<p>Noooo. Does this mean lower acceptance rate for Yale?</p>
<p>Yale's obssession with Harvard continues.</p>
<p>Harvard's obsession with Yale's obsession with Harvard continues. :)
Get over it. Everyone.</p>
<p>yeah...probably a lower acceptance rate-stinks for us. But if we get in, it's better.</p>
<p>I don't think Princeton has much of an immediate appeal to most applicants. Honestly, there is NOTHING to do here. You need a car to have any flexibility, etc.</p>
<p>Yale and Harvard will always be obsessed with each other because they're archrivals. I thought that was pretty much a "duh"...</p>
<p>To you SCEA-ers: a decreased acceptance rate would denote a decreased chance of admission ONLY IF you agree that either the competence of the applicants has either remained exactly the same or increased.</p>
<p>I agree that, compared to 20 years ago, today's applicants are more competitive than ever. However, I also believe that Yale (and other similar institutions) is trying to appeal to the common applicant by allowing people to think they have more of a chance than they really do. Like with the whole low-income household policy. I suspect that more low-income students will apply (well, duh) because they would no longer feel disadvantaged by their financial situations in terms of paying for tuition. However, this would not increase the overall competence of the SCEA applicant pool, so a decreased acceptance rate would not necessarily mean harder admissions.</p>
<p>Then again, there is an infinitely increasing number of qualified applicants each year (YOU guys should be feeling bad for ME! Hehe)... Hm...</p>
<p>Theoneo- you are making a pretty bold asessment there that those lower class individuals who will now apply are not academically able/equal to the class as a whole. I have to fundementally disagree with that.</p>
<p>"I suspect that more low-income students will apply (well, duh) because they would no longer feel disadvantaged by their financial situations in terms of paying for tuition. However, this would not increase the overall competence of the SCEA applicant pool"</p>
<p>I think he means that they aren't any better/worse than the current pool, just about the same.</p>
<p>anyone suspect that this year might be like that Yale massacre of 2003?</p>
<p>lets hope!</p>
<p>clearly, i'm kidding. :)</p>
<p>First of all, I didn't state that lower-income applicants are less qualified. If what I said connoted that, I apologize for my poor sequence of ideas.</p>
<p>Second of all, my point was that the increase in application quantity (lower-income applicants was merely an example of a contributing group) does not necessarily equate to a more competitive applicant pool. Therefore, a lower acceptance rate doesn't have to mean "harder admission", just "fewer acceptances."</p>
<p>Basically, you can't assess the acceptance rate in isolation; you have to look at the quality of the pool as well. I didn't mean to accuse lower-income applicants - they were merely an example of a group contributing to the surge in applicants. Sorry about the confusion.</p>
<p>p.s eyez... for a school suffering from the obsession of Yale, Harvard sure does like to talk about it too. In fact, in today's Crimson alone, there are three seperate articles about Yale, and the center story for the magazine is also about the aforementioned, obsessed, school. Hmm. ;)</p>
<p>it must have been me switching over
maybe i smell</p>
<p>Probably
:)</p>
<p>What's this Yale massacre of 2003?</p>
<p>yeah, really?</p>
<p>if u do a message search on the old CC (<a href="http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus</a>) and look for yale ea results for the class of 2004, u'll find that that year was an especially hard year</p>
<p>so you mean the year before last year then, it's not like an especially hard year happens once every 100 years or anything</p>
<p>Just read the 2003 results......AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!</p>
<p>yea...there were some 1550s rejected</p>
<p>"yea...there were some 1550s rejected"</p>
<p>How is that special, considering top tier ivies claim to reject 50% of the 1600s anyway?</p>