<p>Although the acceptance rate for SCEA is higher than that for RD, there have been several posts indicating that SCEA is actually harder to get into than RD...
Opinions? Is this true?
I'm planning on applying SCEA in November..</p>
<p>bump…</p>
<p>10char</p>
<p>It hardly matters, really. These people are trained to read tens of thousands of applications annually, so if they spot an applicant who seems like Stanford material, it’s an acceptance.</p>
<p>The only real advantage is that it shows your interest in Stanford. The only real disadvantage is that you’ll be compared to some of the best applicants, and even the most seasoned adcom may have a psychological conviction based on the applications he reads during the SCEA round.</p>
<p>If you think you have a fairly good shot and that Stanford is your #1…go SCEA!</p>
<p>uneverknow, thank you!
yeah, stanford’s definitely my #1…i’d do anything for it. =]</p>
<p>if you get rejected early action you probably werent getting in anyway so there really no harm in applying early.</p>
<p>Bad if you are unhooked, not a recruited athlete, and not a URM.</p>
<p>@whartonmaster, so it’s actually HARDER to get in SCEA without those 3 qualities?</p>
<p>From my understanding, yes. The only reason SCEA has a higher acceptance rate is because a much higher percentage of admits have at least one of those three qualifications.</p>
<p>What WhartonMaster is saying is pure rumor. There has been no conclusive evidence that shows that applying “unhooked” SCEA is a disadvantage (I have plenty of “unhooked” friends who applied SCEA and got in, if you want anecdotal evidence). In fact, there is more evidence–many studies, in fact–that URMs, first-generation, and low-income students are at a disadvantage SCEA. That’s why schools have begun to eliminate early programs (e.g. Harvard’s SCEA).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> to eliminate early admission](<a href=“http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/09.14/99-admissions.html]Harvard”>http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/09.14/99-admissions.html)</p>
<p>phantasmagoric, thank you! i hope thats true…im unhooked, not an athlete, and not a URM…it’s just weird to think that SCEA could possibly hurt an applicant…i always thought it’d do the opposite</p>
<p>What you need to be aware of is that you will be competing in the SCEA round with all of the recruited athletes to Stanford’s many sport teams, who have already been notified of their acceptance in the early fall- [subtract 210 spots from 700 early acceptances- taken from the Common Data Set numbers for athletic scholarships awarded] as well as the children of Stanford profs, children of Alumni, and DA admits in the early round. So in reality, it really is just as hard to get in early if your are NOT a WoW applicant[ walk on water], athlete, or other wise hooked. What you give up by applying early is the opportunity to apply EA to other colleges where applying early really is a benefit statistically. In addition, 85% of those applicants that are not accepted in the early round are rejected- only about 15% of applications are carried over for consideration in the regular round. If you are not a scholar-athlete, or otherwise hooked, and don’t have tippy top stats, you may want to wait until Jan to apply.</p>
<p>yeah, i think i’ll wait to receive some more test scores then post up my stats to see if i really should apply SCEA (so i can receive a more personalized answer)…thank you all!</p>