<p>Don't underestimate the tight link between a high yield rate and a superior class. Stop and think... this is as much true for Harvard as for any school. If they need to admit only 1,640 people to fill the 1,640 available slots, they are obviously making no compromises whatsoever, and are getting those whom they truly believe to be the BEST 1,640 in the applicant pool. </p>
<p>But even Harvard has "only" an 80% yield, which means that one out of five admits - upwards of 400 of them - will decline Harvard's offer and go elsewhere.</p>
<p>Thus, Harvard must "backfill" with 400 people who - while very strong - were <em>NOT</em> in the top 1,640 originally. Harvard, like any school, would much prefer that people initially accepted enroll, and, all things being even close to equal, will accept someone likely to enroll over someone who is less likely to enroll.</p>
<p>They may not deserve to be called "inferior", perhaps, but the fact remains that Harvard would arguably have <em>preferred</em> some of those 400 who wound up elsewhere to the 400 who took their place.</p>
<p>Bottom line: Harvard cares just as much about "yield" as any school, and sees a high yield rate as vital in putting together the best possible class.</p>
<p>I agree that Harvard, like any school, cares about yield. But if yield were the top priority, they would have an ED program to ensure a 100% yield from their early admits, rather than an EA program. And Harvard's RD yield is aberrationally high, so they don't need the early program to increase yield to the extent other schools do. I really don't think that Harvard rejects anyone they would otherwise accept on the basis that the person is likely to enroll elsewhere (unless perhaps the high school guidance counselor has told them that the person is definitely going elsewhere). While they know that 20% of their admits will go elsewhere, in any individual case they assume that the person admitted is overwhelmingly likely to go to Harvard (statistically, there's an 80% chance they will, again absent direct information to the contrary).</p>
<p>Btw, Bill Fitzsimmons really does not like the whole early decision process - he accepts that EA is necessary as a defensive measure, but is on record as saying that he would be happy to drop the early program if the other top schools would do the same. Here's an interesting excerpt from an Atlantic article from a few years back (below the quote is the link to the full article):</p>
<p>"'In an ideal world we would do away with all early programs,' Fitzsimmons said when I asked him about the right long-term direction for admissions systems. 'We'd go back to the days when everyone could look at all their options over the senior year. Students, parents, and high schools would be very grateful. Philosophically and in every other way it would be so much better if we all could make the change.' Because of Harvard's position in today's college pyramid, Fitzsimmons is the most influential person in American college admissions. His 'ideal world' is significant news. What holds him back is the need to know that other schools will lower their guns if he lowers his."</p>
<p>I'm a big Harvard fan, to be sure, But I like to think I do more than spout the party line - ie, the holy scripture according to the sainted Bill Fitzsimmons!</p>
<p>hey, fitzsimmons is a saint if he gets me in.</p>
<p>while the above phrase accurately characterizes my attitude toward the whole application process and my growing disillusionment, I feel that the dean of admissions is responsible for setting policy</p>
<p>It would probably be easier for me to be cynical if I were just reading the words on a page. But as I mentioned earlier, I've listened to Bill Fitzsimmons address this topic a couple of times (and was able to chat with him a bit after one of the sessions). Call me gullible, or a party liner, or both, but I really believe he's sincere about this stuff.</p>
<p>Btw, I only spout the Harvard party line on selected topics! :)</p>
<p>Cosar, thanks for the link, I remember reading that well-written article when it came out some time ago. It still doesn't really answer my question, what percentage of early admits at Harvard or Yale are strongly hooked athletes, urms, legacies, etc., beyond saying that someone did a study that excluded them and found ed worth 100 sat points, a point Byerly mentions. Pretty vague, I continue to wonder what percentage of ed/ea admissions these special cases represent. Especially with the recent great increase in recruiting of female athletes (maybe almost twice what it was when the article was conceived), I continue to suspect that the number is high, maybe 35%+. I'm interested for the light it sheds on the odds for an unhooked student applying early as a straight academic admit, and continue to suspect that the early advantage for such kids is not nearly as great as the total early admit percentages indicates</p>
