<p>But, however, this does make me very sadface. SCEA doesn’t appear to be a good likelihood at all now lol</p>
<p>STMoore: That “gaming” theory is a novel one, and this is the first I’ve heard of the alleged Wharton study. Can you provide a link, please?</p>
<p>I think what matters is the total package, not any particular item. It’s certainly true that most unhooked SCEA admittees are going to have a GPA over 3.7. However, some candidates will have very impressive achievements in other areas, or other characteristics (like, maybe, being from a small town in Idaho), that may make a difference. My advice is to read the SCEA results thread from last year, and compare your overall achievements to the students there–those accepted, deferred, and rejected. This will give you a pretty good idea of where you fit in, and whether you should use your only early application on Yale.</p>
<p>I don’t have a link, but the study is called “A Revealed Preference Ranking of US Colleges and Universities,” authored by Avery, Glickman, Hoxby, and Metrick from December, 2005. I’m sure you can find it with a search. I incorrectly remembered it as a Wharton study. Only one of the authors is from Wharton; the others are from Harvard (2) and BU. The part on matriculation strategy is not the central point of the article – more of an aside. Their main goal, I think, was to suggest a method of ranking universities based on which ones students actually choose when given the choice rather than relying on more arbitrary measures like the UNSWR criteria.</p>
<p>So, to reiterate, you all think I still have a chance with that GPA? And thanks again so much.</p>
<p>STMoore: The Revealed Preference Study you refer to was conducted back in 2005, and it was based on data collected several years earlier from a group of “theoretical” cross-admits. It was not based on actual cross-admit data, but on a modeling of preferences expressed by high school students. The authors do not claim the data can be used to support any actual ranking, especially among highly selective colleges. And I am unaware that the authors claimed that any school suffered from the peculiar variety of “Tufts syndrome” theory you mention. </p>
<p>If you want to read more about how the Revealed Preference study was conducted, see posts by cellardweller and siserune on this thread:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/791581-why-did-your-kid-turn-down-clearly-higher-ranked-college.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/791581-why-did-your-kid-turn-down-clearly-higher-ranked-college.html</a></p>
<p>wjb, Yes, “claimed” is probably an overstatement. Here’s what they said: “In short, it appears that MIT and Harvard do not engage in strategic admissions, although Harvard probably cares more about factors uncorrelated with the SAT score than MIT does. Yale appears to practice a bit of strategic admission – avoiding the area where Harvard competition is tough and students are not worth fighting (and perhaps often losing) for. Princeton appears to practice more stategic admissions – avoiding the same area Yale avoids, but more so. If we were to show more schools – such as Stanford or Brown – that we later rank similarly to Princeton, we would see that their figures display similar patterns. While figure 1 is hardly definitive, it provides evidence that even a highly prestigious school may practice strategic admissions.” Of course, no one not in admissions knows for sure – just a theory. Also, as I noted earlier, the dynamic has certainly shifted since 2005 w/ Harvard dropping early admissions and Yale introducing SCEA, so may no longer apply (if it ever did).</p>
<p>Yes, I think with a 3.7 UW you still have a chance. You definitely have your chances hurt, but not completely destroyed. Do not give up, you can do it.</p>