<p>I can't find any numbers comparing the strength of the applicant pool, not just admitted students. If anyone has any info, I'd like it. Thanks.</p>
<p>I don't know if these data exist anywhere. There are numbers out there, for example, for how many kids in the OVERALL Harvard pool have SAT's over 700, etc., but I haven't seen them broken out by EA vs. RD.</p>
<p>Someone posted somewhere that Harvard has a higher acceptance rate for EA applicants than Yale, but it seems to me that Harvard would have the strongest EA applicant pool of anywhere. Eeeeh it would be interesting to know.</p>
<p>You can get some indication (although the numbers are several years old now), by looking at various tables in "The Early Admissions Game" showing the percentages of applicants admitted, both early and RD, at Harvard, Yale and other schools. (See, for example, Table 5.2 on p. 160.)</p>
<p>At SAT levels of 1400, Harvard was accepting 5% of early applicants, while Yale was accepting 17.5%. At 1500, Harvard was accepting 24.9%, and Yale 49.1%. At 1600, Harvard was accepting 61.4%, and Yale was accepting 81.3%.</p>
<p>The numbers differ, but the ratio is similar in RD.</p>
<p>Since we know that the Harvard overall mid-point SAT for matriculants has been higher, generally, it follows that the Harvard early pool and RD pool are both stronger: they wind up with a stronger class while accepting a smaller fraction of applicants with high scores.</p>
<hr>
<p>Harvard traditionally reports the number of applicants with SAT scores of 1,400 or higher, and the number of applicants with 800 scores on the SAT math and verbal tests respectively. I have never seen similar stats reported for Yale.</p>
<p>So then, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be misleading to say that Harvard EA applicants have a better chance at being accepted early because their acceptance rate is higher than Yale's, since their applicant pool is stronger? Wouldn't someone have a greater chance at getting into Yale early, even with their lower acceptance rate?</p>
<p>Well, that's another question, really.</p>
<p>First, you have to look a the fraction of the class each is filling from the early pool, and calculate your relative odds of admission at each school if you apply EA or RD. It might, possibly, come out differently.</p>
<p>Certainly "admit rates" don't tell the whole story, and I was slightly kidding when I said that the 21% EA admit rate at Harvard vs. the 18.5% EA admit rate at Yale meant Harvard was "easier to get into" early.</p>
<p>Right, I got that it was a joke, but it sparked my curiousity, because I've never really seen any numbers on the general quality of the applicant pools and how they compare.</p>
<p>Byerly, wasn't Yale using ED for the data in the early admissions game? If so, wouldn't that be a factor in why Yale accepted a higher percentage of lower scoring applicants?</p>
<p>No. That is not relevant. Furthermore, you see the same ratio with the RD pools.</p>
<p>The issue, as I understood it, is the relative strength of the early pools. One would assume that it is the weaker scorers - not the stronger scorers - who would be discouraged from applying to a binding ED program.</p>
<p>Of course the fraction of applications that are "strategic" is a factor.</p>
<p>duplicate post - see below</p>
<p>Princeton reported a little "Harvard type" data this year.</p>
<p>At Princeton, reportedly, "more than than 9,000 applicants had a combined SAT score of 1400 or better."</p>
<p>At Harvard, "56 percent of the candidates (slightly under 13,000) scored 1400 or higher on SATs; almost 2,150 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT verbal test; more than 3,200 scored an 800 on the SAT math; and nearly 3,200 were valedictorians of their high school classes."</p>
<p>Byerly-In all fairness, you must say that since the data that "The Early Admissions Game" is based on was current, the Yale applicant pool has seen a sharp increase in breadth and quality. Also, I think that Newt has a good point in that weaker applicants are more likely to apply under a binding program than not-the chances under a binding program are stronger. At least at my school, the college counselors advise weaker students to wait to apply RD to Yale because they risk being rejected outright if they apply early.</p>
<p>Plus, stronger applicants who are more confident of their prospects at other schools and who might want to have more of a selection come April would prefer a non binding program to a binding one, and might thus be more inclined to apply.</p>
<p>You have made two conflicting claims in there, I think!</p>
<p>Meanwhile, props to Princeton for being upfront about the stats of the applicant group - unlike Yale. </p>
<p>This would never have happened in the Hargadon era.</p>
<p>How do my claims conflict? I said that a non restrictive early programs encourage a stronger applicant pool, and that Yale's applicant pool has increased in number and quality since the numbers you cite. </p>
<p>And might I add, Byerly, that of course Yale would accept a higher percentage of applicants at all SAT scores ED than Harvard would EA, as you cited earlier-it is, after all, ED. This would change drastically for a non binding program and/or when the applicant pool grew overall, as Yale's has. Follow?</p>
<p>If this is what you were confused by:
"At least at my school, the college counselors advise weaker students to wait to apply RD to Yale because they risk being rejected outright if they apply early."
I meant EARLY ACTION, not ED. Whereas before weaker applicants were encouraged to apply ED, now they are discouraged from applying EA. EA is riskier.</p>
<p>And yes, props to Princeton, I couldnt agree more.</p>
<p>As I said before, the same ratios appear with respect to the RD pools, so that it is unlikely that the EA/ED switch drastically altered the relative strength of the Harvard and Yale early pools.</p>
<p>You didn't answer the OP. Fids wanted to know a comparison of pools, not accepted students. I also doubt the applicability of these old numbers since Yale's ea pool is double its old ED pool. Either way, yale doesn't release such a breakdown so its impossible to compare.</p>
<p>A problem with your analysis is that there was a major difference between ED and EA, namely, that Yale in the past had way fewer applicants apply ED than Harvard had applying EA. So Yale had to accept higher percentages across the board. That's why your figures look so drastically different, but the mean SAT scores weren't more than 20 points different for the entering class. Because Yale has a ton more applicants now, I guarantee that those percentages naturally dropped - because the Early acceptance rate dropped.</p>
<p>Relative strength of the pools is exactly what I'm talking about. Harvard can admit a smaller fraction of high scorers and yet still end up with a higher SAT composite for matriculants because, very simply, there are more high scorers in its applicant pools - both early and regular decision.</p>
<p>For example, an astounding fraction of the 800 scorers nationally apply to Harvard - both Math and Verbal.</p>
<p>see edit above as why those figures are confounding and not indicative of relative pool strength</p>
<p>If we are going to discuss admitted students instead of ealy applicant pool as the OP asked, then I think a better number might be the percentage of the admitted applicants with such scores. That would control for differences in overall applicant numbers. Byerly, do you not agree that those numbers can be misinterpreted due to ea versus ed size?</p>
<p>Byerly, I think you need to concede that the Yale applicant pool of today is much different from the applicant pool represented in "The Early Admissions Game." And, as Crimsonbulldog said, if you take into consideration the fact that, percentage wise, Yale accepts far fewer applicants now (both ED and RD), and the average SAT score is roughly the same as Harvards, than you can do the math backwards and conclude that it would be almost impossible for the disparities you cited to still be existent. If they were true, then mathematically at some given SAT score Yale would have to accept massively fewer applicants than Harvard-something I seriously doubt is true.</p>