<p>thinkjose:</p>
<p>Neither of them were admitted nor waitlisted. The diversity wouldn't apply to them and believe me they were not Harvard material. This is why I think the "real" competition among Harvard RD applicants who are seriously considered by the adcom is much less severe than the official 5%.</p>
<p>I'm sure that there are "joke applications." But there are also many applicants that may not be the strongest academically but can benefit the campus in other ways. Because of this, they apply not for the "heck of it," but because they hope their other merits will balance the weaker academics.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that a 1400 SAT score at Harvard is still better than 25% of the class, and it is quite a bit condescending for you to measure what is Harvard material. The truth is beyond the AdCom, very few know what is exactly Harvard material.</p>
<p>In any case, if you eliminate applicants that are not "real competition" for the same number of admits the percentage would go up not down.</p>
<p>I am not trying to downplay anybody's achievements here, but wouldn't you agree that people who think they have a real shot at Harvard would have applied to other top colleges as well? If you see somebody applying to 12 colleges and none of these colleges are in the top 20 except for Harvard wouldn't you say they had applied just for the "heck of it"? Remember that some high schools encourage students to apply to 10+ colleges. Adding one more application to Harvard wouldn't hurt..</p>
<p>If you believe the majority of Harvard applicants have all the reasons to apply there, how then you explain the record number of applications for Harvard none other college can beat?</p>
<p>Yes, eliminating applicants that are not "real competition" would bring the percentage up. In my earlier post I estimated it as ~13% making a point that competition among "real" RD applicants can be lower than among those deferred who probably compete only against each other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you believe the majority of Harvard applicants have all the reasons to apply there, how then you explain the record number of applications for Harvard none other college can beat?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>False:</p>
<p>2005 Applicants to NYU: 33,683
2005 Applicants to Harvard: 22,796</p>
<p>In different areas of the country, different top schools are "heck of it schools." For example, out in the west (where I live), Stanford is certainly the most common "heck of it" school around. Other posters have claimed that Princeton or Yale are "heck of it" schools where they live.</p>
<p>Thanks for the correction. Is Harvard #2 in a number of applications?</p>
<br>
<p>For example, out in the west (where I live), Stanford is certainly the most common "heck of it" school around. </p>
<br>
<p>And I thought why you applied early to Stanford.. ;)</p>
<p>Raven:</p>
<p>Seriously, why do you think you were rejected at Stanford EA while being admitted to all the colleges you applied RD? This directly relates to the OP's question. Do you think your application was stronger in December?</p>
<p>The earlier argument that ppl who apply EA are accepted at greater rates because Harvard wants to keep its yield rate high convinces me to want to apply early...now all I have to do is make sure my SAT I and SAT IIs are in much better shape by then...But it'll take some studying (3 SAT IIs and SAT I by November) --> To be frank only one of these retakes is ABSOLUTELY necessary (in other words I really only need to take one SAT II this fall to meet the requirements)...but my scores of 650-670 on USH and Bio SAT IIs in May fell short of my own goals (which is 750-770) as well as scores considered Harvard material (750+ I assume)</p>
<p>Hyper, let me tell you right now I did not have what you consider "Harvard Material" SAT IIs.
Of course, SAT II scores are important, but not SO important that if you get below a 750 on all your SAT IIs it will be looked down upon. I think that's the common misconception among applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>For example, out in the west (where I live), Stanford is certainly the most common "heck of it" school around.</p>
<p>And I thought why you applied early to Stanford..
[/quote]
Heh, no question, I hadn't done much college-research when I decided to apply early to Stanford - in a sense, I "followed the crowd" a little bit too much. That said, I still think I could have been happy in Palo Alto - though I most certainly would have chosen Harvard over Stanford had I been admitted to both.
