<p>Prospective '12s, what's the general consensus on the effects of single decision on our admission fates in 08? </p>
<p>Perhaps nothing major will actually change?</p>
<p>Obviously the number of acceptances will rise, but what will the yield be? The school will have zero chance to fine tune the class size, so things may be a little crowded if the yield percentage jumps.</p>
<p>I predict the school goes back to some form of tiered system within five years.</p>
<p>I think initial acceptance rates will be down, and the university will do its finetuning with the waitlist (something it has used very little in the past couple of years).</p>
<p>I predict a 10% rise in applications to just under 21,000, an increase in acceptance rate from 9.5% to about 10.2%, a decline in yield from a projected 69.5% to about 60%, more likely letters and use of the wait list.</p>
<p>it is a much safer way to control the class by waitlist than predicting the actual yield rate (since they have no previous exp. in single decision)
my guess is they'll waitlist more people and their (adcom's) predicted yield rate (from previous RD yield rate) will go down so they'll still accept more people, but perhaps not that many so it will be over crowded</p>
<p>I think if Princeton wasn't such a "top" school, removing the ED could be a problem. But I think Princeton will be fine. I agree that use of the waitlist and likely letters could also help to keep the yield up. Recruitable athletes and others with a "hook" can still be attracted with the likely letters. Also, I think admissions officers might take more seriously a person's demonstrated interest in Princeton to help the yield.</p>
<p>To answer your question properly, you need to look at what could happen during both the early (for other schools) and regular round of decisions next year.</p>
<p>Of the top five schools (HYPSM), Yale, Stanford, and MIT are maintaining early action policies. This year, Harvard received 4008 early applications and Princeton approximately 2286. For Harvard, that represented an increase of about 3.5% from last year, and for Princeton an increase of around 2%. Supposing the rate of increase would theoretically remain the same (hard to say, but since it doesn't represent a radical change it seems safe to assume), the projected total early applications next year for Harvard and Princeton would be 6,480.</p>
<p>How exactly these applicants will act next year is an interesting but ultimately unanswerable question. A few might apply to MIT, but I suspect the number will be limited. For one, MIT doesn't give an advantage to early applicants. For another, most prospective Harvard and Princeton applicants seem far more likely to prefer Yale or Stanford to MIT. Thus, I predict the vast majority will apply strategically to either Yale or Stanford (probably slanted toward Yale, because it is more similar to Harvard and Princeton than Stanford, but nevertheless to both). A few who would've applied simply as a longshot because they have a special affection for Princeton or Harvard might choose to lock in admission at a more realistic match school instead, but I believe this number will be small. More important will be those who see the extremely low acceptance rates this year and apply to match schools early instead to reduce their risk of getting into only suboptimal schools. This number is rather hard to estimate, and could skew the number of additional Yale and Stanford applicants significantly. However, based on the fact that most of those who apply early to Harvard and Princeton are academically capable of doing the work (and thus seemingly good candidates), I again expect that this number will be smaller rather than larger.</p>
<p>In any case, the greater point remains true. Whether 2/3 of the applicant pool is diverted to Yale and Stanford or merely 1/2, this is a substantial number of applicants. These applicants will be thinking strategically, preferring Harvard or Princeton but applying to Stanford or Yale early. They will also be indistinguishable from those who are genuinely committed to their early school of choice. Thus, far from being able to depend on their consistently high EA yield, Yale and Stanford will not be sure that even, say, 2/3s of their early admits will ultimately matriculate.</p>
<p>They have two basic options. First, they could restrict admission and defer a considerable number of promising applicants. This would have the effect of preserving their ability to manage the class without forcing them to scale back RD acceptances (by admitting relatively few people overall, they would then depend on the waitlist to fill in the empty spots). Second, they could admit applicants at a proportionally greater rate to compensate for the strategic applicants. This would ensure that they capture all the possible talent applying early. It would also allow them to work on those admitted early, perhaps attracting converts who originally leaned toward Princeton or Harvard. The problem would be during the regular round, where they would either have to risk overadmittance (which would be extremely bad) or significantly reduce their acceptances and rely on the waitlist to fill in the class. That would have the perverse effect of both pushing away some otherwise strong candidates (who'll simply commit to Harvard or Princeton or elsewhere rather than take the waitlist) and possibly skewing admission toward early applicants. The problem with that is that the early applicant group is not very diverse, and so ultimately relying on it to fill up a substantial portion of the class would risk a significant reduction in marketable diversity.</p>
