<p>Using 2010 numbers in most cases, but 2009 numbers for Cornell and Harvard, where all 2010 data isn’t in. Note that:</p>
<li><p>Both Harvard and Yale utilize the presumably more “student friendly” SCEA, which is non-binding, and thus attracts more early applicants;</p></li>
<li><p>Most of the binding ED schools attract roughly the same fraction of their applicants in the early round, but that -</p></li>
<li><p>Penn, although a binding ED school, is a clear exception - presumably because it openly acknowledges the huge admissions edge given to early applicants.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>No, Byerly is bringing up this piece of data because it is just out and is an interesting piece of data.</p>
<p>I would say that the extremely high number is because a combination of two factors:</p>
<p>Partly it is, as Byerly pointed out, because of the clear and outspoken advantage given to ED students at Penn.</p>
<p>However, it is also because of the recent increase in the perceived quality of Penn versus its peers. More and more students see Penn as their absolute first choice, and then apply early because of the edge given ED applicants in gaining admission.</p>
<p>I think one big selling point for Penn is the school rocks Priceton in sports and everything else. But on a side note, Penn has a high acceptence rate than Pton, it's the party Ivy and a bigger school, so of course it gets more applicants!</p>
<p>Byerly just likes to try and point out that people apply to Penn because of the acceptance rate, and not because it's perceived as a good school.</p>
<p>Though of course Byerly will ignore the fact that Harvard is #3 on this list...he'll probably chalk it up to Harvard's academic reputation and not it's 23% acceptance rate--more than double the RD rate.</p>
<p>It's one thing to present statistics, but it's another to comment on them as Byerly does. He'd be more helpful if he shut up.</p>
<p>I will "comment" as I please, thank you. Penn is an excellent school, and I have never said otherwise.</p>
<p>There is no doubt in my mind that the presence of Yale and Harvard in the #2 and #3 slots on this list is due to the simple fact that they are SCEA schools rather than binding ED schools.</p>
<p>Both receive a high fraction of their total admits in the early round because applicants are not bound to attend, leaving them greater options. It is noteworthy that this is so even though these schools are the two which admit the smallest fraction of their early admits.</p>
<p>Penn is sui generus in this grouping as a binding ED school which nevertheless attracts the highest percentage of its applicants through this device.</p>
<p>Even with the NON-BINDING SCEA program at Harvard, it could not match early applications percentages at Penn. This only substantiate thae fact that student who apply to Penn actually has interest in the school and are absolutely sure they want to enroll come September, whereas at Harvard, most of the applications are nothing more $70 lottery tickets.</p>
<p>It is, as I said, an effect of the combination of an increase in the amount of applicants who see Penn as an "absolute first-choice" school and the admitted edge they get by applying ED.</p>
<p>Regarding princeton - what is the official and unofficial statement regarding application advantage because of ED? SImilar to Penn's?</p>
<p>What I would be interested to see is data regarding this over the last five years. Is this huge difference a one-time occurence, or is it a trend that can be seen in the data.</p>
<p>Do you have the data?
Is it an upgoing trend for Penn or a downgoing trend for the other ivies? Was there a break in the trend during application years when yale or harvard switched to scea?</p>
<p>Without digging everything out now, the trend is for more and more early apps, because kids aren't stupid, and they have begun to realize that the early app admission rate are far higher than the RD rates at every address, and that the proffered explanation that this is because the early pools are "stronger" is basically bull.</p>
<p>When Princeton and Yale switched from EA to ED in 1996, their early apps declined.</p>
<p>Similarly when Brown switched from EA to ED in - I think- 2001, their early apps dropped to less than half the former number. </p>
<p>In 2004, when Harvard switched to SCEA from open EA, and Yale switched from binding ED to SCEA, the Harvard early apps dropped nearly in half, from 7,614 to about 4,000, while the Yale numbers rose from 2,611 to about 4,000.</p>
<p>As app numbers have grown, there has been an observable trend for all schools where the numbers permit to take just as many early admits as they can, subject to a self-imposed limit of filling 49% of the class from the early pool.</p>
<p>I gather that consultants have advised the schools that 50% is something of a psychological barrier: if half the seats are already gone before the RD applicants are considered, it is felt that many people would be discouraged from applying RD at all.</p>
<p>So a delicate balance has to be maintained: admit as many early as possible to boost yield and apparent "selectivity" without scaring off the RD applicants needed as a source of "diversity."</p>
<p>While it is true that Penn's applications are more likely to be early applications than are applications at the other Ivies, one reason is that Penn gets proportionately fewer RD apps.</p>
<p>If your definition of "happiness" is a class with a high percentage of matriculants who signalled their "love" by applyinmg early, then the Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia student bodies are "happier."</p>
<p>So then, according to your theory, Columbia and Princeton matriculants "love" their choice more than Penn applicants, because a bigger fraction of the class were ED applicants, but Harvard and Yale matriculants are NOT as enthused about their school - even though an even LARGER fraction were SCEA applicants, simply because they COULD have gone elsewhere even if they didn't?</p>
<p>Byerly, you might not curse or make vicious, direct attacks on posters, but you are absolutely a troll. I'm amazed that the moderators haven't booted you yet... let's chalk that up to careless reading on their part. Of course, I mean this in the nicest way possible. Your arrogant posts remind me on a daily basis why Harvard isn't right for me, which is why I'm typing from my Penn dorm right now. So thank you. </p>
<p>Because your pointless pretension and statistical ignorance is unlikely to inspire other potential applicants (of your school or mine) for better or worse, I respectfully request that you confine your thinly veiled attacks againts rival schools to the Harvard board so that you may be more easily ignored.</p>
<p>My question is what Byerly is trying to get as an answer from this board. I can rarely find a thread with Byerly that hasn't resulted in backfire from argument and trolling. I think looking at these statistics can't prove anything absolutely -- too many variables involved. More studies would need to be done. I can tell you from personal experience, however, that many people are beginning to see the quality of Penn and thus they can see it as a first choice. The school is simply larger -- it can accomodate more people, so going from admissions rate alone is ignoring some key components if you are doing a raw comparison to other schools in this manner. So many people here I know chose Penn to be their first choice -- many of them, including myself, were also accepted at schools like Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford or Columbia or MIT, etc, but chose Penn instead. Many applied early, clearly denoting a first choice. Penn was denoted as the place where students were "happiest to be there" for a reason. This thread, in my opinion, is a disguised method of trying to discredit the rise of Penn's reputation.</p>
<p>It is not I, but rather others, who are attempting to draw definite conclusions about what some of these stats mean. I merely post the numbers because they are interesting and because they should provoke discussion. There is no magic explanation as to why one school or another has a higher fraction of its applicants come in via the early application pool.</p>
<p>To somehow see this stat (ie, the highest fraction of total admits coming from the early pool rather than the RD pool) as an effort to "discredit Penn" is absurd. Get a grip, guys, please! Penn is a great school and doesn't need "see no evil-hear no evil-think no evil defenders. It's well beyond that stage now, I think.</p>