An argument can be made for either first or second round.

Applying to the first round demonstrates that you are organized and have planned well to make the early deadlines. It is also true that nearly 100% of the spaces in next year's class are open when the admissions committee sits down with the first round applications. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to think that committees apply a lower standard to the first round than the second. Some feel that the quality of applicants in the first round is more competitive so that you would be compared to a tougher group.

By the time second round begins, the schools have identified many students that they want and many places are filled. However, no school that has a second round wants to fill a class form the first round pool. I compare the situation to gymnastics or skating competition in the Olympics. Competitors never want to go first. They feel that the judges will not give a top score to the first competitor because they want the flexibility to give a higher score if a later performance is better. Also, by second round, schools may be seeing iether a higher or lower yield than expected from first round admissions and that could raise or lower the number the want to accept from second round.

Third round is problematic. By that time, the bulk of any class is full. That doesn't mean that no one gets accepted, but acceptances are low and often depend on yield rates from the first two rounds. Nevertheless, they would not go through the process if they didn't anticipate finding candidates that they want. I have counselled applicants who weren't quite ready to wait until third round and seen them get into Harvard.

On balance, Kaplan consultants agree that the best time to apply is when your application is as good as you can possibly make it. The difference between rounds is far less important than the quality of your application. Particularly in a tough year like this one, don't submit less than your best.

Good luck,

Tani