<p>st,
My opinion (that’s exactly what it is, I don’t claim any insider knowledge) is based on the way that I think SCEA works, which itself is entirely up for debate ;). </p>
<p>It seems rational to me that the only people accepted SCEA to S & Y are those candidates who they would select from ANY pool of applicants. Selecting them early gives the school extra time to woo these prospects who will likely be accepted to other top colleges RD. Anyone who is borderline can be held to the RD round to be compared to that pool, and then accepted, WL or denied. I just don’t see how these schools would benefit from selecting anyone other than the candidates they find most desirable without the shadow of a doubt. </p>
<p>To this point, I think S & Y act similarly, however, when it comes to what to do with the SCEA non-admits, they diverge. Y denies a relatively small percentage of SCEA applicants, and the majority are deferred to RD. S on the other hand defers a relatively small percentage of SCEA applicants and many more are outright denied. So, if an applicant is not in the tippy top of their demographic but is still a competitive candidate, it seems like they would have less of a chance of being held over to the RD round (and possibly be accepted) at S, particularly if they have some late breaking awards, test scores, etc. that weren’t available when the SCEA cuts were made.</p>
<p>Again, no one is implying that once there, a deferred SCEA candidate is evaluated differently than someone applying straight to the RD round, but rather that they might risk their chance of getting to RD at all.</p>
<p>I think what itsv and I are trying to say is that it’s something to be considered when applying SCEA to S. I think it’s productive for people to give their POVs and experiences; we’re not telling the OP not to apply SCEA, just discussing a possible downside. I personally would rather hear both sides of a story in order to make an informed decision.</p>