<p>I suspect that they will restrict application through deferrals, rather than risk losing control over the class. The risk with this strategy is that during the regular round they will lose many strong cross-admits to Harvard or Princeton. According to data from 2001-2002, Harvard holds a commanding cross-admit advantage. However, this is of questionable reliability today. Harvard has been losing National Merit Scholars to Yale for some time, and it may be that Yale has pulled even in attractive power. Moreover, I suspect that relatively few of those who go in with a commitment to Yale or Stanford (those who would've applied early anyway), will defect to Harvard or Princeton. Therefore, I believe Yale and Stanford will restrict acceptances during the early round in order to maximize their control over class composition.</p>
<p>Therefore, during the regular round, most of those who applied to Yale and Stanford (those who weren't accepted, which will be most, and those whose true preferences are Harvard or Princeton) will apply to Harvard and Princeton. Since the group will be a thorough mix of those whose preferences lie to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford, and since they'll be virtually indistinguishable, each school will have to act defensively. Even Harvard: as I noted earlier, their cross-admit pull will be significantly weakened. Therefore, I predict a substantially increased use of the waitlist. Each will then ask for a commitment in order to get off the waitlist, and it is at this point that the assortive matching will take over. It won't be pretty, but it'll allow each school to effectively manage its class without undue risk.</p>
<p>So, in conclusion: don't expect to get in early to Yale or Stanford, and don't necessarily expect an outright acceptance from Princeton. Many will no doubt receive them, but the risks of overadmission and the inability to accurately predict what applicants will matriculate where will ensure that many others (perhaps 100 - 200 or more) are eventually taken from the waitlist.</p>
<p>great analysis!</p>
<p>Yes! Excellent and most needed analysis!</p>
<p>So seriously, do people here think that the benefits of dropping early rounds at Harvard and Princeton really outweigh the costs? I mean dealing with everyone being waitlisted will be pretty messy AND Harvard and Princeton will now have to get through all their applicants in a shorter span of time. Was the change neccessary?</p>
<p>So seriously, do people here think that the benefits of dropping early rounds at Harvard and Princeton really outweigh the costs? I mean dealing with everyone being waitlisted will be pretty messy AND Harvard and Princeton will now have to get through all their applicants in a shorter span of time. Was the change neccessary?</p>
<p>a cost benefit analysis
someone plannin on economics
i agree with your point that princeton will have to choose ppl the same number of people in less time</p>
<p>I can't speak to Harvard's motivation behind dropping early admission, though I suspect it has to with both accepting more lower-income students (who apply mostly during the regular round) and potentially stealing elite students away from Yale who now, instead of bring accepted early, will be accepted regular by both schools and thus be posed with a direct choice (Harvard has traditionally been able to do so).</p>
<p>Princeton is a more interesting case. Up until a few years ago, Princeton admissions was dominated by Dean Fred Hargadon. He collapsed the academic one and two ratings into each other and then insisted on personally authorizing every single acceptance in order to exercise complete personal control over the composition of the class. His philosophy was to admit "Princeton-men" -- those who fit his profile of good potential matriculants, often to the detriment of academic success. However, in order to keep the university selective and elite, he admitted a significant number of high academic performers during the early decision round. That way, they were locked in to coming to Princeton and would secure its selectively. However, because of his deemphasis of academics and scholarship, most of the elite students admitted during the regular decision round defected to Harvard or Yale. Head-to-head, Princeton could simply not compete for them.</p>
<p>A few years ago, Dean Fred "retired" after an admissions scandal involving the office of admissions accessing a few of Yale's online admission decisions. New university president Shirley Tilghman wanted to move Princeton in a new direction, so instead of promoting from within she hired Janet Rapleye as the new dean of admissions. Rapleye, following the outlines of a reform plan that had recently been studied and proposed, decided to make some substantial changes to admissions procedures. The class size would be gradually expanded, and the expansion would be used to recruit more creative arts students and other intellectuals. Moreover, academic profile would become the primary (or at least more important) qualification. So she spent her first few years gradually raising the academic caliber of admitted students in order to foster a new and more attractive image of Princeton as friendly for intellectuals. This effort has paid off -- the academic quality of admitted applicants has steadily risen, and so has the school's ability to attract applicants during the regular decision round.</p>
<p>However, this made early decision somewhat unnecessary. After all, her goal was to raise Princeton's image enough that locking in candidates early would no longer be necessary. Indeed, binding early admission would ideally become a liability, deterring those who like Princeton but aren't 100% sure from applying there during the early round. But, most importantly, early admissions were fundamentally exclusive of minority and other underrepresented applicants. Most of those admitted were middle to upper class and not an especially diverse group.</p>
