<li><p>Yale accepted 704 EA this year. If they all enroll, that will constitute 54% of the class - if it matches last year’s 1,305 total.</p></li>
<li><p>Harvard accepted 885 EA this year. If they all enroll, that will constitute precisely the same 54% of the class - assuming it matches last year’s 1,638 total.</p></li>
<li><p>Last year, of course, 91% of Harvard’s EA admits enrolled, while 88% of Yales EA admits enrolled.</p></li>
<li><p>Keep the following tidbit in mind, however: last year, Harvard accepted an estimated 139 (from 2,788!) EA deferreds, while Yale accepted 249 from its much smaller group of EA deferreds. (Doubtless, these EA deferreds can be counted on to enroll at a higher rate than “normal” RD applicants.)</p></li>
<li><p>So arguably, at the end of the day, Harvard admitted enough EA pool applicants to fill 63% of the class last year - if they all had enrolled - and Yale admitted enough from this loyal applicant pool to fill a whopping 70% of the class of 2008 - again, if they all had enrolled!</p></li>
<li><p>Now, without considering this “hidden” group of anxious and willing EA deferreds to be “EA admits”, what fraction of the respective classes at Harvard and Yale will be filled from the EA pool for the Class of 2009? Assuming last year’s EA yield rates hold, 49% of Harvard matriculants will have been EA admits, while 48% of Yale matriculants will have been EA admits.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Obviously, both are striving to admit as many from the EA pool as possible, while staying under the “magic” 50% line</p>
<p>And they say EA, unlike ED doesn't increase your chances. Bosh and nonsense. shucks, i should have applied EA either to yale or harvard even though i didn't have a clear first choice.</p>
<p>You just won't give up on the party line will you?</p>
<p>Consider: EA pool admit rate - 21%
RD pool admit rate (projected) 5.4%</p>
<p>This huge difference simply can't be rationalized away by pointing to the alleged "strength" of the early pool.</p>
<p>As Andrew Fairbanks, one of the authors of "The Early Admissions Game" and a former admissions dean at Wesleyan, observed to me last week:</p>
<p>"A couple of points: (1) in addition to controlling for SATs, class rank, and other demographic data, we also controlled for the Admission Officers' reader ratings themselves. So the argument that we didn't account for the intangible strengths of a file falls a bit flat; (2) I worked for an admissions office for 5 years, and I can state unequivocally that advantages were given to ED students for precisely the reasons that (you) articulate - demonstrated interest and increased likelihood of yield. Granted - Wesleyan was not operating from the same position of strength as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but the incentive to give an advantage to early applicants always exists when there is a tangible difference in yield between Regular and Early admits."</p>
<p>and later ----</p>
<p>"I have great respect for Bill Fitzimmons. He wrote an excellent review of our book in Harvard Magazine last year that raised some interesting critiques of our work. If you look carefully at his text above, it does not necessarily refute our core finding. While it may be true that admitted EA students with comparable 'objective' criteria to their counterparts in the Regular pool may have stronger 'intangible' strengths - that does not address the issue of whether the standards are different between the two programs. Those intangible strengths may explain some of the differences in admit rates across the two admissions programs between applicants with similar credentials, but our analysis shows that even when controlling for those intangible differences, the most selective colleges and universities still admit early applicants at a significantly higher rate than their regular decision counterparts."</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn't agree with the above post by bye is hurting their best chance for admissions at a top school. So go ahead, argue with him. See you at HYP...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What I'm saying is that people in the RD pool with equivalent stats etc. are admitted at a lower rate.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>While the reason for this could be a desire to boost yield, it could also indicate a preference for students for whom the school is clearly a first choice. While non-binding EA isn't as much of a first choice indicator as an ED app, it still points in that direction.</p>
