The Plague of ‘Early Decision’

@calmom Actually it is advantageous to apply early to Harvard, Princeton and Northwestern which are the schools with the highest Ratio of Early EA to Regular Acceptation ratios in the country… most likely in effort to game yield rates higher. @spayurpets did the analysis.

(MIT and Stanford have the lowest EA admission rates offering prospective students no material statistical benefit to applying early)

Ratio of Early Acceptance Rate to Regular Decision Acceptance Rate

Harvard SCEA 4.4:1
Princeton SCEA 4.2:1
Northwestern EA 4.2:1
Yale SCEA 3.9:1
Penn ED 3.3:1

Either you mean to reply to another poster or you have totally missed my point. (I only referenced ED in my post, not EA )

@sbbaaller just feel the need to correct this stat:

Northwestern EA 4.2:1

Northwestern does not have EA…Northwestern is an ED school, which, IMO, is an entirely different animal.

SBBaller – there may be a slight advantage to applying early to Harvard SCEA. So their ratio is mostly a function of the super strength of their early pool.

Kids in the Harvard SCEA pool have to be really strong and confident. Since they restrict their other options (like in ED) but without the acknowledged admit boost/break at the big ED schools (who advertise their strategic ED boost).

As Duke says on its website, “There’s an advantage in applying early to Duke—last year we admitted 23.5% of our Early Decision candidates and only 8.7% of our Regular Decision candidates. There are students for whom applying Early Decision can make all the difference.”

Contrast Harvard who says this: “Harvard does not offer an advantage to students who apply early. Higher Early Action acceptance rates reflect the remarkable strength of Early Action pools. For any individual student, the final decision will be the same whether the student applies Early Action or Regular Decision.”

What’s the basis for H to say that? Is there data that show EA admits have higher stats etc than RD admits? Are EA applicants mainly from private schools and fancy neighborhoods?

@eiholi Harvard has the data even if they do not make it public. Within the word “strength” in that quote is both high stats and other desired traits – hooks, such as legacy, URM, first generation college, and recruited athlete. On your last question, students come from a diversity of school types and neighborhoods, but a disproportionate number likely come from private schools and affluent neighborhoods. In short, unlike with ED, with SCEA at schools like Harvard, for most applicants there is little or no statistical advantage to applying early. But if you are an extremely desirable candidate (more than simply high stats), there of course is a benefit to getting in to a top school in December and being done or maybe applying to another similar school RD.

Harvard and Duke see every single application and every piece of data directly. They (and only they) know exactly how their sausage gets made.

It would be super-sleazy for Harvard to give a big break to early applicants but then to lie about it. Giving an advantage to the kids who are in the know enough to know that (wink wink) the game is rigged against those who actually believe what Harvard tells them.

As it would be super-sleazy for Duke to fraudulently induce kids to apply ED when there’s not any advantage to doing so.

Presumably, Harvard and Duke mean what they say.

I second the fact that SCEA at Harvard does not give applicant an advantage over RD. We took official tour and information session there and was told the same. This is quite different from many ED schools, including Dartmouth, Brown, Middlebury and Northwestern where stats and information sessions made it seem as though ED did give a clear advantage.

Which makes sense. Since Harvard is, in fact, Harvard. A full 1,000 milliHarvards on the prestigiosity scale. They don’t need to use ED.

ED is primarily a device used by schools that are NOT HYPS in an effort to keep up with the HYPS Joneses. ED lets them boost yield and lower admit rates to look more Harvard-ish. And also to poach away kids who (without the boost provided by ED) would be inclined to send a lottery ticket app to Harvard.

Remember that Penn was the school that really pioneered ED. From back in the 80-90s when Penn was the Ivy League safety school, and stuck in sketchy unappealing West Philadelphia. Back from when Penn was only ranked (if you can believe it) 20th in the USNWR rankings.

Remarkable how relevant this article from 15 years ago still is: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/the-early-decision-racket/302280/

Geez. Reading all of this as a senior is exhausting/terrifying. I’m applying to Ivies and the like, but I only did EA to my safety school, because I didn’t feel comfortable signing away my choice for some nebulous admissions benefit and I needed more time to work on my essays anyways. I think I have as strong a shot as just about any other unhooked white girl, but a lot of friends applying to similar schools have applied somewhere ED/SCEA, and it definitely concerns me that it was a missed opportunity. As if worrying about grades and scores and letters of rec and extracurriculars and essays and interviews and demonstrated interest wasn’t enough, we have to become statistical experts to figure out how to finagle the game so that we have the best chance of getting into one of those magical palaces of learning that we can humblebrag about to all our friends so they know we’re smart.

Ugh. When this crazy process is over I’ll be very happy.

Not to mention paying close to a quarter million for the privilege.

