The "magic 48%" rate at Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Princeton:

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
1

<p>There is a common misperception that "Stanford takes a significantly smaller portion of its class SCEA than its peers." I've seen this declaration made on the Stanford page. Not true.</p>

<p>For the Class of 2009, Stanford admitted 867 SCEA applicants for a class of about 1,625, compared to Princeton, where 593 were admitted early for a class that may end up at about 1,220.</p>

<p>Based on this little factoid, I decided to get out the calculator.</p>

<p>Assuming a 90% yield rate on the SCEA admits, Stanford will be filling about 48% of its freshman class via SCEA.</p>

<p>Note also that an unknown number of SCEA deferees will also be admitted from the RD pool.</p>

<p>Strikingly, Harvard, Stanford and Yale each admitted enough early applicants to fill almost precisely the same 53% of the class - if each admit were to matriculate!</p>

<p>Assuming a 90% yield on SCEA applicants, what fraction of the class will have been filled from the early pool?</p>

<p>At Harvard: 48%</p>

<p>At Stanford: 48%</p>

<p>At Yale: 48%</p>

<p>And Princeton? Assuming a 98.5% yield on its ED admits, what fraction of the class will be filled from the early pool? Why, 48%!</p>

<p>An accident? I don't think so. Each of the four will have managed to fill the class with as many high-yield early admits as possible, while staying slightly under the "magic 50%" level.</p>

2

<p>Byerly, could you please post this on the Stanford board as well?</p>

3

<p>I did, but in an obscure location. I'll repost.</p>

4

<p>Yes, I saw it on the forum now. Thank You.</p>

5

<p>Interesting stuff. So the question begs, Byerly, why is 50% the magic proportion? And did all 3 schools determine this seperately - or is there more collaboration on this sort of thing?</p>

6

<p>Consultants and pollsters have apparently determined that 50% is a psychological barrier of sorts - that if potential RD applicants sense that more than half the seats have already been filled, they will become discouraged. This is received wisdom in the trade. (There is also some fear that there will be a similar "psychological" impact on Congress, where a few influential members have made noises about the evils of ED programs, on the grounds that they disproportionately benefit the wealthy and connected, etc. etc. etc.)</p>

<p>As much as some schools might like to fill 100% of the class from the high yield early pool, few can ever hope to attract enough early applicants to fill all the various diversity needs, so that those pesky RD applicants are still needed.</p>

<p>What ought to be exposed, IMHO, is how the elites are pushing the envelope to the max, and semi-covertly getting around the 50% barrier by accepting more and more EA/ED deferreds. This latter group presumably has a higher yield rate than "regular" RD applicants.</p>

<hr>

<p>Interesting stat: if you combine "regular" early admits with deferred early admits, Harvard too enough of them to fill 63% of the class last year, if all had matriculated. At Yale, the comparable figure was 70% !!!</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
Interesting stat: if you combine "regular" early admits with deferred early admits, Harvard too enough of them to fill 63% of the class last year, if all had matriculated. At Yale, the comparable figure was 70% !!!

[/quote]

Wow. Definitely an interesting statistic. The question is: why are so many ED/EA students accepted? Is it the quality of the pool, or is it the preference of the schools? </p>

<p>What is Princeton's percentage of total ED acceptances?</p>

8

<p>I don't know the whole answer to the first question, but it bears study, and I wouldn't be too quick to take any explanation offered by a particular school at face value.</p>

<p>As for Princeton, They do not reveal (anywhere I have looked) how many of their RD admits were actually deferred ED admits. It is entirely possible that (during the Hargadon era, at least) the number was fairly high.</p>

<p>The problem, of course, is that a binding ED pool is necessarily smaller, so that there are fewer deferees, and the early pool is that much more likely to lack the intellectual, economic, racial, or geographic diversity desired to compose the class.</p>

<p>It was for this reason - more than any other - that Yale felt constrained to abandon binding ED: it wasn't working for them any more. The numbers weren't big enough, and thus the ability to rely on early applicants for yield-enhancing purposes had reached the point of diminishing returns. Yale's overall yield rate was stagnating in 4th place, behind HPS.</p>

<p>With SCEA, and the adoption of the common app, Yale's early apps doubled, and its ability to admit more of such people - both initially and as deferreds - allowed an overall jump in the yield rate despite the initial fear that the loss of the binding aspect might result in a lower yield. The ability to admit a large number of "motivated" SCEA deferreds more than offset the difference between the 98.5% ED yield rate and the 88-90% SCEA yield rate.</p>

<p>Why was this so? In my opinion, it was because SCEA (adopted by Yale, Harvard and Stanford) was a phony "reform." All three SCEA schools have enjoyed an 88-90% yield on early admits, because relatively few of them, in practice, bother to apply RD elsewhere. Even if they do, their chances of admission to a competing elite are substantially limited by the miniscle RD admit rates at HYPSM etc. Overlap pools are thus minimized.</p>

<p>IMHO, Princeton would be foolish not to move to SCEA as well. They will not - as they feared - lose great numbers of their early admits, and they will be able to utilize an early pool that is twice as large.</p>