Anonymous wrote:
If it worked the way you hypothesize, schools would ask EA acceptees to decide as soon as possible. But they don't. That's the whole point of EA as opposed ED.

It is fine for kids to take their time with offers. They aren't hurting anybody and they earned it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The waitlist game doesn't start until after seat deposits are due, not after acceptances are sent. And yield is very much a science and any students who decline the offer early are part of that yield calculation.

In 2012 UVA got 28,000 applications and accepted 7800 even though they only have 3360 seats for freshman. UVA puts about 5000 people on the waitlist and of those only about 150 enroll (some years as low as 60) which is just a 3% enrollment rate of those who make the waitlist. Bottom line: Waitlists offer only a very small chance of admission and a student declining early is not going to boost anyone else's chances.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/class-of---uva-admits-but-how-many-will/article_d45ce227-f6ee-54c4-a94a-d29f77fb2611.html?mode=jqm

Yield is a science the same way predicting the weather is a science: predictions are frequently very wrong, in either direction. Also, you're splitting hairs about colleges turning to waitlists only after deposits are made. I'm not sure how this makes a difference to the main point about kids on the waitlist having to wait until others give up their acceptances, but have fun splitting hairs if you want.

The "main point" was that a kid who was accepted to more than one school EA should start declining offers so that others could be accepted to those schools. One poster called such a kid with multiple offers "selfish." That view misunderstands the process. Declining EA offers is not going to result in more offers. The declines are already baked-in to the process.

Fine, you win. Pat yourself on the back! The rest of us lack the energy to follow you in parsing everyone's posts over the past three pages.

(Although I can't resist. I do econometrics for a living, and I'm well aware of how wrong any forecast can go, whether it's for the stock market, housing prices, or things like yield. I sincerely doubt that any college can predict matriculations and yield down to the last kid. And to the extent that a college's yield calculation is off by even one single kid, that college will either be oversubscribed or have to (a) make more regular decision offers, or (b) go to its waitlist. So in fact, every time one kid declines an EA offer, another kid benefits by (1) getting an RD offer the college hadn't planned to make because it thought more kids would accept its EA offers, or (2) by getting off the waitlist. Unless you're right, and the college has the yield thing figured out down to the last kid. But I really doubt that.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The waitlist game doesn't start until after seat deposits are due, not after acceptances are sent. And yield is very much a science and any students who decline the offer early are part of that yield calculation.

In 2012 UVA got 28,000 applications and accepted 7800 even though they only have 3360 seats for freshman. UVA puts about 5000 people on the waitlist and of those only about 150 enroll (some years as low as 60) which is just a 3% enrollment rate of those who make the waitlist. Bottom line: Waitlists offer only a very small chance of admission and a student declining early is not going to boost anyone else's chances.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/class-of---uva-admits-but-how-many-will/article_d45ce227-f6ee-54c4-a94a-d29f77fb2611.html?mode=jqm

Yield is a science the same way predicting the weather is a science: predictions are frequently very wrong, in either direction. Also, you're splitting hairs about colleges turning to waitlists only after deposits are made. I'm not sure how this makes a difference to the main point about kids on the waitlist having to wait until others give up their acceptances, but have fun splitting hairs if you want.

The "main point" was that a kid who was accepted to more than one school EA should start declining offers so that others could be accepted to those schools. One poster called such a kid with multiple offers "selfish." That view misunderstands the process. Declining EA offers is not going to result in more offers. The declines are already baked-in to the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The waitlist game doesn't start until after seat deposits are due, not after acceptances are sent. And yield is very much a science and any students who decline the offer early are part of that yield calculation.

In 2012 UVA got 28,000 applications and accepted 7800 even though they only have 3360 seats for freshman. UVA puts about 5000 people on the waitlist and of those only about 150 enroll (some years as low as 60) which is just a 3% enrollment rate of those who make the waitlist. Bottom line: Waitlists offer only a very small chance of admission and a student declining early is not going to boost anyone else's chances.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/class-of---uva-admits-but-how-many-will/article_d45ce227-f6ee-54c4-a94a-d29f77fb2611.html?mode=jqm

Yield is a science the same way predicting the weather is a science: predictions are frequently very wrong, in either direction. Also, you're splitting hairs about colleges turning to waitlists only after deposits are made. I'm not sure how this makes a difference to the main point about kids on the waitlist having to wait until others give up their acceptances, but have fun splitting hairs if you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The waitlist game doesn't start until after seat deposits are due, not after acceptances are sent. And yield is very much a science and any students who decline the offer early are part of that yield calculation.

