<p>Byerly, going back to the fraction of the class filled through early admissions, don't you feel that lawmakers should step in and impose a limit at 30% or 35%, thereby eradicating, to an extent, the two tiered admissions system that has formed in the US?</p>
<p>I don't think they would handle it both way. </p>
<p>The Congressional approach would be to require disclosure of the demographics for the early pool and the RD pool respectively: legacies, SAT scores, economic strata, state of residence, recruited athletes, etc.</p>
<p>This will force the schools, through public pressure, to explain any differences.</p>
<p>i can't say that i disagree with you on that.</p>
<p>i meant to say that i don't disagree with your earlier post about HYPSM, etc...</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion, if you don't apply early to HYPSM and a few others, you might as well not bother applying at all, unless you are rejected or waitlisted EA/ED and have no choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If everyone has no chance, then who are the 30-50% of the class that are admitted RD?</p>
<p>gianievve, just do the math. if a school gets 18,000 applications (let's say 3 or 4,000 early and they fill half of their class of 1200 to 1500), that leaves 14,000 or 15,000 apps competing for 600 to 750 spots... the odds go way down RD compared to ED...</p>
<p>
[quote]
the odds go way down RD compared to ED...
[/quote]
Yes. No one is denying that. What am I saying, though, is that it isn't fair to say you don't stand a single chance RD. "don't apply". If 30-50% of the class is being admitted RD (without ever having applied ED), then some people must have a chance. I am simply asking who those people are.</p>
<p>fairburn, i'll say it again: this isn't the math... :(</p>
<p>the numbers mean nothing, because of the "what the heck"-ers who can afford at no cost to apply RD, as opposed to ED...</p>
<ul>
<li>EDers are more qualified! </li>
<li>This isn't a pure chance game: "the odds" have no real meaning!</li>
</ul>
<p>Pavalon, the number of "what the heck"-ers is so minute that their effect on admissions data is neglible. </p>
<p>It is indeed "the math," and the odds of early applications vs. regular application have a very significant meaning. There is no way that elite universities can justify the higher acceptance rate in the early round compared to the regular round by claiming an apparently "stronger applicant pool."</p>
<p>Moreover, there is little evidence supporting the oft-heard claim that the early pool is "more qualified."</p>
<p>See "The Early Admissions Game".</p>
<p>Since we are on the Princeton Waitlist thread I will share what I think
is really depressing. If you apply RD to Princeton they have roughly
600 spots left. About 50% of those will go to women so there are only
300 left for men. 33% of those will go to URM's so there are 200 left.
20% will go to legacies so you have 160 spots left. Some percentage
of those spots will go to athletic recruits (I am not sure what percent
of recruits are left for RD?) and some percentage will go to fill geographic diversity. Of all the male applicants from all over the world,
if you are not an athletic recruit, not a URM and not from a geographically diverse area I would say that less than 100 of you will
gain admission in the RD round at Princeton. Talk about a group that
is discriminated against!!!!</p>
<p>2carpediem, the categories overlap... :angry: .... your math is incorrect. Did you go on campus and personally ask persons WHAT they are? "um... are you a URM or a legacy?" ... or "Are you here for the ... um... geographical diversity?" phuuu... i personally find that very offending</p>
<p>inuendo, WHY in the world is it absurd for elite uni's to say that ED group is more qualified?!
If they are elite uni's, and they are (at least agree with me that MYHPS are), then why should they go way over their heads to accept any moron for the sake that he/she applies ED, when the uni knows that it can fill up, statistically, as many spots as necessary... It has no logic, does it?!?!</p>
<p>Byerly: it's ONE book... does it not matter that those numbers contradict common sense logic?</p>
<p>PS and i'm not urm, geographically diverse (9 romanians at princeton this year! woot!!), legacy or athlete, and neither are the other 8 romanians i know. What you're saying is bulcrap, and i can't believe that you're saying that being smart or accomplishing something special doesn't matter for admission at P or wherever...</p>
<p>Pavalon, not sure what you are arguing about. No need to go to
campus to ask what percent of the class will be URM, athletic
recruit, legacy or male/female. These numbers are published each year and were reported in the May 13th issue of the Prince. I used
approx. numbers for ease of translation. There is no overlap in male
vs female that I know of. The percentage of males that are URM has
no overlap. If anything there is a much higher percentage of legacy
admits that fall into the non-URM and non-athletic recruit category.
In any case I feel confident that the point I was making is absolutely
true. If you are a non-URM, non athletic recruit, non legacy, non
foreign or from a geographically underrepresented area you are competing in a huge pool of applicants for a very small number of
spots in RD. This has nothing to do with accomplishments or talent.
Just plain facts!!!</p>
<p>Yeah...to this day, I wonder how crazy I was to not apply anywhere early where I could have an advantage, even if it was ea. And I am even more amazed that I got in where I did, looking at the ea and ed percentage admits.</p>
<p>i'm in ohio and i still haven't received the letter from princeton...</p>
<p>unless my parents took it and burned it for me :)</p>
<p>wow i had no idea it was this hard to get in RD, I applied to all my skools regular decision, and basically all of them including some of the HYPSM...i applied RD because i thot odds were better that way...wow i was very off</p>