<p>Re: Harvard. I stand by my earlier post. The fact that it may take that many kids off the waitlist doesn't reflect gaming at all. Given the EA change and the massive financial aid changes, as well as its severe over-admissions the last two years, the only prudent thing for Harvard to do was to admit based on a projected increase in yield. When the initial yield was essentially unchanged, it used its waitlist. That's what they're for.</p>
<p>Re: Chicago. I heard Michael Behnke say on Saturday that their yield had gone up to 38% and they essentially were not going to use the waitlist except for very specific needs.</p>
<p>Re: EA acceptances -- S was admitted EA to two of his top four choices (reach and super-reach). With those two in hand, he dropped three from the list at that point -- and probably should have dropped two more as well, as none of those five had a realistic shot of winning over his heart after his EA success. </p>
<p>He started with ten, applied to seven. Five would have done it -- but it's easy to say that now. It could have gone quite differently. He had good, well-considered reasons for all of them. The four he wanted the most, he got into. Worked for us!</p>
<p>interesting that Harvard's yield has remained essentially unchanged. You would have thought that with all of the increased aid to the middle class that it instituted this past year that its yield would have gone up. Other colleges have obviously instituted similar programs--all to the good of middle class families.</p>
<p>Well, they also got rid of EA. So some Harvard people got in to Yale of Stanford 4 months before the heard a thing from Harvard, and they may have applied to Harvard EA if that was still an option. So I think that explains the difference. I would expect their yeild among the people getting new aid to have increased, but have dropped slightly in other groups.</p>
<p>The high wait list numbers are merely a reaction to the increasingly difficult nature in accurately estimating the yeild from the acceptance pool because of the increasing number of application many student submit and perhaps the merit scholarship arms race employed by the second eschelon of universities.</p>
<p>I did not read a formal "retraction" in the NY Times. I read an article around the middle of last week in the Times in which the admissions office said the numbers in Fitsimmon's email were not accurate and that accurate numbers would be released this week. Don't recall the actual day this was printed and the recylers came this morning.</p>