reason for deferment

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
61

<p>Ummmm....well, the "That just isn't so" comment I made was in regard to Harvard using a dartboard to make admissions decisions. :)</p>

<p>As to the above, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that aside from some slush in the numbers, that yes, your opinion more or less follows along the lines laid out re: "residual advantage". </p>

<p>In that case, a comp of the deferred admits and the straight RD admits both individually and as a group ought be stark. In fact the group contrast, if done graphically ought have little or no overlap. Are you aware of any such group comp and if so, what does it show?</p>

62

<p>It is true that development legacies, recruited athletes, and high scoring under represented minorities are probably in anyway as pointed out. The thing is that those categories need to be taken into account in any EA discussion as those in the categories mentioned above especially development legacies and recruited athletes are encouraged to appy early, do apply early and are mostly accepted early. So it is not an accurate statement that the early pool is stronger at least not academically.</p>

63

<p>I already admitted that I have no evidence on the deferred and later admitted applicants. I would be somewhat surprised if they are on average just like the average RD admits. As you point out, given my position you would expect them to look less good than the RD admits. However, you cannot expect these differences to be so stark that they are immediately obvious without some sort of statistical analysis. The whole admission process is too subjective and uncertain for you to expect that all of those who barely missed a cutoff in one round would be below everyone who made it above the cutoff in the second round, even if the first cutoff is, in principle, lower.</p>

<p>So, an alternative explanation would be that the whole process is noisy and uncertain enough that when the committee reviews nearly 3000 of its decisions it can easily find 200 mistakes.</p>

64

<p>
[QUOTE]

I already admitted that I have no evidence on the deferred and later admitted applicants. I would be somewhat surprised if they are on average just like the average RD admits. As you point out, given my position you would expect them to look less good than the RD admits. However, you cannot expect these differences to be so stark that they are immediately obvious without some sort of statistical analysis. The whole admission process is too subjective and uncertain for you to expect that all of those who barely missed a cutoff in one round would be below everyone who made it above the cutoff in the second round, even if the first cutoff is, in principle, lower.</p>

<p>So, an alternative explanation would be that the whole process is noisy and uncertain enough that when the committee reviews nearly 3000 of its decisions it can easily find 200 mistakes.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I find it extremely funny that you are using this justification to say you cannot prove what OdysseyTiger is asking you for when in fact I used the exact same point that your assertion that applying early is the same as scoring 100 points higher on the SAT I.</p>

65

<p>sigh :)</p>

<p>as discussed privately, we have different takes on exactly what the Harvard president admitted to. so whether or not this is a "fact" or not is at least debatable</p>

<p>as also discussed privately, there are a myriad of general concerns re: the book in question. But specifically,</p>

<p>1) the book covers a time when Harvard's EA was not single choice, that EA applications were double what they are now, and EA admits exceeded 1200 while the overall population applying to college was significantly lower.
Did Harvard make the same claim about EA admits then as now and if so, what was the admittance rate of EA deferees at that time relative the rate of the overall RD population at the time.</p>

<p>2) the book covers all early programs at the time and it is unclear how much of data and conclusions are general in nature and how much if any is specifically directed to Harvard's EA program at the time. (Which is no longer Harvard's EA program at this time.)</p>

<p>Thus even if the book WAS accurate and correct in what it concluded at the time it made its conclusions, it is not certain that those conclusions applied to Harvard's EA program then, and far from certain that they apply to Harvard SCEA program now. </p>

<p>Such "compelling" evidence as this just isn't enough to make me overlook that "no good argument as to why giving them what OdysseyTigger calls "residual advantage" would be a good idea (as opposed to admitting them early)." exists. </p>

<p>Perhaps at the edges of this subjective process, decisions do become somewhat arbitrary, and the second look or maybe a different set of eyes does help, but my guess is that that is more the exception than the rule. </p>

<p>Absent some specific demonstration of the existence of this "residual effect" and/or some reasonable explanation as to why it would exist, (and allowing for some rare exception to the rule - like someone who tubed after application - though in that case the admittance would seem to be revokable) the more plausible explanation still seems to be that Harvard in this case just might be telling the truth.</p>

<p>Certainly if one looks at some of the deferred applicant threads, many of them believe that the "observables" of the deferred group may well exceed that of those admitted.</p>

