it certainly can’t be less competitive. if you look at the past few classes (class of 2014, 2013, etc.), they appear to be not much different collectively. but then it also doesn’t prove that the number of applicants with stats, ECs, quality essays, and LORs which are similar to the accepted/successful ones hasn’t increased, although it may be sublinearly. In any case, it can not be less competitive. When you fall within a certain applicant pool with particular characteristics (roughly speaking) that the Adcom wishes to pick a certain number, your chances of being chosen have certainly decreased.</p>
<p>I guess a significant portion of the increase was due to the new 2-subject test requirement. I remember quite a few people who did not apply because they wouldn’t take a third subject test only for Harvard.</p>
<p>It’s a little sad how the acceptance rate is going down. Of course, it’s always been low, but anticipating a 5% acceptance rate causes a lot of qualified students to just not bother. I’m one of the 35,000, and it’s been a dream of mine to attend Harvard since I was a child, but I know it’ll take a miracle for me to be accepted. I have no pull, I’m not a minority by any means, and I don’t have a 2400 on the SAT. Therefore, I’ve focused on schools like Vandy, Duke, Emory, and Georgetown. </p>
<p>I’m afraid that someday my children will be saying the same thing about THOSE schools, even if they (hopefully) are exceptional students.</p>
What do you mean? Harvard was one of only two schools that still had been requiring 3 subject tests. By dropping the requirement for the third one, the number of applications certainly must have increased. There were plenty of students who did not apply to Harvard because they couldn’t be bothered to prepare for and take a third subject test only for Harvard.
I’m surprised that no one had mentioned this anywhere.</p>
<p>Does the 3rd subject test really have that much of an impact? Every student I know who took subject tests took 3, even those who didn’t apply to Georgetown or Princeton.</p>
<p>Most realistic Harvard applicants wouldn’t have to study that much more to do well in 3 subjects.</p>
<p>I don’t think that lowering the subject test requirement matters much. It’s one test more, and the typical student will have the knowledge from high school to at least take Math II, US History and English. Not a very big deal IMO, and you could do all three in one session if you wanted.</p>
<p>I ended up taking those three I mentioned above in addition to Bio M.</p>
<p>When you’re nearly the last holdout for three Subject Tests, it will certainly have an appreciable effect, the supposed ease and accessibility of a third test notwithstanding.</p>
<p>If you want to go to Harvard enough, then you’ll take a third subject test. If you’re not willing to apply because of a single subject test (which is a heck of a lot easier than writing a good essay), then you may not be Harvard application material. :P</p>
<p>Maybe, but that’s irrelevant. The fact is that many people are unwilling to take a third Subject Test and, now, those people can apply to Harvard, whereas they could not before. I know people for whom this is true.</p>
<p>Ease of applying affects the number of applications a lot. Columbia’s surge in applications was undoubtedly, in significant part, at least, due to its adoption of the Common Application. If there were that many students who wouldn’t apply to Columbia only because it had a separate application, a third subject test must have been a significant deterrent.</p>
<p>I really doubt that lowering the requirement from 3 to 2 subject tests had a lot to do with the increase in applications. Yale gives its applicants the option of taking NO subject tests if they submit the ACT with writing, and there was an increase of applications as well. I would venture to say that the application increase is proportional to the increase in population, thanks to the baby boomers’ kids reaching college-age. I would know, I am one of them.</p>