2019 Brown ED Numbers Released

<p><a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/2014/12/11/20-percent-early-decision-applicants-offered-admission/”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/2014/12/11/20-percent-early-decision-applicants-offered-admission/</a></p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Advice for those deferred.</p>

<p><a href=“Benefits | Alumni & Friends | Brown University”>Benefits | Alumni & Friends | Brown University</a></p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In my 30+ years following Brown admissions, this is the first time I’ve seen (that I can remember) a number for ED athletic admits – 26%, which if my math is correct, means the accept rate for non-athlete applicants was 15%. </p>

<p>So, based on last year numbers, it’s about a 5% spread between ED (adjusted for athletes) and RD acceptance rates.</p>

<p>Does applying ED to Brown really improve the probability of acceptance? </p>

<p>I think I could argue for (or be persuaded by) either side of that debate. </p>

<p>You would have to factor in other “hooked” candidates such legacies, URM’s, VIP’s (Brown has more than a few), developmental admits, etc to figure out the true acceptance rate. Also, the early applicant pool is much stronger academically and EC wise.</p>

<p>But those other hooks (legacies, URMs, VIPS, $) occur in the RD round, whereas there are a lot more recruited athletes accepted early.</p>

<p>Don’t forget children of faculty and staff. DS was deferred while his classmate, who has 2 parents who are faculty members at Brown, was admitted. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>True that. For example, see the following quote from the Brown Daily Herald of December 12, 2014, and in particular, the “P’19” after President Paxson’s name. Now that’s a hook!</p>

<p>“Barbara Chernow ’79 will succeed Beppie Huidekoper as the next executive vice president for finance and administration effective March 1, President Christina Paxson P’19 announced in a community-wide email Friday.”</p>

<p><a href=“Chernow ’79 selected as next finance VP - The Brown Daily Herald”>Chernow ’79 selected as next finance VP - The Brown Daily Herald; </p>

<p>Good catch, fenway. I didn’t notice that addition to Paxson’s name. Her son must have been accepted ED. Although, let’s look at it from his perspective – he must really want to go to Brown if he’s willing to go to the school where his mom is president (although he does have a different last name). Not sure my daughter would have wanted to do that. </p>

<p>epeemom: My point still stands. Faculty and staff kids apply RD, too, while recruited athletes are predominantly ED.</p>

<p>ED group doesn’t require senior fall grades/activities so it’s definitely a stronger group than the RD group. Also, ED group generally worries less about financial aid and while Brown is need blind, no school is truly need blind. They see where you live, where you go to school, your parents’ job descriptions etc.</p>

<p>I don’t know. In the RD pool, you’re thrown in a cluster with 30,000 +/- applicants including a lot of the kids who had applied early to HYP,Stanford, Williams, UPenn, Columbia etc…, and who were not competing in the Brown ED pool of only 3,000 or so applicants. It might be a little bit harder to stand out in the RD round. Just saying…</p>

<p>I disagree with the assertion that students applying early to those schools are demonstrably stronger students than the ones applying early to Brown.</p>

<p>Brunoalumnus, why wouldn’t you expect that to be true?</p>

<p>I don’t think the students applying early to those schools are stronger than those applying to Brown ED, but I do think its harder to standout RD round when there are so many more applicants. As we all know, plenty of very qualified ED applicants at all these schools (including Brown) are not taken during the ED round, so the RD round is full of very qualified candidates. Plus, the RD round includes some taken EA to HYPMS who want to see where else they get in-its not just a round of rejected ED applicants.
I really think it is an advantage to apply ED. will it make an unqualified candidate now qualified? no. But it ups the odds for any strong applicant.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am thinking that this depends on the percentage of students admitted. To pose an extreme example just to try to illustrate a point, if 10 out of 100 non-athletes are accepted early and 1001 out of 10000 are accepted RD, wouldn’t it be harder to stand out in ED compared to RD? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not sure if this is offered as opinion or fact. If it is opinion, fine. Not sure it is a fact.</p>

<p>After all. on the Brown Admissions webpage, it is stated:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“First-Year Applicants | Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>http://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/apply/first-year-applicants&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And just last month, Dean of Admission James Miller was quoted as follows:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“U. sees second-largest early decision pool - The Brown Daily Herald”>U. sees second-largest early decision pool - The Brown Daily Herald;

<p>Is it possible that this is just marketing fluff instead of reliable information? I suppose, but I am not yet persuaded.</p>

<p>EDIT: I have no actual data or inside access to the Office of Admission that would allow me to conclude definitively one way or the other, so that is why I am going with the official statements. </p>

<p>according to fireandrain’s math - adjusting for athletes, the ED acceptance rate was 15% - compared with RD 8.6% - that’s a big difference - that is 74% better. So I would say its a fact that ED improves your odds. </p>

<p>And did the math account for other traditional ED-laden hooks such as legacy, sons and daughters of professors/administrators/famous politicians/celebrities, development?</p>

<p>If I understand the logic correctly, with my 3.7 GPA and 2160 SAT (and other competitive stuff) if I had a, say, 5% chance in RD (wildly inaccurate estimate based on published stats only) , I would have about a 9% chance in ED? </p>

<p>In other words, Brown is taking less qualified applicants early which means they have less space for better qualified applicants that show up later in RD? (That sounds kinda dumb.) </p>

<p>Or is the ED pool stronger, perhaps…which would refute the original argument?</p>

<p>If it is a fact, as you assert, that ED improves everyone’s odds, then I think Brown’s webpage quoted above and Dean Miller’s comments are misleading at best, false at worst, and should be changed pronto.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, my math didn’t account for this, because as I said, legacies, fac brats, celebrities and development kids apply both ED AND RD. Most athletes apply and are accepted ED.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Right. Athletes, legacies, children of faculty, development kids, celebrity kids apply ED and RD. Most athletes are accepted ED. The schools tell us this. That’s like saying 15 minutes could save you 15% on car insurance.</p>

<p>But your statement also seems to aver that most legacies, children of faculty, development kids and celebrity kids do not apply and get accepted in the ED round. Intuitively this does not sound right, but my intuition could very well be wrong. The source for this averment is…?</p>

<p>Anyway, standing by my point, that without information on the credentials of the ED pool, one cannot state as fact that Brown ED gives each applicant an easier go of it.</p>

<p>Guess who’s back
Back again
WannaBe’s back
Tell a friend
Guess who’s back, guess who’s back
Guess who’s back, guess who’s back
Guess who’s back, guess who’s back
Guess who’s back</p>

<p>Not BrunoAlumnus (although I am a Brown alumnus). The fact is that you could interchange the kids at ANY of the top 20 schools and no one would know the difference. The only people who truly believe HYPSM kids are demonstrably stronger than Brown, Duke, Cornell, CalTech, Chicago, Columbia, Penn, etc are snobby high schoolers. You could even take the accepted classes of the top 20 institutions, toss them aside, fill them all again, toss those aside, fill them all a 3rd time and still probably not see a meaningful difference in student caliber. In fact Yale admissions used to say this about their own applicants on the tours (the idea about tossing out the class and redoing it without seeing any drop in metrics). Under 10% of the kids who apply to these schools get in but easily ~30% who apply are just as good as that group and could have gotten in if their application had been read on a different day or by a different person or if the reader’s kid made a different comment at breakfast, or if Lorenz’s butterfly flapped its wings 4 times instead of 5 the week before.</p>

<p>Do you know the numbers for the PLME program?</p>