[quote]
Raven:
Seriously, why do you think you were rejected at Stanford EA while being admitted to all the colleges you applied RD? This directly relates to the OP's question. Do you think your application was stronger in December?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I get this question a lot and, truthfully, I have no idea. My application was certainly a bit more refined in December, but my main essay remained almost the same.</p>
<p>The only major difference I can think of was that all of my RD applications allowed for the Common App., whereas Stanford forced me to use its own (more restricting) application. For example, with the Common App. I was able to attach an in-depth "activity explanation chart," something that Stanford's application specifically disallowed. Also, I didn't feel like I nailed some of Stanford's more obscure essay-prompts ("Write a letter to your roomate," for example); I felt my 2 Common App. essays were much more solid.</p>
<p>No question, my rejection (not defferal) from Stanford was quite a wakeup call, and forced me to put more effort into my application (more essay revisions, the activity chart, additional recommendation, etc.). In that sense, the rejection ultimately helped me out (though it sure didn't feel helpful at the time!).</p>
<p>EDIT: To answer the question in relation to the OP:
Yes, my application in December was stronger, but only because the rejection from Stanford was a major wakeup call that more effort was needed (mind you, I didn't exactly throw my Stanford application together in a weekend, but you can't ALWAYS revise your applications more). Had I not applied ANYWHERE early, I'm not conviced that my December application would have been any stronger.</p>
<p>Raven:</p>
<p>I can sign under everything you wrote. You might think you've only refined your application a little, but in light of such a competition small things can make a big difference. After my wake-up call I did all the things you listed (also made a studio-quality CD with my compositions). Had I not aplied and deferred EA, I most likely would have been rejected from HYM at RD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not trying to downplay anybody's achievements here, but wouldn't you agree that people who think they have a real shot at Harvard would have applied to other top colleges as well? If you see somebody applying to 12 colleges and none of these colleges are in the top 20 except for Harvard wouldn't you say they had applied just for the "heck of it"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do agree with this. You hadn't mentioned this previously, though.</p>
<p>there is little difference between applying EA and RD at harvard. given the improved SAT scores, go for RD. because of their high yield, theyll either take you or they wont. dont overanalyze the difference between EA and RD at this school.</p>
<p>Okay so the yield factor will not mess me up if I go RD instead of EA? (I apologize if this question may be redundant...I'm just really tired right now :) )</p>
<p>harvard has an 80% overall yield. i highly doubt they fear losing their RD acceptees.</p>
<p>On admissions percentage numbers: they don't necessarily apply to any particular applicant. For example, Conwoman: the admissions rate for a white girl from the suburbs of CT, not applying early, not a legacy, might well be less than 5%, even excluding 'heck-of-it' applications.</p>
<p>or try a new jersey asian male.</p>
<p>but:
"For Harvard, you are playing a gamble. If you apply early, the chances of admittance are 20%+. However, when you are deferred, and you implement Byerly's stance that deferrees are admitted at the same rate as regular action students, your chances drop to 5%+."</p>
<p>early applicant pools are significantly better than regular pools. most people who get into their early school don't apply to schools, and the ones that do only apply to 1-3 more schools. this takes quite a bit of talent away from the regular pool (not to mention those removed by ED programs). you should believe harvard admissions when they say a regular applicant has as good a shot as an early applicant.</p>
<p>The available statistical data is at variance with the assertion of the prior poster.</p>
<p>Fact is, it is almost invariably the case that early pools are * N O T * stronger than RD pools.</p>
<p>See: The Early Admissions Game."</p>
<p>"See: The Early Admissions Game."
Just saw it on Amazon.com:</p>
<p>Oh boy....I'm screwed....:( I really hope that I do not have to retake an SAT this fall...as I will be taking 3 SAT IIs this fall...</p>
<p>i do understand how u are feeling but dont stress out too much.. apply whenever you want.. why dont you talk to an admissions director?</p>
<p>I just keep getting conflicting responses...I cannot rationalize it very well...so I thus will proceed to rationalize myself:</p>
<p>Harvard's catalogue states that there is no disadvantage to applying RD...but I am going to try my ultimate best to apply EA...Byerly's arguments in addition to the arguments in the early admissions game are highly convincing...and Harvard is my first choice school...so it will naturally be the one I pick for EA. The only thing that might mess me up are testing requirements...but I can still apply EA with what I have now and just one more SAT II...rationalization goes on and on and on like the ENERGIZER BUNNY :D</p>