheel</p>
<p>Yes, the 21% acceptance rate early shocked me considering Stanford’s acceptance rate was about half at 10.8%. I mean a 1 in 5 shot. That’s insane.</p>
<p>maybe harvard wants to keep #1 on the most selective school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is currently #2 in terms of selectivity.</p>
<p>Selectivity goes up only if number of applicants rises (possible, although for EA, they had a decline) or they accept fewer students (unlikely).</p>
<p>They will probably have a great yield since based on last year’s data the EA group had a significantly higher yield than the RD group (about 90% vs. 73% IIRC). So changing the mix from RD to EA will improve the yield (all other factors remaining the same).</p>
<p>But regardless of where they come out in selectivity and yield ranking it really doesn’t matter since next year, and for the next 100 years, they will have more than enough top quality applicants.</p>
<p>H will accept fewer students during RD and overall compared to last year. The final will be closer to 1950 this year compared to 2029 last year.</p>
<p>It seems likely to me that qualified applicants would be more likely to firstly <em>know</em> about early action, and then secondly have the commitment and certainty to apply under it. This would explain why EA admission rates in all of the Ivy League schools are several times higher than their respective RD rates. </p>
<p>I suspect this reaction is subconsciously magnified/exaggerated because the rate broke 20% for the first time since SCEA was reinstated… even though this rate is still in the general range of those from previous years.</p>
<p>@texaspg</p>
<p>If I did the numbers right, and the odds are I didn’t…</p>
<p>1950 means that the yield will be around 85.2% which is a big jump from 81.9% from last year.</p>
<p>If you use the yield mix from last year (IIRC 93% EA, 73% RD) and hold the target class size the same (1662), you get a RD total of 1013 admits for a total of 2005. The effective yield is then 82.9% (up from 81.9% last year and 80.2% the year before).</p>
<p>Fun with numbers.</p>
<p>There is no reason to have 1660 accept admission. Harvard has no problem admitting fewer and pulling some more from waitlist if numbers don’t work out.</p>
<p>Actually, I think there is a reason to target 1660. Showing that you accepted a lot of people from the waitlist is a negative in terms of perception (e.g. you got a lower yield than you expected).</p>
<p>It would be really odd for them to hope for a dramatically higher yield rate than the historical data shows and to accept people based on that.</p>
<p>Not if your goal is to be the most exclusive school.</p>
<p>H plays around and tinkers admissions each year. I would be shocked if their increased EA admit number does not result in a final number lower than 1975 and close to 1950.</p>
<p>We can discuss this again on March 30th.</p>
<p>I am sure they think about these things a lot.</p>
<p>Do you think the number of RD applicants will be equivalent to last year (which was similar to the year before) in light of the decline in EA applications and higher number of EA acceptances?</p>