<p>While that is undoubtedly true, and is most graphically demonstrated with early applications, where students must carefully calculate how to “spend” their single best shot at admission to an elite, it is also true that applicants often react to numbers - and trends - from the previous year.</p>
<p>For example, last year, total apps at Yale were down several hundred, while they rose over 15% at Harvard. No one pretended it was anything but a cyclical phenomenon. This year, apps were up 8% at Yale, but virtually flat at Harvard. Who knows: next year, the surge may be in another direction, as strategic applicants calculate how to balance their desires with a realistic assessment of their chances.</p>
<p>As another example, take early applications at Harvard: for the Class of 2007, Harvard still had the less risky open Early Action - less risky because you didn’t have to gamble all on your one shot at Harvard, but could cover your bets with a concurrent early application to MIT, Chicago, Caltech, Georgetown, etc etc. For that class, a full 36% of Harvard’s total applications were received in the open Early Action round.</p>
<p>Now, conversely, with Harvard’s switch to Single Choice Early Action (a switch which was, IMHO, ill-advised) its far more risky early application percentage has plummeted to 17% of total applications. At Yale, which after that year switched to SCEA from “the other direction” - binding Early Decision - the change provided a welcome boost, as early applications rose from about 14% of the total to nearly 20% of the total.</p>