<p>mensa160: you don't have to game admissions in order to get in. seriously. The sooner you learn that, the better. Really, we can talk about the numbers however much we want, but in the end I doubt that the actual admissions process really deserves this much cynicism. Call me idealistic, but I prefer to believe that the adcom actually wants to admit the best possible class possible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While the reason for this could be a desire to boost yield, it could also indicate a preference for students for whom the school is clearly a first choice. While non-binding EA isn't as much of a first choice indicator as an ED app, it still points in that direction.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Certainly an applicant who has a definite favorite school might as well signal that in the process by applying early to the favorite school. Some applicants are in the happy position of trying to decide between MIT and Caltech (both of which practice nonexclusive EA admission) and can apply to joint favorites at the same early time. Now that several of the key schools that are most desired are in the single-choice early action camp, maybe applicants had best figure out by the beginning of their senior year whether there is something that they like best about Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. </p>
<p>(By the way, I agree with a comment in some other thread somewhere, perhaps by Byerly, that most eighteen-year-olds are adaptable enough to "fit" in more than one kind of college. So fit isn't the last word in deciding on a college. But if one really, truly prefers Harvard to Yale, or the other way around, one might as well apply early in a manner that signals which school is the preferred choice.)</p>
<p>"Call me idealistic, but I prefer to believe that the adcom actually wants to admit the best possible class possible."</p>
<p>I absolutely agree: the adcom wants the best class possible. However, with so many more thoroughly qualified applicants applying than can be accepted, there are multiple combinations for achieving that "best class possible". It is statistically undeniable that among ALL institutions with early admission policies, including HYPS etc., more students get in EA than RD. </p>
<p>With so many more students applying RD, the potential for filling in that "best class possible" is even greater, simply because with the sheer number of students applying, a certain portion will be extremely hard to turn down. </p>
<p>Thus, the only explanation is not that more students are admitted EA to ensure the best class, because the best class could theoretically be created from the multitude of qualified RD applicants. Instead, EA students get that tip (and thus are admitted at a higher percentage) specifically because they apply early.</p>
<p>And this is what sophisticated guidance counselors at top prep and public high schools tell (or ought to tell) kids and their parents: Look, your odds of admission to ANY elite are low, no matter how smart and talented you are, so you might as well settle on a few you like, then just pick one of them and APPLY EARLY. </p>
<p>Whether you apply early to your "dream school" (assuming you have one) or simply to the elite on your list with the most favorable admit rate, it doesn't much matter ..... just <em>pick one</em> and APPLY early.</p>
<p>This is the best way for any school to insure the maximum number of happy students and happy parents at the end of senior year.</p>
<p>These counselors know what many students and parents don't: that most kids will be happy and satisfied wherever they end up, although its nice to think that you affirmatively <em>chose</em> the school you end up at.</p>
<p>And finally, bear in mind that 60% or more of the seniors in many top preps and publics apply early. We are talking about schools where many students aspire to the elites. I seriously doubt that at age 17 all these kids had a well-thought-out basis for settling on that one place as their "dream school."</p>
<p>So it seems the RD admit rate is lower than EA pool. What about deferred EA applicants? Are they considered RD (rest of the flock) or EA (demonstrated interest)?</p>
<p>"Whether you apply early to your "dream school" (assuming you have one) or simply to the elite on your list with the most favorable admit rate, it doesn't much matter ..... just <em>pick one</em> and APPLY early."</p>
<p>a LOT of people are doing that nowadays.. and most are doing EA so in case they dont want to go, they can still decide later...</p>
<p>You can look at this group in two ways, obviously. The colleges generally account for them as "RD" people - since they were "deferred" to the RD pool and not granted the benefits of early admission.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there is some evidence that they are given an "edge" at some addresses, on the theory that they have already shown a "demostrated interest", and are statistically more likely to accept if offered a place in the class.</p>
<p>Ideally, we would have all admissions stats for the "EA/ED deferreds" broken out, so we can judge for ourselves if it is an advantage to be in that sub-group.</p>
<p>If these deferreds ARE given an edge from the RD pool, then arguably we have yet another indication that it is advantageous to apply early.</p>