In 2012 UVA got 28,000 applications and accepted 7800 even though they only have 3360 seats for freshman. UVA puts about 5000 people on the waitlist and of those only about 150 enroll (some years as low as 60) which is just a 3% enrollment rate of those who make the waitlist. Bottom line: Waitlists offer only a very small chance of admission and a student declining early is not going to boost anyone else's chances.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/class-of---uva-admits-but-how-many-will/article_d45ce227-f6ee-54c4-a94a-d29f77fb2611.html?mode=jqm

Yield is a science the same way predicting the weather is a science: predictions are frequently very wrong, in either direction. Also, you're splitting hairs about colleges turning to waitlists only after deposits are made. I'm not sure how this makes a difference to the main point about kids on the waitlist having to wait until others give up their acceptances, but have fun splitting hairs if you want.

Anonymous wrote:
The waitlist game doesn't start until after seat deposits are due, not after acceptances are sent. And yield is very much a science and any students who decline the offer early are part of that yield calculation.

In 2012 UVA got 28,000 applications and accepted 7800 even though they only have 3360 seats for freshman. UVA puts about 5000 people on the waitlist and of those only about 150 enroll (some years as low as 60) which is just a 3% enrollment rate of those who make the waitlist. Bottom line: Waitlists offer only a very small chance of admission and a student declining early is not going to boost anyone else's chances.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/class-of---uva-admits-but-how-many-will/article_d45ce227-f6ee-54c4-a94a-d29f77fb2611.html?mode=jqm

Anonymous wrote:"are there really decent schools you can apply to in August?"

yes, there are plenty of good schools.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't need to be: research, list made, apps done, wait.

The process can be very fluid and changeable.

You can be: apply Aug-Sept to several rolling-admission financial safeties to hear back Oct-Nov, adjust list. Apply to match/reaches. If "no" decisions come in, replace that school with a new choice. Visit again as decisions/final costs are known. Work the waitlists/financial aid awards. If DC is on board, keep as many balls in the air as possible for as long as possible. Sometimes details emerge that prove to be important.

Certainly there are those for whom ED, early decision is preferred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DS originally planned on doing 11. The thinking was that since he was applying to many Ivies it made sense to throw in more safeties since you can never count on admission to any particular Ivy or top college when admission rates are in single digits. He ultimately pared his list down to 8 after getting admitted early action to one of his choices. We are awaiting additional results of admission so we'll see if his strategy was a good one.

Wow, his classmates must hate him. How selfish.

Why is this selfish? It was non-binding early action, no early decision. The school he was admitted to allows students to not commit until May 1. No one is breaking any rules here.

Right, he's not breaking any rules here. But he's potentially taking acceptances away from other kids at his school, under the assumption that colleges accept a limited number of kids from each school. He'd do everybody else a favor by figuring out which remaining schools he'd prefer to the one he got into, and withdrawing from all the others. It's not a contest to see how many Ivies you can get into, if it comes at the expense of someone else who hasn't gotten into any yet. (And my kid is at a "top Ivy" or whatever you want to call it, so my post isn't motivated by jealousy.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP's son was being smart, not selfish. It's all about strategy.

What strategy? Where? Unless he'd prefer all 7 of the remaining schools to the one he already got into EA, there's no strategy to keeping applications at all 7 schools. Most probably, he'd prefer a few of the 7 to the one that accepted him EA, but he'd turn down the rest even if they accept him. For example, if he already got into Yale EA, then he may figure he'll go to Harvard if they accept him, but he'll turn down Cornell if they accept him. (Don't get me wrong, I love Cornell, half of my family went there, but I need an example.) So why not withdraw from Cornell, so that Cornell can accept another kid from his school or somewhere else in the country? Instead, some kid on Cornell's waitlist has to wait until May or June until this PP's kid relinquishes his slot and Cornell goes to the waitlist.

Unless he's applying for FA, there's no strategy involving comparing offers. (And no merit aid at the Ivies, either.)

The only conceivable strategy is that the family has calculated that withdrawing applications is too much bother, besides it would be fun to see how many Ivies he can get into.

This is not the way the process works. Colleges overaccept based on yield numbers and they have this down to a science. A student holding an EA spot on which the student hasn't decided is not "taking a spot" from somebody else.

The issue being discussed here is slightly different from what you think. Nobody was suggesting the kid give up an EA spot for possible future RD acceptances that might or might not materialize - that would be pretty dumb.

Also, yield isn't a science yet. Colleges routinely over- and under-estimate yield every year. But that's besides the point, because the point is that, whatever is going on with yield that year, colleges DO have waitlists, and they will only turn to these waitlists AFTER some accepted kids give up their slots.