<p>This thread has gotten hilariously ridiculous. Philo, I, for one, appreciate your posts, and I don’t think disagreement should be taboo on this forum. Philo persistently expressed his opposing opinion, and that’s fine.</p>
<p>If Yalies are as judgmental (based on such little evidence, no less!) as yalebeta, I may have to reconsider applying.</p>
<p>(Note: I highly doubt they are.)</p>
<p>@Philovitist, I thought your arguments and analysis and comments were always helpful! I honestly don’t know what these people are talking about. In my opinion, you’re just trying to add to the wealth of knowledge for Yale applicants, and help us all make sense of the sometimes seemingly arbitrary process of college admissions. I, for one, am extremely nervous about SCEA, and I’m sure you are too. You are a thoughtful human being, and I truly hope that you are accepted!</p>
<p>I am still of the opinion that, based on my experiences as a current student, philotivist behavior is not going to work well once here at Yale. I chose yale because I didnt want to be surrounded by people with this kind of attitude. It prob wouldnt even work at Harvard (two older siblings and mother Harvard grads, one other older sibling currently attending). </p>
<p>Also, I don’t think that I’m being judgmental, im just writing my perception of this individual based solely on what he has written in this thread (I take back what I said about him pestering other threads, maybe some things he has written actually make sense).</p>
<p>Furthermore, I can’t help but wonder why someone would spend this much time on this forum (from
his posts, not even the only forum he frequently visits)… just chill, things are gonna work out eventually anyway, they always do. When I was a hs senior I literally didn’t worry anything, just did my best and thought that in the end Yale or state u didn’t matter… stop visiting forums and arguing with people here, get some friends and relax!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Writing your “perception of this individual” is writing your judgment of him. And you confirmed my suspicions that you did so with the help of little evidence: “based solely on what he has written in this thread.”</p>
<p>You’re being judgmental, plain and simple. Stop bothering Philovitist, and continue enjoying your time at Yale.</p>
<p>I think you’re a cool dude, yalebeta. I hope lots of people at Yale are like you.</p>
<p>Well, I know someone they’re certainly not like. </p>
<p>As for being judgemental, I might have been when concluding about philos whole nature based on his comments. But regarding his behavior, I was simply assessing whether it would be a winning way at Yale. It will not.</p>
<p>Thanks for that. Honestly.</p>
<p>Could we return to the actual topic of this thread, please? I’m interested in what everyone thinks about the app count, like JordanSaidWhat said. Thanks!</p>
<p>And the best of luck to everyone applying to Yale, whoever you are.</p>
<p>I’d appreciate that.</p>
<p>I do think a higher proportion of hooks will be among those accepted early than gibby predicted, based on what I computed earlier about how many hooks Yale eventually ends up with. My conclusion is complicated, though, by the fact of overlapping hook. I bet there are at least a few URM athlete legacies, and many more athletic legacies, URM legacies and URM athletes applying. </p>
<p>If what I’ve read about early admissions is correct (which I’ve got to show you guys), though, whatever proportion of hooks there are that will eventually take early admission seats, the average unhooked competitive applicant will still see a significant boost in admission chances by applying early to Yale. </p>
<p>This is true at all top ranked colleges, except MIT and Caltech (interestingly), unless something has changed at Harvard and Yale (indeed, selectivity rate had increased a lot since the study was published, though MIT’s effect did not come from this) to make the conclusions that the study made out of date.</p>
<p>I’m guessing none of this is actually significant to any of us, unfortunately. Apps are evaluated individually and no single person can predict their chances through statistical means.</p>
<p>Luckily Harvard had the largest increase in SCEA applications. Hopefully the majority of the CC people will get in on 12/14! Good luck everyone.</p>
<p>@Philovitist or others do you think the book - The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite is still relevant? It was published in '04.</p>
<p>From Amazon I found these blurbs interesting:</p>
<p>“Their research is unequivocal; applying Early Action (EA) is the equivalent of a 100-point boost in SAT score. While applying Early Decision (ED) is the equivalent of a 150 + point boost in SAT score.”</p>
<p>"play your EA/ED card carefully by fully understanding … the acceptance rate probability implications. "</p>
<p>I just ordered a used copy for $.01</p>
<p>I think the book still has relevancy, but as many colleges have adopted some sort of early program over the last ten years – SCEA at HPYS and non-binding early at MIT/UChicago/Georgetown/UMich etc – ALL STUDENTS need to apply somewhere early. So, the book is not really that much of an eye-opening game-changer anymore. It’s more like a duh!</p>
<p>Who are questbridge applicants?</p>
<p>There doesn’t seem to be any added variable that might have significantly changed how the game woks, besides increased selectivity/applications.</p>
<p>Questbridge applicants are applicants who apply through Questbridge, a program for getting less socioeconomically advantaged into good colleges.</p>
<p>Did anyone determine if QB students are considered within the SCEA number? Saw a note that 25 students were accepted.</p>
<p>They aren’t. :/</p>
<p>Lacrossemom, where did you see that?</p>
<p>QB has released those numbers. ^^^^</p>