<p>I didn't see this anywhere on this forum or in Princeton's, so I thought I would post it.</p>
<p>The</a> Daily Princetonian - With no early applicants, U. will draw heavily on waitlist</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rapelye added that, because of this year's uncertainty about expected yield, her office will initially admit a "conservative" number of students and then possibly take "several hundred students off the wait list."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I went to a Harvard information session yesterday and they basically said that because of their new EA-less policy, they would admit as many regular applicants as to achieve an 80% expected yield rate (~2000 applicants), which has been their norm for many years. But because of the unexplored nature of this movement from EA to non-EA, they simply have no idea what will happen. They may accept nobody off of the waitlist--or they could accept many more. There is no data to help them predict what will happen. I assume that Princeton is thinking the same way.</p>
<p>What is interesting is that the trend has been to minimize the number of people coming off the waitlist - since it somewhat a hassle for all involved (of course, getting off it kind of changes your opinion :) ). What I wonder is how this will affect April when everyone has 6 waitlists at schools who may accept hundreds off of them. That is going to make the process really unwieldy.</p>
<p>I also think this brings up the debate about whether this was a smart decision in the first place. This kind of randomness is not something you want in the admissions process.</p>
<p>Well, their reasoning was well-intentioned; EA usually brings in richer, more prepared applicants--people with access to test-prep and resources (such as CC) who need neither the strong passion to ED nor the time to RD. The idea goes that by eliminating EA, everybody is on an equal playing field. I am neither for nor against it--I'm just parroting what the Harvard adcom (a fine-looking 20-something lady) said. And, of course, change is almost never smooth and easy, especially regarding something so gargantuan as college admissions. </p>
<p>My guess is that people will still be disappointed come April, because these adcoms are awfully good at getting exactly what they want in a class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a fine-looking 20-something lady
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know its not PC, but that cracked me up (and I'm a lady). What did you mean to convey by including that? (seriously)</p>
<p>it meant that the admissions office had some spice in their dressing. north carolina, upper canada (not counting quebec), san francisco, and iowa are quite lucky =/</p>