<p>Not to one up you cosar, because that is not my intention, but I have also discussed these issues with Fitzsimmons on several occasions. Have you attended the Cambridge Admissions Conferences?</p>
<p>Moreover, I have not only had the opportunity to quizz Fairbanks online, but have discussed the EA/ED edge with another of the authors of the "Early Admissions Game", who is a college classmate.</p>
<p>To Idler: Dartmouth recently reported that 32% of its 397 ED admits were recruited athletes - described as a "record percentage." Under the circumstances, I'd guess that the fraction of Harvard's 885 EA admits who are athletic recruits would be somewhat lower.</p>
<p>But add in the other hooks and the number is up there. I'm not criticizing the policy, I think H deserves lots of credit for staying with EA (though with their yield they can afford to), and so do Y and S for switching to EA from ED. I just think that for a significant percentage of applicants the early admit stats are misleading.</p>
<p>Byerly, no worries about "one-upping". But having discussed these issues yourself with him, do you have any doubts about Fitzsimmons' sincerity? </p>
<p>(I have not attended the Cambridge Admissions Conferences - my encounters with Fitzsimmons were at an alumni event and at a fundraiser for an organization in my city that works with bright, lower-income students to facilitate their going to top private schools in the city - and from there to top colleges. This dovetails with Fitzsimmons' interest in encouraging more lower income students to come to Harvard - I thought it said something that he was willing to travel and attend this event even though it wasn't a Harvard event per se.)</p>
<p>Idler, I'm not aware of any public data that breaks out the components of EA or ED pools generally, but it certainly makes sense that recruited athletes and legacies are skewed towards the early pool. My guess is that URM's are not necessarily weighted towards the early pool, though it probably depends on where they are going for secondary school. A large portion of the senior class at private schools and more competitive public schools seems to end up applying early somewhere.</p>
<p>I was actually pretty disappointed upon learning that Harvard had accepted such a large percentage of its class from the original EA pool. I think it's misleading for Harvard to cite it's admissions statistics so low, when there is almost a 20% chance of admission should you apply early. They keep it low because they are confident they will get a whole bunch of RD apps. MIT accepted 383 applicants EA this year, hoping for a class of 1000, at a rate of 13.6% (just in the EA pool). Their regular admit rate was less than 15%, also. I applied early to MIT because I also wanted to apply early to another school for a financial safety. It was disappointing to find out that Harvard had much such an obvious preference for the EA pool over the RD, when I think that I could have had a decent chance at the close to 20% rate. I'd just feel better about the whole situation if the rates were a little more equal.</p>
<p>As for the argument that the EA pool is better than the RD -- wouldn't it make more sense then to wait on admitting so many EAers, other than the obvious admits, until the RD apps came in and Harvard could be sure the EAs really were better? It would just mean a higher rate of deferred applicants getting accepted, and would prove that the EA pool really is better. Right now it definitely can't be known for sure.</p>
<p>Don't look to me to defend early programs ANYWHERE - including Harvard.</p>
<p>And I was mightily disappointed when Harvsard "retreated" from "open" EA to "restricted" EA so as to avoid going to war with Yale and Stanford a couple of years ago..</p>
<p>I supported the views of (what turned out to be) a hard-line minority faction within the Admissions Committee, headed by (now Dean) Bernard Gross: ignore the claimed exclusivity (ED or "restricted EA") on the part of other schools, and admit whoever the best candidates may be. Tell the schools claiming "exclusive rights" to those applicants to take a long walk off a short pier!</p>
<p>Indeed, "restricted EA" is a fraudulent reform, intended to give the school "exclusive bargaining rights" with the applicant for a number of months, if not forever. </p>
