<p>"Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Charles Deacon was not surprised when Harvard announced last fall that it would be eliminating its early admissions program. After all, Deacon heard word a few days before it was announced from the man behind the decision ? Harvard College Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William Fitzsimmons.</p>
<p>While Fitzsimmons and Deacon may be old friends and associates ? the two travel around the country together along with colleagues from other universities leading information sessions for prospective students ? they don?t always agree on everything. Harvard?s recent announcement only highlighted the gap that has emerged between the two admissions directors over early admissions..."</p>
<p>"Georgetown, unlike most of its peer institutions, including Harvard, has admitted the same percentage of its early-admissions applicants as it has regular regular-admissions applicants since it initiated its early admissions program. When Georgetown began early admissions in 1969, about half of early applicants were accepted — the same rate of those who applied in the regular pool. While Georgetown has become more selective in the past 38 years, its commitment to retaining the same rate for both early and regular admissions has not wavered. Last year, the university admitted 22 percent of applicants in both the early and regular cycles.</p>
<p>Deacon said that keeping the acceptance rate the same eliminates any unfair advantages. "</p>
<p>They can control this by making Fall 2007's early admissions rate the same as this Spring 2007's regular admissions rate for the HS class of 2007, but you can't control the relationship between the two rates for a given class. </p>
<p>When in fall of 2007 they are doing the early admission decisions for the HS class of 2008, they don't know how many applicants there will be from the HS class of 2008 in later for regular decision. I suppose they have been able to do this because they can predict the number of regular decision applicants coming pretty accurately...</p>
<p>It's interesting to hear Deacon's perspective, but he is definitely using slightly hazy logic in stating that people in the EA round don't have an advantage simply because they admit in percentages the same number of people EA and RD. </p>
<p>If they admitted 15% of the deferred EA pool last year during the Regular round, then the rate of admission for the EA pool is still substantially higher, and you are statistically WAY better off. If 15% is correct, then close to 34% of EA applicants are ultimately admitted assuming 22% overall. This year it might be closer to 30%, but that's still really high. </p>
<p>I'd also be really curious to know how much of the current student population is made up of people who applied EA. If they're getting over a 50% yield on EA applicants, as they certainly seem to be, they'd make up upwards of 60% of the undergrad population.</p>