Harvard, Princeton and Northwestern are outliers when it comes to ratio of Early Acceptance Rate to Regular Decision Acceptance Rates… .and are doing this to boost their yields… ED will boost it even more in the case of Northwestern as a poster mentioned they are ED.

Ratio of Early Acceptance Rate to Regular Decision Acceptance Rate

Harvard SCEA 4.4:1
Princeton SCEA 4.2:1
Northwestern ED 4.2:1
Yale SCEA 3.9:1
Penn ED 3.3:1

in contrast
MIT EA 1.1:1
Stanford REA 2.6:1

these are the stats and based on them I would highly recommend any prospective student looking to apply EA/ED etc to look at H,P,Northwestern.

there is a definite statistical advantage to applying early to these schools when compared with other schools.

@sbballer, it sounds like you don’t believe H when they say that SCEA provides no advantage. Personally, I believe that it provides little to no advantage at H, Y or P because the SCEA pools are so strong to begin with and contain so many hooked applicants. I think H evaluates its SCEA pool and admits the ones they really want in the knowledge that probably 90% of them will enroll and that most of those won’t even bother to fill out another application. Y & P have almost the same degree of confidence, so also admit a large proportion SCEA of those they know they would admit RD anyway.

The fact that RD rates are now so low perversely boosts that confidence; Y knows that there’s not much chance that they’ll lose an SCEA admit to H, because statistically there’s only a ~3% chance that that applicant will be admitted RD to H in the first place (obviously, it’s actually higher than that because the applicant was admitted to Y, but at such low numbers it starts to get more random) and, anyway, they presumably liked Y better because they applied there early.

What I’m saying is, HYP admit a high proportion of kids early primarily because it gives them greater certainty about who’ll they’ll get, whether it’s quarterbacks, future Fields Medal candidates, development cases or other really, really strong applicants who’ve indicated that they favor the school in question. It doesn’t give a candidate an appreciable boost - it just enables HYP to pick and choose among the best kids who rank them first. The fact that it boosts yield is a bonus for the schools, I think. They’re among the most generous with fin aid anyway, so the fact that a lot of the SCEA admits may be full payers is another thing that’s nice but not the primary driver.

That’s very different from NU and Penn trying to goose their yield/selectivity numbers in order to look more like HYPS, leave their peers like Columbia, Duke and Vandy behind and fine-tune their less-generous fin aid budgets by locking up half the class or more, including kids that might be very strong but likely were long shots for HYPS anyway.

Stanford has historically not wanted to play the game the way NU and Penn play it, and now that they’re clearly among the tippy-tops, they haven’t - so far - seen fit to do things like HYP. As the highest-yielding and most selective school, they don’t need to, either. They take the kids they want SCEA, and the rest RD (because they know the vast majority of their RD admits will accept the offer). As of this year, though, they’re no longer disclosing their SCEA numbers, so things may be changing.

Harvard and Princeton admit half their incoming class at an admission rate more than 4x higher than RD… and are major statistical outliers when compared to peer schools… ie. MIT and Stanford…a major statistical advantage for early applicants

(Do not know the stats for Northwestern about the proportion of their class admitted ED)

Yes all schools are playing the yield game… Harvard dropped their EA program one year (2009?) and reinstated it the very next year… reason was yield dropped.

EA boosts yield
ED boosts yield
admitting proportionally more students EA/ED boosts yield
Financial Aid boosts yield etc…

for applicants looking to gain a statistical edge apply early to these schools. the rest is rationalization imo.

Harvard and Princeton are not “major statistical outliers,” they are the norm (as this thread shows). MIT is the outlier, with no apparent advantage given to early applicants . . . but then MIT does less than all of these other colleges to make certain it gets good athletes.

Harvard dropped SCEA, and Princeton dropped ED, for three years, starting with the high school class of 2008. They both reinstated (or just-plain-in-stated) SCEA after three years, when no other college besides Virginia followed their lead, and when it was clear that Harvard was losing some applicants, and Princeton a lot of applicants, to competitors with EA or ED programs.

^I think when discussing “peer” schools of Harvard and Princeton in terms of early admit ratios, you can really only group them with Yale and Stanford. These 4 have SCEA. When discussing MIT, it is important to remember that it has a non-restrictive, non-exclusive EA, so it does not have the ability to fill its class at the same ratio as H and P because those admits are not bound to attend. And I don’t think it acts with the same motivations as HYPS. If is notable that Stanford’s REA admit ration is less than H and P (and that Northwestern’s early admissions rates appear the same as P) but again Northwestern is ED and is probably better compared to other ED institutions. Lots to consider.

^…It is notable that Stanford’s REA admit ration is less than H and P…"

mistyped

ratio

MIT has stated in the past that they don’t want to make EA the norm, so were committed to not accepting a large percentage early. However, at least when my son applied, the admissions rate for students who were deferred to the regular round was twice the overall admissions rate - leading me to believe that their early pools were as strong as Harvard’s or Princeton’s - academically at least.