66

<p>c'mon xjayz. First, I am not using this as a justification for my inability to prove what OdysseyTiger is asking; I am unable to answer what OdysseyTiger is asking simply because I do not have the data. Second, it is not the same as your point at all. You are trying to explain away a systematic and significant difference by appealing to mistakes. (You can't believe mistakes go in favor (or against) EAs year after year). I am arguing that the you shouldn't expect the differences to be that clear cut. You should only expect them to show up on average. If you compare EA admits to the RD admits overall, indeed they do.</p>

67

<p>So OdysseyTigger, given a choice between real (albeit never perfect) data that shows that not only Harvard but every college favors EAs and EDs (and every college denies favoring them) and noexistent data comparing the deferred and later admitted students to the RDs, you went with the noexistent data? Good for you.</p>

68

<p>collegebound</p>

<p>They have been taken into account here and specifically excluded from the discussion. </p>

<p>...and they are certainly not in the deferred pool. :)</p>

69

<p>Given the choice between dated data which is by no means clearly applicable (ED info is absolutely not applicable) and having to explain away applicable current data or going with the current data, I chose going with the current data. </p>

<p>We ARE allowed to disagree :) </p>

<p>As for every other college, ANY other college is not relevant here and NO other college is in the same position Harvard is regarding admissions</p>

<p>Penn and Dartmouth are quite clear about favoring ED applicants (and their deferred admittance rate supports this) and would be insane to change.</p>

70

<p>
[QUOTE]
You are trying to explain away a systematic and significant difference by appealing to mistakes. (You can't believe mistakes go in favor (or against) EAs year after year).

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I don't think they are making mistakes with the kids they accept SCEA. I am saying that, as Fitz said in his article, some decisions cannot be quantified since in the context of the pool, some applicants look and are stronger than others, and this is due to intangible factors.</p>

<p>You may see that as a mistake, but I certainly do not. Those intangible factors add up to a stronger applicant pool. I would certainly say that kids who apply EA know how to present themselves to look stronger, deemphasize their weaknesses and emphasize their strengths, etc. because they come from advantaged backgrounds. </p>

<p>To give another example, I have a good friend who came from a school in inner-city Los Angeles which sends 30% of their kids to 2 and 4 year colleges. She was 2nd in her class, but she had to fend for herself and find information on her own on how to apply to a place like here. She is the prime case of a student who is not advantaged and would not know the finer aspects of emphasizing her strengths and deemphasizing her weaknesses with finesse. Unsurprisingly, she applied RD along with other people that were in her situation.</p>

<p>Again, SCEA does advantage the advantaged, as Derek Bok stated -- but these "advantaged" kids are also stronger across the board since they have had better college counseling, better support from parents, better access to extracurricular activities, better schools, better [insert whatever you want here]. College admissions, especially highly selective college admissions, are skewed toward these types of kids, and by getting rid of SCEA, Harvard is leveling the playing field a little bit. It's not perfect, but it's a step.</p>

71

<p>Of course we are allowed to disagree and it seems we have to. It turns out however, there is some evidence about deferred and later admitted students. Nothing you cannot dismiss, since you seem totally committed to your preferred conclusions but here goes anyway: </p>

<p>It seems your argument, that since over 200 deferred applicants are later admitted Harvard can't be favoring EAs, has been made by the dean of admissions at Harvard in 1998. Avery et al respond to it as follows:</p>

<p>``This argument presumes that deferred applicants are considered on equal terms with regular applicant. But are they?.....We have additional anecdotal evidence from two admissions officers..(there is some discussion of an unnamed college that is not Harvard then…) Similarly, in one of our formal interviews with a Harvard student, that student explained that her experience in the Harvard Admissions Office convinced her that early applicant have an advantage in admissions decisions even after they are deferred.’’ </p>

<p>The interview is from the year 2000. I have no doubt that OdysseyTigger will dismiss this as well (anecdotal, subject to interpretation, the interview is too old, she could be outright wrong etc). There is no evidence that has a shot when prior convictions are so strong. My only question is this: why are your prior convictions so strong?</p>

72

<p>xjayz, I am not saying that the EA pool are RD pool are the same. All I am saying is that a given student has a better show EA than RD. Since you are saying that by getting rid of SCEA which is full of advantaged kids, Harvard is leveling the field a little bit, you seem to be agreeing with me. Right?</p>

