<p>Again, with the assumptions. I claim no insight into the admissions process - only on the very real effects of admissions, based upon case studies to that end. Now, as I am sure you are aware, anthropological case studies, by their very nature (and yes, I was very much immersed in the Princeton culture), are limited to a few cases (though I have dozens) and seek to bring real-world experience into a research world that is increasingly dominated by a numbers game. As I said, you can crunch numbers all day long and come to conclusions about those numbers, but case studies show otherwise. Now, I also maintain that my sample is in no means uniform; however, I have still seen no single shred of evidence suggesting that there is a minimum level of GPA/SAT required to get into Princeton, regardless of SCEA or RD and in addition, I have seen no evidence suggesting that SCEA gives applicants any edge in admissions. In fact, based upon my observations and conversations with several dozens of friends and classmates, those students who applied SCEA and matriculated exhibited similar, if not higher, GPA/SAT scores as those who matriculated from the RD round. </p>
<p>I am not talking about football players either. I am talking about my friends, with whom I have had intimate, friendly conversations over the course of a year and a summer about the nature of the world. These conversations do get in-depth and I daresay that these friends know many things about me - much of which I would not divulge to even my close relatives. That, my friend, is the nature of living and working together. </p>
<p>I question the validity of data taken from over a decade ago, NO MATTER when the study itself was published. The data was still drawn from an outdated set. Additionally, none of the other articles that cite the one you mention have anything to do with early action and advantages - they are mainly concerned with economics and the market. Further, none of these studies use recent evidence to either corroborate or refute the findings in the previous, outdated study. I maintain that further study is required on MORE RECENT DATA (keep in mind that both Harvard and Princeton recently reinstated their early action programs) in order to make any substantial claim to the effect that SCEA increases an applicant’s chances by 1.5x. </p>
<p>Now, I believe we have reached an impasse. I question the validity of the data used by your source and your only defense so far has been to laud the authority of the authors and the journal. I have seen no desire to critically analyze here. You, on the other hand, doubt the validity of my own observations and the anthropological case study method. Thus, I see no point in continuing this argument any further, as the result will not change. Good day to you.</p>