<p>We all know that H and P have restored SCEA.
Now the question then is: how will the admissions landscape change?
I want this to be a discussion of what current parents, current students,
and applicants think about the possible changes forthcoming in the '11-12 admissions season.</p>
<p>With early action available for H and P, my guess is that
the number of early applicants for Yale will decrease, perhaps even significantly.
A sizable portion of what would exclusively have been Yale's SCEA pool could now be dispersed among H, Y, P, probably concentrating in Harvard's pool.</p>
<p>Will this allow for more competition at Yale? or less? or would it even matter?
At least Yale would now be able make the assumption that most of its
SCEA applicants are considering Yale as their first choice? This could also translate into a higher expected yield rate from admitted SCEA applicants, which could mean fewer admitted students? </p>
<p>Oh my, I wasn’t even aware of any of this, let alone predicting all the effects. I personally have the hunch that applications just get more and more competitive every year no matter what.</p>
<p>I guess it shouldn’t matter either way, you do your best and be happy with whatever happens. It’s not like we can control how many students apply and how well qualified they all are. If you are applying this year like me, I wish you good luck.</p>
<p>I think it will have a big effect on legacies for Harvard and Princeton, many of whom may have been applying SCEA to Yale or Princeton, although some of them may have been applying EA elsewhere, or not applying early at all. But we don’t know how Yale dealt with those H and P legacies in the past–did it admit them, hoping to woo them away from H and P, or did it defer them in the belief that they were more likely to go to H or P? Or did those kinds of considerations make any difference at all?</p>
<p>I don’t think the numbers of SCEA apps to Yale (and Stanford) will necessarily go down, but I suppose there will be fewer of the really top-tier applicants at each school, since they will (presumably) be distributed among a group with two more top schools in it.</p>
<p>Right. Some portion of what would have been the Yale/Stanford SCEA pool last year will be in the Harvard/Princeton pool this year. But kids who decided not to apply to Stanford SCEA last year because of all the other people applying may decide to apply this year. So it’s not at all clear the numbers will go down at any school, although the quality of the pool may go down (depending how you decide what “quality” means) at all of them.</p>
<p>Since most of the pool was concentrated in applying to Stanford, MIT, and Yale… I believe that Stanford and Yale will lose maybe 1000-2000 applicants each to Princeton and Harvard. MIT might lose some, but it’s non-restrictive early action policy will make it very appealing to candidates who don’t want to lose out on their early bids to other schools (i.e. UChicago, Georgetown, etc.) In terms of applicant pool size, I believe it’ll be Harvard with the most, Stanford coming significantly in second, Yale coming in third, and Princeton coming very shortly behind Yale. (So by that I mean 5000-6000 to Harvard, 4000-5000 to Stanford, 3500-4500 to Yale, 3000-4000 to Princeton)</p>
<p>So would SCEA at Yale be less competitive, then? Historically, the SCEA acceptance rate is around 2.5-3 times higher than the RD rate; would that go up, or would the percentage of SCEA acceptances go down with the number of applications? Also, I’m not sure anyone has considered how quickly application numbers grow at these schools; I’m afraid it may even out and not decrease at all.</p>
<p>The higher percentages are deceptive. You really need to account for the legacies, athletes, highend URMs, questbridge matches before you can actually determine the percentage of regular applicants that are admitted in EA vs the overall pool.</p>
<p>I think it would help to see how the stats changed for Yale when Harvard and Princeton pulled out of early action four years ago. My best guess is that the reverse of whatever happened to Yale Admissions when H and P pulled out would happen this year since H and P have restored early action. Thoughts? or actually, does anyone have Yale data/stats for the year right before H and P pulled out and the year after?</p>
<p>Igloo - had this discussion with yalegradanddad a couple of months where he suggested the same, i.e., they will still admit the same quality people as before even if they admit fewer people as a result in EA. However, as you mention, at least they know this pool is not applying because Harvard and Princeton were not available for EA.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the feedback.
I had another question about early admissions:</p>
<p>Yale claims that in early admissions, it only accepts applicants who would <em>MOST DEFINITELY</em> be accepted in the spring. In other words, early admissions sounds like
something for the most qualified of applicants, the cream of the crop, the slam-dunk admits who would’ve gotten in whether they’d applied early or not.</p>
<p>How…credible is this or… how realistic is it for Yale?
First of all, to say Yale only accepts kids it would accept in the spring (without even having SEEN the regular admissions pool) means that early admits have to completely blow yale ad coms out of their minds. </p>
<p>Also, in the past, early admits have comprised 50% of the entire admitted class, so it’s hard for me to believe all 700 or so ealry admits are slam dunk admits yale would have admitted no matter what.</p>
<p>Obviously, there are variables and different factors each year that might make a semi-slam dunk student a slam-dunk student one year and vice versa.</p>
<p>Is Yale trying to say "if you’re borderline or slightly above borderline… or if you can’t be in the top 3% of early applicants, don’t even apply early?'</p>
<p>They only comprise about 35% of the admits, its just that more SCEA admits matriculate to Yale than regular admits. A slam dunk applicant will be a slam dunk applicant no matter what the rest of the pool is. </p>
<p>And you don’t need to be in the top 3% of early applicants, only the top 14% (at least for the class of 2015). If you think you’re borderline 14%, or slightly under that, just apply. </p>
<p>And don’t worry about those SAT scores. My suitemate got a 2110 on his SAT and he’s not a URM, legacy, or athletic recruit.</p>
<p>Not true. Whether someone is a competitive applicant always depends on who else has applied in that year. Many applicants who might have been ‘slam dunk’ candidates in past years would be rejected in today’s era of hypercompetitive admissions. But demographic trends and economic conditions might make these colleges a bit less competitive in future years.</p>
<p>There is clearly a difference between a “competitive” applicant and a “slam-dunk” one. While there were clearly competitive and admitted applicants several years ago who would not gain admission now, the “slam-dunk” ones, distinguished amongst the SCEA pool, are likely the same. When Jeff Brenzel says that they only take SCEA applicants they know they would take in the RD round, they certainly have that confidence without needing to see who shows up for the RD party.</p>