73

<p>
[QUOTE]
It seems your argument, that since over 200 deferred applicants are later admitted Harvard can't be favoring EAs, has been made by the dean of admissions at Harvard in 1998.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Well, over 200 deferred applicants are not admitted in RD. Byerly, an alumnus of Harvard, released stats on the number of RD admits from EA deferees. My year (Class of 2009), there were about 94 students. This is not 200.</p>

<p>I never said SCEA could not be a "tip factor." When two candidates are equal in a committee's eyes (and to get to this point in the process means you are extremely talented), the EA deferee may be the admit instead due to "interest demonstrated." However, this case is extremely rare.</p>

<p>We seem to be talking about two different things. I am saying that EA does advantage the advantaged for reasons I have outlined previously in this thread because kids who apply EA are usually from advantaged backgrounds where they know how to apply for highly selective colleges. Again, they have stronger test scores, grades, extracurriculars, personal qualities, etc. because they know the system. It is not because Harvard considers "interest" in any way. Why should they, with its 80% yield rate? UPenn and Dartmouth would have to consider interest -- look at how they are keeping their ED programs!</p>

<p>You are trying to prove that applying EA is an advantage in its own right and you're interpreting "advantage the advantaged" in simpler terms, extending the terminology to include weaker applicants.</p>

<p>However, as a student representative with admissions for the past two years and working closely with admissions officers and through informal chats, I have seen little evidence that weaker candidates are admitted early. It may be true for ED schools, but it is certainly not the case for Harvard.</p>

<p>Why? Again, this is because kids who apply early are mostly from advantaged backgrounds. If a kid gets deferred, they still have the same statistical chance of getting in as everyone else in the RD round. Therefore, there is no reason not to apply early! (To echo Byerly's sentiment)</p>

<p>However, how many kids do you think know about this fact? Not many. Therefore, EA does advantage the advantaged, but not because the candidates themselves are weak but because of the nature of the admissions process. Harvard is changing the nature of the admissions process.</p>

74

<p>"Well, over 200 deferred applicants are not admitted in RD. Byerly, an alumnus of Harvard, released stats on the number of RD admits from EA deferees. My year (Class of 2009), there were about 94 students. This is not 200."</p>

<p>I guess in 1998, it was about 222. But I don't think the exact number is important.</p>

<p>"I never said SCEA could not be a "tip factor." "</p>

<p>So you are willing to believe that it could be used as a tie-breaker but not to prefer someone a bit lower at the expense of someone a bit higher. How come? What compells admissions officers to use the EA factor only if they anticipate a tie but not otherwise?</p>

<p>"You are trying to prove that applying EA is an advantage in its own right and you're interpreting "advantage the advantaged" in simpler terms, extending the terminology to include weaker applicants"</p>

<p>Yes I am. But not to include infinitely weaker applicants.</p>

<p>The term "advantaging the advantaged" has two advantages in it. The first refers to all the things you mention:</p>

<p>"EA are usually from advantaged backgrounds where they know how to apply for highly selective colleges. Again, they have stronger test scores, grades, extracurriculars, personal qualities, etc. because they know the system."</p>

<p>What does the other advantage refer to? Remember, these guys are already advantaged, why would EA further advantage them if EA itself was not going to lead to better treatment?</p>

<p>"Why should they, with its 80% yield rate?" </p>

<p>The "they" here refers to Harvard. First, I never suggested that the only benefit (or even the main benefit) of EA was to increase yield. Although, I would not ignore this either. Asking why would a school with 80% yield do stuff to improve its yield is a little bit like (and I emphisize the little bit here) asking why would the rich cheat on their taxes: there are always two answers to such questions: (1) to get even richer, (2) how do you think they got to be rich in the first place? But there is a more important reason for favoring EAs: if you dont' they go elsewhere. Imagine yourself as the dean of admissions: suppose you have 100 applicants, your ranked them on some scale. You have a 100, a 99, a 98 etc all the way to a 1 in your EA pool. Suppose your best guess is that you will have to accept people down to 81 in you RD pool if you accept 19 ppl from your EA pool. But if you admit only 19% some applicants will be disappointed and will apply EA to yale next year instead of Harvard. You will lose 2 good applicants if you admit only 19%, a 90, and an 88. Would you be willing to accept the 80 from the EA pool this year, end up admitting only down to 82 in the RD pool to get the 90 and 88 next year? Sure it is a bad deal for this year: you ended up replacing an 81 from the RD pool with an 80 from the EA pool. But you more than make up for it next year. Wouldn't you go for it?</p>