<p>The fact that no fewer than 88% of EA "signees" at Harvard, Yale and Stanford wound up enrolling at the school that "owned" their short-term bargaining rights simply shows that the reform was hollow: once a student is forced to apply early to only a single school, he/she is effectively prevented from applying elsewhere with even CLOSE to the same odds of admission.</p>
<hr>
<p>That said: Harvard is actually admitting a smaller fraction of the class early than it did 10 years ago.</p>
<p>I'm totally with Byerly on this one. Instead of giving competitive applicants a chance to really weigh options between schools (and all of the schools mentioned in this thread are excellent in their own right) early admissions puts added pressure onto applicants to make sure they apply during the time they seem to be most wanted. Adding on a restriction adds even more to this pressure by forcing students to make a decision early.</p>
<p>This is still better than ED policies, which I say discriminate on a financial basis, because only families who can be at least fairly sure of their ability to cover a school's possibly $40,000 or higher cost can actually sign the contract. I know you can pull out for financial reasons if need be, but it still prevents a lot from even attempting at the higher rate. That was a little off topic, but it's just my personal rant since I'm a little frustrated with the differences in all of the policies.</p>
<p>so what are the chances that ea and ed will be done with altogether in the near future? Yale pres richard levin has said he is also a proponent of eliminating early programs-if harvard and yale got rid of theirs, would other schools follow suit?</p>
<p>As influential as they are, H and Y couldn't force others to drop ED or EA simply by dropping those programs themselves. If they tried it, they would get eaten alive by the "competition" that would be able to peddle "bird in the hand" offers with impunity.</p>
<p>The best shot would be for a group of schools - necessarily including Harvard - to announce that they were (1) of the mind that ED agreements were a violation of the anti-trust law, and (2) that they would no longer recognize the validity of such agreements, and (3) that they would admit any applicant they chose to, whether or not that applicant had previously signed such an agreement. </p>
<p>(Personally, I view one school enforcing another's "exclusive" ED agreement by shunning students who sign them as akin to "free" Northern states capturing and returniung escaped slaves to the South - as mandated by the morally offensive "Fugitive Slave Act" before the Civil War.)</p>
<p>This would set off a chain reaction, since schools would no longer be able to gain an edge over other places higher up the academic food chain, which - after all - is the raison d'etre of ED programs.</p>
<p>HERE is the story of that one, brief shining moment when Harvard considered this course of action:</p>
<p>... and HERE is the story from a few weeks later, when they backed off - after heavy pleading and lobbying from Levin - and agreed to "compromise" on "restricted EA."</p>
<p>how many years ago was that? the dateline said 1899. what if, say, h, y, stanford-all the sc ea schools-just stopped admitting students early? would students interested in those three really write them off? they are perhaps the three most influential among students. or would most students just wait? i think that is the logical progression from sc ea-at least, according to levin. they could still honor ed programs, but just not give ea applicants to their three schools an advantage. doubtless this would put pressure on other schools to follow.</p>
<p>It was in June, 2003. I don't know why that 1899 date pops up,</p>
<p>Levin was even afraid to go to "open EA" - which is far less restrictive than the somewhat fraudulent "SCEA" - so I doubt he is willing to run any risk whatsoever.</p>
<p>Yale simply had to bail out of binding ED because it wasn't working for them. They weren't getting enough apps, and those they were gettingt were insufficiently "diverse." </p>
<p>As a result, Yale was stuck behind HPS in admit rate and yield rate. It had to generate some numbers. But Levin was afraid Yale would take too big of a yield hit if it went all the way to "open EA." He got lucky when he somehow convinced Harvard to reverse every public pronouncement it had made for years about the superiority of open EA and to buy into the "SCEA" scam.</p>
<p>The result: Yale benefitted enormously as the Harvard early pool dropped in size by 50%, and Yale didn't have to deal with as large of a common admit overlap group - which has always gone heavily for Harvard.</p>
<p>So Yale not only grew the app pool, but avoided a major hit to the yield rate. Clever deal by Levin, totally enabled by Harvard's willingness to give up open EA.</p>