<p>
</p>
<p>It is likely that this will happen, but not “ensured,” because SCEA is not binding. I can think of a couple of scenarios in which an applicant may apply SCEA to his second choice: a soccer goalie who wants Yale, but the Yale coach is not biting, so he applies SCEA to Harvard (whose coach is begging for him) and RD to Yale; a Yale legacy who figures he has a better shot at Yale SCEA but who prefers Harvard, and applies RD to Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At less than <10% acceptance, most students do not “choose” Harvard or Yale; Harvard or Yale chooses them. Single choice EA forces students to choose between schools, and the likelihood is that most of them will end up deferred. Again, schools can cherry pick the students they want during the EA round, but with single choice, most students will be left without an early option. Sure, this is great for colleges - why wouldn’t they want access to the best possible pool of candidates, but there is no argument that it benefits the vast majority of students.</p>
<p>We are not talking about the vast majority of students. We are talking about the tippy top students. The top 5% of high school seniors. That is a pretty large absolute number of students. Thousands of students. </p>
<p>I agree with Bay. This will could up some interesting dilemmas for Yale legacies who would prefer Harvard, and vice versa. </p>
<p>I also agree with xiggi- the ED ivies might turn out to be the losers here. But in general I don’t have any sympathy for ED schools.</p>
<p>
I don’t see it that way…it only allows students who want the option of an early answer to apply to their top choice. They can still apply to any other schools RD and on May 1st the student can choose from any of their acceptances, including the SCEA school.<br>
For those students that are candidates for those most selective schools, they can have the bonus of knowing in December that they are (if they are lucky) “in” at the school of their choice. I don’t see the downside.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am afraid I find this very confusing. Most schools believe that the early admission round serve to clearly establish a first choice. If I understand correctly, you seem to favor multiple “first” choices such as student applying to Brown as an example, and also to schools that permit one or more EA applications. </p>
<p>Is that correct?</p>
<p>The problem is that the majority of students who apply EA are deferred. If Harvard receives 3500 EA applications, they probably accept about 500 students (rough guess). So, 3000 students are deferred and because Harvard is single choice, these students will not have another EA alternative and they’ll have to wait until spring to know where they will attend. For students who want an EA option, this is a big deal. A deferral is not much fun. </p>
<p>The main motivation for Harvard is the opportunity to pick up a few more tippy top students who may not want to wait until regular decision to know where they are going. Don’t get me wrong, Harvard can do whatever it wishes, but let’s not sell it as a good thing for students.</p>
<p>Most students use the early round to establish a first choice, sure, but also to avoid the stress of the regular decision round. Many don’t want to spend their senior year on pins and needles waiting until spring to find out where they are going. Most realistic students have a few “first choices,” because they know it is foolish to focus solely on a school with a <10% acceptance rate. I like Brown’s policy - new this year - because it allows students to have a safety during the EA round, so if they are deferred, they can still have another school in the bag. And because it’s binding, it’s clearly the student’s first choice and they will attend.</p>
<p>Let’s remember that for Yale and Stanford you’re allowed to apply rolling or EA to public universities. I presume Harvard and Princeton will have similar policies.</p>
<p>Also, I’m not sure how many students think they’ll really avoid the stress of waiting for spring to make their final choice if they apply to Harvard SCEA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither is a rejection!</p>
<p>^^^ Plus - if there were 3500 applicants and 500 acceptances, there would not be 3000 deferrals. There would be quite a few rejections in that remaining 3000. Depends on the school though - e.g - Stanford seems to defer some and reject a lot; Yale defers a lot and rejects some.</p>
<p>Actual recent numbers…</p>
<p>Dec 2010, per Yale Daily News:
“Of 5,257 early applicants, 761 were notified of their acceptances this evening. 1,497 students who applied early were denied admission, while 2,952 were deferred to the regular decision round. This 56.2 percent deferral rate is approximately a 5 percent increase from last year.”</p>
<p>From the Stanford Daily of Dec 13, 2010:</p>
<p>“Stanford has admitted 754 early applicants to the Class of 2015 and deferred about 500 more”…The University received a record-high 5,929 applicants, dropping the admission rate to 12.7 percent for Stanford’s “restrictive early-action program.” </p>
<p>So…yes…REA policy results in a few early admissions and lots of early rejections. For those students rejected in mid-December…they still have time to complete applications to almost every other elite school, as well as rolling admissions schools. </p>
<p>I’m glad that Harvard and Princeton are returning to an early admissions plan. It may actually result in top students who have preference for one school over the other, not applying to every Ivy if they get into one early…which could help the admissions chances for some other students!</p>
<p>For those of you who are fans of economics and game theory…you might enjoy reading this article about early action:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf</a> </p>
<p>or…if that link doesn’t work…</p>
<p>American Economic Review 100 (December 2010): 2125–2156
[AEAweb</a> Journal Articles Display](<a href=“http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.100.5.2125]AEAweb”>Early Admissions at Selective Colleges - American Economic Association)</p>
<p>^^ whoa, that is such a cool analysis!</p>
<p>Really appreciate the link by 2boysima (post #31). Wish parents and students alike understand admissions at this level.</p>
<p>I find these lines particularly interesting:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of those admitted EA, the majority - possibly as much as 2/3 - are hooked candidates. These accepted students are overwhelmingly athletes, legacies, developments and URMs, so the likelihood of an EA acceptance for an unhooked student with strong academics is very low. Many of these students, as indicated later in the article, use EA as a strategy thinking that they have a better chance, when they do not. These students are better off using EA where they have a better chance at acceptance, leaving high reach schools to the regular round. SCEA only benefits colleges and the few unhooked students who are actually accepted.</p>
<p>Exceptions to Stanfords Restrictive Early Action Program
While applicants who apply to Stanford under the Restrictive Early Action program should not do the following:</p>
<p>The student may apply to any foreign college/university on any application schedule.
The student may apply to any college/university with a non-binding rolling admission process.
The student may apply to any public college/university.
If you would like to request approval to submit a Restrictive Early Action application that doesn’t already clearly meet the guidelines detailed in the exceptions noted above, you should call the Office of Undergraduate Admission and request to speak with the Director of Admission to discuss your specific request.</p>
<p>Does anyone know if Princeton/Harvard will have similar exceptions?</p>
<p>I agree with Gourmetmom in post #35. That’s why I think to really “benefit” the students, these colleges should all just adopt binding ED. That way, at least some of the “bound to be admitted” are out of the picture in RD, and cross-admits of the top 10 would be reduced, making it easier for students as well as good for the yield of the colleges. We’ll see what’ll happen with H&P’s early program in place, but Yale SCEA just like Gourmetmom pointed out isn’t helping much. </p>
<p>BTW, do people just assume both H & P are adopting SCEA, or has this info published somewhere?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t the change come from the needs or demands felt by the Admissions offices?</p>
<p>Any Early Decision program for highly desirable campuses allows some control over the flow of applications.</p>
<p>Applications that were “forced” to apply only via Regular Decision, who actually would have applied early, will now arrive early. </p>
<p>I would think the change comes primarily from a need to manage time and resources in the admissions offices.</p>
<p>Interesting article on the subject in today’s Yale Daily News. Despite huge numbers of applications, since abandoning their early programs both H and P have lost students they want to peer schools who didn’t follow their lead. Other rhetoric aside, that’s why these schools are resuming their early programs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Early</a> admissions back at Harvard, Princeton | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/feb/25/early-admissions-back-at-harvard-princeton/]Early”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/feb/25/early-admissions-back-at-harvard-princeton/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are there any data to back this up? I’d love to see a table or something.</p>