<p>Now, all this would not work if the applicants themselves new their numbers, i.e., whether they would get in or not. But they don't. A 90 doesnt know that she is a 90, so she has to use her EA advantage wisely. If Harvard isn't favoring EAs, she has to apply to some school that is. Do such things happen? Of course they do, why do you think the EA pool shrunk by 13% at Yale this year?</p>

75

<p>I believe that those who were deferred EA and are accepted regularl decision were those applicants who just missed the cut. If my point is correct in that some desirable to Harvard, but weaker candidates in the applicant pool (by weaker I mean had standardized test scores and academic records that were not as competiitive, and lacked in extra curriculars of any significance) were accepted early because they were development legacies, recruited athletes, ect, then it is possible that they took the place of more compelling and qualified candidates. Thus, applicants on the cusp would include those Harvard seriously considered taking but there just were not enough spots to include them, and those who they would not have included because they just missed the cut. The reality is that if Harvard deferred an extremely large number of applicants and later accepts only 10 percent of the deferred applicants, then most likely those accepted regular decision were those who they seriously were considering taking. Harvard I believe will take a majority of these applicants regular decision.
The regular decision pool is comprised of an array of applicants. Many top applicants who applied to binding early decision schools, or withdrew their applications after getting in their first choice will not be in the pool. Obviously some of the most outstanding applicants will be in the applicant pool. These applicants will automatically be taken. There will also be a large number of applicants who are not competitive but who threw in an application because it did not require much additional work. Harvard will I believe take the most outstanding in the regular decision pool and then take those from the deferred list who remain compelling candidates, and/or fill certain nees such as geographic diversity ect.
I believe that those who were deferred and later accepted regular decisison are close in achievement to those they accepted early. I believe these are extremely strong candidates that justs could not be taken for one reason or another. Harvard could fill their classes four times with applicants who would make the cut. Given this, the ones they accept early may not be stronger than the ones they later accept in the regular decision pool including deferred applicants.</p>

76

<p>what i'm interested in knowing is what xjayz had previously said before. that the chances of getting in, in the RD round is not very high if one didn't receive a non-generic deferral notice. true or not?</p>

77

<p>I cannot believe that Harvard would take the time to send generic deferral letters to some and more constructive deferral letters to others. Usually why someone was not taken early can not be put into definitive words to offer constructive criticism. There was a vote by the admissions commitee and it did not go in their favor in the early round. I imagine that those who just missed the cut have things noted on their appication file that indicate this. I find it hard to believe that those who have a better chance of getting accepted regular decision received a different type of letter. The reality is more likely that with this very large number of deferrals, that the admission committee know who was close and who was not. I do not believe that they give more attention to those deferrals who almost gaine acceptance early. In the regular decision round everyone gets a second review. I am sure that admission officers take note of those with extremely high scores on various ranking variables in the early round, and that is it.</p>

78

<p>
[QUOTE]
what i'm interested in knowing is what xjayz had previously said before. that the chances of getting in, in the RD round is not very high if one didn't receive a non-generic deferral notice. true or not?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I never said that. And also, there's no such distinction. All deferees get the same deferral letter.</p>

79

<p>"If you have a generic response, you probably will not be admitted anyway. If you have more constructive feedback, it's highly likely they discussed your case and you were a 'true defer.'"</p>

<p>then would you like to please clarify what you meant?</p>

80

<p>
[QUOTE]
"If you have a generic response, you probably will not be admitted anyway. If you have more constructive feedback, it's highly likely they discussed your case and you were a 'true defer.'"

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>What I meant was if your GC calls the adcom and your admissions officer gives a generic response as in "It was a highly competitive pool and there was no reasoning behind your not getting admitted" or if your test scores were low, etc. then you probably would not be admitted in the Spring.</p>

<p>However, if the adcom starts telling you more constructive criticisms (which was the case for me -- but again, not the case for everyone), then you were probably considered a very strong candidate and did not make it over the final cut and you would be a strong candidate in the RD round.</p>