<p>
[quote]
I favor ED. Early Action allows the top performing seniors to essentially collect letters from the top schools, even after they have heard from their top choice. ED allows the kids who passionately want to go to a specific school to have a better shot at getting in. EA kids take spots from RD applicants, even though they have already gotten into their first choice school.
[/quote]
Statements like this blow my mind. How exactly are EA kids "taking spots" from RD applicants? Colleges can estimate the number of students who will enroll (from past yield numbers) and plan accordingly. To be on the safe side, they'll usually overestimate, which is why they have waitlists. But, in the end, a college will enroll however many students it can accomodate. Spots that students turn down don't magically vaporize. Frankly, you don't have an argument.</p>
<p>Woah.. okay, I was just making a speculation, not trying to spark a debate.</p>
<p>If the pool of applicants, who had applied EA, simply accepted their EA school, like Yale for instance, instead of sitting around all spring collecting acceptances from Stanford, Williams, Princeton and the like, there would be more spots open for those RD applicants, who might get waitlisted or rejected from a school because EA applicants have taken spots at other schools, even when they don't plan on attending. The kids who get waitlisted have less of a chance of getting in. </p>
<p>The main idea behind EA is applying early to a school that is your first choice, right? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was supposed to leave you a window, so that you're not bound to the school, but you have already determined it to be your top choice school. If that's so, then why wait to hear from so many other schools? I am quite aware of percent yields, but I'm not trying to make a science out of this topic, I was just simply paraphrasing a conversation that I had with the president of Williams a few weeks ago and I thought his point was interesting. If EA students withdrew their applications at other schools, it is likely that more RD applicants would be admitted, rather than waitlisted or rejected.</p>
<p>I'm talking about the experience from the student perspective, not the perspective of the specific college.</p>
<p>People getting in SCEA to Harvard, Yale or Stanford, or EA to MIT, are just as "passionate" about their choice as anybody getting in via binding ED to Princeton, Penn etc. </p>
<p>Indeed, they may be more "passionate", since there is no element of compulsion involved in their decision to matriculate.</p>
<p>Furthermore, this cliche talk about "trophy gathering" is so much horse manure. Certainly a fraction of SCEA or EA admits will submit a few other apps in order to compare financial aid offers - after all, that's one of the major "applicant friendly" advantages of the non-binding early application programs.</p>
<p>But at the end of the day, upwards of 90% stay with their SCEA/EA choice. And its silly to say they are "taking somebody's place" away by possibly gaining admittance to more than one school. Last time I checked, you could only attend one college. And since no school expects 100% yield in the RD round, they all admit more applicants than there are places to fill, and nobody "loses a place."</p>
<p>While indeed "Hargadon" was a legend in his own time, Kathy Henderson may want to update her contact list for Princeton. I believe the Dean of Admissions as of the last couple of years is Janet Rapelye. Not sure if she is to be underestimated, overestimated, estimated or simply factored into the overall equation, but her track record as discussed on this board appears to have been to significantly increase URM representation while remaining reasonably legacy and athlete-friendly thus far. Y'all can do the math on that.</p>
<p>40 sum first generation kids... hopefully they are more kind in RD round. I got deferred. Do you think Deferred kids are looked at favourably in RD round more so than others, if only slightly? I recall that Harvard and Yale don't tend to let in Deferred kids, but what is the deal with Princeton. Also, do you think it would be wise to write a ltter re-affirming interest in Pton? Or would they see that as annoying? Thoughts?</p>
<p>all schools look favorably on the early applicants they defer, knowing that these applicants are especially interested and especially likely to enroll. perhaps unfairly, these applicants get two "bites at the apple," both big ones, while regular applicants get only one, much smaller one.</p>
<p>jacquesier: Perhaps send a letter with updates to your application, something you have accomplished between the time you sent your app and now? I do believe that will reaffirm your interest in Princeton.</p>
<p>Yeh, that is what I heard about Harvard. Actually that it was below the RD admit rate, but reports vary I guess. Bad news for the three Harvard deferrals at my school. I'm supised Yale is so friendly on deferrals. And to think only one girl at my School applied there, while everyone else pille don at the other Ivies. But, Pton was without a doubt a clear first. Anyway, it would be great if anyone could dig up soem figures on deferrals. I heard the 14% being thrown around. Can we validate this?</p>
<p>ok im confused - maybe ive been looking in too many college books, but isnt the admissions rate for princeton around 11-13% (ive seen both #s used). and if the percentage for ED was 27% and it was approx half the class, even w/ only a 1% RD admittance, wouldnt that still be around 14%??? could someone please explain this??</p>
<p>Dizzymom chill ok. I dont need to update my contact list nor did I say a word against anyone... Since when is a comment supporting a Dean from the past problematic? Yikes!</p>