<p>Does anyone know how many SCEA applictaions Yale and Stanford got this year?just curious!</p>
<p>If we knew, we wouldn't be speculating! (They haven't released the information yet, as far as I know.)</p>
<p>And sybbie: Maybe Cherchez La Femme is running through your head because I am the last of the die-hard Dr. Buzzard's Original Savannah Band fans! (But I like "The Gigolo And Me" and "Soraya" better than "Cherchez".)</p>
<p>Look on the Yale Daily News. It is there!</p>
<p>tsk, tsk, fringey323....such a tease to not post the link.....
Yale</a> Daily News - Early action applications up 36 percent</p>
<p>About what we were expecting unfortunately!</p>
<p>So they did. I looked earlier today and didn't see it.</p>
<p>Up 1,300 from last year (3,500->4,800), 36% increase. But only a 20% increase over 2006 EA applications (4,000). That's actually significantly less than I would have expected. It's not even 20% of last year's Harvard and Princeton early applicant pools.</p>
<p>Sorry, patient. Time was of the essence ;-)</p>
<p>Early-Admission</a> Dominos Fall - WSJ.com</p>
<p>Oddly, no change at Stanford.</p>
<p>I saw that WSJ article this morning too. I'm surprised that Stanford didn't go up, since it seems like all of my daughter's friends applied early...</p>
<p>This makes we wonder if we should think of different regional application pools for the top elites rather than a national pool.
For example Northeast quadrant (including the Midwest), Southeast quadrant, West coast.</p>
<p>Minnesota appears to be in Stanford's quadrant. </p>
<p>(Near the end of each College Board state report is a list of the top colleges to which students from that state sent SAT score reports.)</p>
<p>Illinois has a similar number of testers send their scores to Stanford and Harvard. Hum...
But why do I imagine that if Stanford went to regular decision only, the University of Chicago wouldn't get the same sized bump in applications that it did when Harvard and Princeton did? Of course this is complete speculation.</p>
<p>Interesting link, tokenadult. Stanford over Yale in Illinois, too: <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2007/IL_07.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2007/IL_07.pdf</a></p>
<p>from the WSJ:
[quote]
Yale University so far has received 4,820 applications to its early-action program this year, up 36% from last year. The University of Chicago has received 4,349 applications, up 42% from last year. Georgetown University says it has received 5,925 applications, an increase of 30% from last year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting that U Chicago went up more than either Yale or Georgetown?</p>
<p>Actually, Yale, Chicago, and Georgetown all went up by about the same absolute number (1,300 at Yale and Chicago, 1,400 at Georgetown). Chicago just had the smallest base.</p>
<p>I'm stunned at the Stanford number -- that just doesn't make sense to me at all. I thought Stanford would go up by 2,000 applications minimum. I thought the combination of 6-7,000 kids who would otherwise have applied early to Harvard or Princeton, and all the publicity surrounding the H/P/V decision -- which of course both emphasized the advantages early applicants get, and should have helped educate people about EA/ED differences -- meant that there would be about 10,000 potential strong early appliers up for grabs by very selective schools. I can't imagine how the closest substitutes for H and P snagged so few of them, and I am surprised how many of them seem not to have applied anywhere early.</p>
<p>I'm surprised too that Stanford didn't show more of an increase. The one reason I can think of to distinguish Stanford is that historically (since before the current admission dean took office), Stanford has given definite answers (including definite NO answers) to more of its early round applicants than most colleges. Stanford used to have quite as many early-round rejections as "polite deferrals" to the regular round. So maybe only students who are sincerely interested in Stanford apply to Stanford in the early round, and students who think strategically apply anywhere else.</p>
<p>Those MN and IL numbers may actually understate the preference for Stanford over Yale or Harvard in those states. Yale requires SAT II tests from everyone, including ACT takers, so the SAT test-results numbers should represent approximately 100% of Yale applicants. Stanford only "recommends" SAT IIs, and presumably at least some ACT takers rely on their ACT subscores. So people who send SAT scores to Stanford may be less than all Stanford applicants.</p>
<p>"Stanford used to have quite as many early-round rejections as "polite deferrals" to the regular round"
Actually , Stanford only defers 10% of SCEA applicants to the regular round, and outright rejects the rest. That is probably 1 reason why the early #'s didn't budge too much. I also agree with Danas thoughts about regional aplications, as studies have shown time and time gain that students prefer to matriculate closer to home. Stanford is a LONG way away for East coast kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>> Do they honestly think a family earning $215K per year -- $140K after taxes -- should put $200k into the education of each of their children, just for undergraduate school?>></p>
<p>Why not? One child in college: $50k per year. That still leaves $90k after tax. More than twice the national average. I can't bring myself to feel sorry for folks in that tax bracket (which happens to be mine).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are big differences among families earning $215K per year. Some families in that bracket have two earners with secure jobs (e.g., high-ranking civil service, tenured senior teachers in some suburbs and professors) and significant untaxed benefits (employer-paid health insurance, pension plans, etc.) Other families in that bracket may not have much job security and/or employer-paid benefits.</p>
<p>In particular, as curmudgeon has pointed out, a family with at least one member in a secure job with benefits that they can expect to last until the age of Medicare eligibility is in a much better position to spend that kind of money.</p>
<p>JHS- Out here, which is right next to Stanford, it is known that Stanford's "recommended" in essence means "required", if a student wants his application to get a serious look by admissions officers.</p>
<p>menloparkmom: Of course. And I come from SAT-land, so the notion that kids applying to selective colleges would take the ACT is complete news to me. But I'll bet there are some subsets of Stanford applicants who are effectively told they don't have to bother with the SAT IIs (some recruited athletes, for instance, or high-scoring URMs). Otherwise, they would just go ahead and say "required".</p>
<p>Also, re: matriculating close to home. Among my kids' friends and acquaintances, Stanford and Harvard have come out pretty equal in head to head competition in recent years, notwithstanding that Harvard is a lot closer. The public school kids have tended to choose Harvard, the private school kids Stanford. About half of the kids accepted at either have applied to and been accepted at the other. </p>
<p>Actual travel time and expense is surprisingly comparable, though. Stanford may be 25% more of both, not double.</p>