<p><a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/january10/early-011007.html%5B/url%5D">http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/january10/early-011007.html</a>
<a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=34744%5B/url%5D">http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=34744</a></p>
<p>Stanford
16.1% (4,644 applied, 750 admitted)</p>
<p>Yale
19.7% (3,594 applied, 709 admitted)</p>
<p>Harvard
21.5%</p>
<p>Princeton
26%</p>
<p>is being the lowest good?</p>
<p>MIT only accepted 11% EA.</p>
<p>maybe being the lowest is good for RD applicants...</p>
<p>Anyone know % accepted, deferred, or rejected at each school for EA/SCEA?</p>
<p>whoa, UPenn admitted 29 percent ...</p>
<p>well, upenn and princeton both have ED programs, which means fewer applicants and a higher early acceptance rate. Which is balanced with a much lower RD rate.</p>
<p>Stanford, Yale, and Harvard all have single-choice EA programs. The larger amount of applicants means students find it more desirable. Also, the early program at Stanford is less of an advantage as it is at Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>MIT is a little different. They have a normal EA program. But they accept only the super-qualified applicants EA and defer about 80%. So their RD pool is actually much less selective than the EA pool.</p>
<p>The RD acceptance rate at Penn isn't very low. </p>
<p>Stanford cleaned up this year, generally speaking.</p>
<p>not necessarily - the 12% decrease in offers may indicate a decline in the quality of the pool.</p>
<p>With an increase in applications (far more than HYP)? That's hardly likely. </p>
<p>Princeton worried about losing even more cross-admits to HYS?</p>
<p>easy there, captain defensive. there's only two reasons stanford would have accepted 12% fewer students than last year despite a 5% increase in applicants: 1) some sort of policy decision by the administration to take a smaller fraction of the class early, or 2) a decrease in the number of desirable candidates in the expanded pool. i think the second explanation is just as likely as the first, especially given provost etchemendy's recent vigorous but unpersuasive defense of the current SCEA policy in the NY times.</p>
<p>I do personally think that the first is more likely (although I agree that Etchemendy's defense was unpersuasive, but I do think part of his intention was to set himself up for Stanford's, not Harvard's presidency). It's possible that Stanford is girding itself for far more intense RD battles after this year.</p>
<p>"given provost etchemendy's recent vigorous but unpersuasive defense of the current SCEA policy in the NY times."</p>
<p>You mean he used logic to defend his position?</p>
<p>It was hardly defensible, and ultimately misguided. </p>
<p>Stanford, like Yale, will come around to the H/P policy, if only to stay competitive. Chances are Yale will go first, and Stanford will be forced to follow.</p>
<p>How will Stanford be less competitive by retaining scea? Wont it be able to increase its yield by courting early applicants?</p>
<p>I think once two of the big players go to single-deadline systems with no early round, it makes other colleges with early admission programs look like they are hard up for strong students. (I have long felt that way about Princeton, which had binding ED through this year, even though Princeton is indisputably a fine college.) I agree that Stanford has enough inherent draw that it can afford to join the single-deadline group, once it has taken a look at the moves of peer colleges.</p>
<p>What does HYPS stand for?</p>
<p>HYPS = harvard yale princeton stanford</p>
<p>
<p>Interesting that you would characterize it as such. Having spoken personally to admissions deans at the schools which cancelled their early programs for next year, I can tell you that etchemendy's defense of Stanford's (in my opinion rather well-designed) early program was significantly more persuasive than their reasons for dropping their own.</p>
<p> [QUOTE=zephyr151]
It was hardly defensible, and ultimately misguided.
</p>
<p>Oh? Did you read the article? Etchemendy made very logical defenses of every single important criticism levelled at early programs, though obviously in the context of Stanford's program.</p>
<p>There's a link to the article. Care to re-read and tell me what exactly was misguided about it?</p>
<p>Etchemendy used logic (he is a world-famous logician, after all), but he didn't use facts. NO college dares to open up the data in its early admission files and regular admission files to an independent researcher for an analysis of how the early admission advantage works. Etchemendy had no access to data when he wrote his editorial, and it is possible to use valid reasoning to reach an incorrect conclusion if your premises are wrong, as his made-up premises were.</p>