<p>Rapleye and Tilghman have made increasing diversity one of their primary goals. In order to do that, therefore, they'd need to reduce their reliance on early admissions. Harvard's decision to drop EA was therefore a stroke of luck. Now, rather than have to face going it alone, they could drop their early admissions policy without shooting themselves in the foot by bleeding students to EA schools. By dropping ED and relying instead on RD, they could substantially increase diversity by being able to admit as many underrepresented students as they like / are able (and not being capped by the 600 slots otherwise available under RD).</p>
<p>Thus, from the perspective of diversity, the move to RD makes sense. Whether this should be the goal or not is more debatable. Nevertheless, the Tilghman administration has been a significant boon to Princeton, and I believe she knows what she's doing.</p>
<p>could u elaborate more on why Harvard's move can help it steal students from Yale?</p>
<p>and, I still dont get why Harvard's move is a joke...didn't it eliminate SCEA before Princeton eliminated ED?</p>
<p>
[quote]
could u elaborate more on why Harvard's move can help it steal students from Yale?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Consider what will happen during the early round next year. As I observed before, Yale will most likely have to restrict the number of applicants it accepts EA despite the significant increase in applicants that will occur. Among those they do accept, some will ultimately go to Harvard or Princeton instead (since Yale has no way to tell who's applying because they truly want to go to Yale and who's applying because they can't apply early to Princeton or Harvard). Therefore, since the group of those accepted early will remain relatively the same size as this year (perhaps somewhat larger), some of the Yale-preferring applicants who would've been accepted early in the absence of any changes will now be deferred. In the regular round, many of these strong applicants will be accepted by both Harvard and Yale. Whereas if Yale had accepted them early they would most likely have gone there without question, now they're presented with a choice. Yale deferred them, which could make some feel upset and look less favorably on the school. More importantly, however, now Harvard has a chance to woo them directly and perhaps change their minds. In the past, whenever applicants had the opportunity to choose either Yale or Harvard (at least during the RD round), the majority chose Harvard. Thus, from Harvard's perspective, they can pick off some strong applicants who would've otherwise gone to Yale. Not too many, but a few at least.</p>
<p>I believe the ability to admit more low-income students, however, is a much more important motivation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and, I still dont get why Harvard's move is a joke...didn't it eliminate SCEA before Princeton eliminated ED?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't believe anyone said Harvard's decision was a joke. I, personally, simply find Princeton's motivations to be more interesting (a more profound and beneficial change).</p>
<p>Does being low income help if you write your essay about it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does being low income help if you write your essay about it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It can, I suppose, but be careful. The essay is used to help form the personal rating for you, which is instrumental in whether you get admitted or not (at Harvard, for instance, a personal rating of 1 has been a better predictor of acceptance than an academic rating of 1). So you should only write an essay relating to having a low income if it also helps to establish your character and define who you are as an individual. If it simply aims to demonstrate your lack of means, and another essay would better showcase your personality, you should write the personality-centric essay.</p>
<p>They'll probably be able to tell what your circumstances are based on other information (your address, school, opportunities, recommendations, etc.). Don't go out of your way to highlight it unless it makes a strong and unique point about your character.</p>
<p>I agree with GR Elton.
I think writing about being low income is tricky... you really have to strike the right balance between your difficult circumstances and what you've gained from it. You don't want to have a pity-party in your essay, cos that won't impress the adcom.</p>
<p>I am still having a bit of trouble understanding why EA/ED is detrimental to socioeconomic diversity on campus...
After all, EA is not binding, so there is really no harm in applying in that round, especially with a fee waiver, but moreover, HYPSM guarantee significant financial assistance to lower income families.
Does anybody have an analytic which can account for this disparity in applications based on economic status (I already have the empirics)?</p>
<p>Doctorx017: The explanation typically given is that low-income students lack information about the admissions process. Their guidence counselors and schools lack experience in dealing with admissions to elite schools and so are often quite unfamiliar with the details behind their practices. In fact, they sometimes give out inaccurate information that they came across second hand. Since these students depend on their guidence staffs and lack other sources of information, they often form erroneous beliefs about admission to elite schools.</p>
<p>In this particular instance, one survey found that many low-income students didn't understand how EA functioned. Many believed that it was actually binding, like ED, rather than non-binding. Others weren't even aware that early admissions existed. On the other hand, when colleges actively send and provide information to these students (when they can), their understanding improves significantly and they are more willing to apply early.</p>
<p>However, because of the difficulties inherent in reaching all potential low-income applicants (who are often isolated and hard to find), EA will continue to significantly underrepresent them into the future.</p>