Meant to include this
It depends on a number of factors including the specific college, but in general colleges favor ED applicants over RD. While the ED pool is often stronger and has a higher rate of hooks, ED applicants are often still favored when controlling for these factors.
For example, the Harvard lawsuit analysis included a regression analysis that controlled for the ratings of the applicant, hook status, and other factors. The analysis found that for a student with a particular set of stats, particular reader ratings, particular hook status… applying REA offered a noteworthy increased chance of admission over applying RD.
Many colleges more blatantly state that they favor ED/ED2 applicants over RD. This is particularly true among colleges that consider demonstrated interest. Applying ED is often one of the best possible ways of showing demonstrated interest in a college.
That said, there is variation between specific colleges, so rather than a universal rule, one needs to consider the specific details. Does the HS use Naviance? Many Naviance graphs separate ED vs RD, and the GC should know which admitted kids had strong hooks.
You mentioned that this particular student has a low GPA compared to students who are typically accepted. If the college is highly selective, that is obviously not a good sign, particularly if the kid is unhooked. Applying RD is not going to fix a low GPA.
1 Like
Logically speaking, the schools go through their ED/ED2 options and admit the kids they want. It is a shoe in for them because of the hard commitment an ED/ED2 submission offers to the school.
In most cases, schools will also defer (with some rejections) kids to the RD pool. So for the RD applicant, they are up against the spaces that remain among many more applicants.
And yes, if a band director says “I need a tuba player” and one didn’t come through in ED, but there happens to be one in RD, that all things being equal, that kid will get offered a spot.
And in terms of a source…look at the stats, the percentage of admissions from ED/ED2 is far greater than RD, even factoring in athletes etc. Why wouldn’t it be? If schools want to keep their admissions rates low and their yields high, taking more of the class in ED/ED2 and leaving fewer spots to RD makes perfect sense.
2 Likes
Perhaps the 2nd/3rd hand GC comments became distorted somewhere along the way, and the GC’s strategy was more don’t waste your ED on a near certain rejection long shot. You’ll have much better chance of success, if you instead use your ED on a college where kids with your stats are often accepted. If you aren’t accepted, then you can still apply to the “reach”, long shots during RD. Many GCs encourage this type of strategy of using ED on a not-first-choice college, particularly in wealthier areas.
3 Likes
Do you have a source for this statement? I live in one of the most affluent areas in the country, and this is not a strategy that local HS GCs (or independent counselors) recommend.
1 Like
However, how many of the deferred ED (or EA) applicants are truly “borderline” (in the view of the college) applicants whom the college wants to compare against the RD applicant pool, versus those given “courtesy deferrals” but have no real chance of admission?
It’s primarily anecdotal based on both comments from students and application behavior at specific HSs. For example, in other threads, the Harvard-Westlake student application stats have been discussed. HW is a selective private HS with an extremely high rate of Ivy-type matriculations and an extremely high rate of kids who are interested in attending Ivy-type colleges. However, the unhooked not super high GPA HW kids apply to other colleges far more often than Ivies. Some specific stats are below. Rather than apply to Ivy long shot for which they likely have little chance of admission, they apply to and are often accepted to colleges that have a decent historical acceptance rate for kids with their GPA. This differs certain highly selective publics, like TJ, where not top of the class kids still apply to HYPSM… type colleges at very high rates. I expect that GC recommendations strongly influence this difference in application behavior between HW and TJ .
Most Applied to Private Colleges among HW kids with 3.7 to 4.1 weighted GPA
1 . WUSTL: 30/77 accepted , 17/57 = 30% unhooked
2. USC: 25/70 accepted, 10/47 = 21% unhooked
3. Emory: 16/63 accepted, 8/50 = 16% unhooked
4. NYU: 40/61 accepted, 29/46 = 63% unhooked
5. Tulane: 26/51 accepted, 22/41 = 54% unhooked
4 Likes
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not convinced that RD is some exercise in futility. Last year Brown accepted nearly 42 percent of its class ED and Penn selected 55 percent of its class from ED. That’s a lot, but there’s room for more than a tuba player. Selingo in his book says shaping happens at the very end, and there is no indication that is the main focus of RD. Happy to reconsider if you provide facts that show otherwise.
2 Likes
You suggested that students in ‘wealthier areas’ apply ED to their ‘not-first choice school’ and leave their ‘near certain rejection long shot’ school for RD. That is not a strategy I have seen, especially for unhooked students.
Getting students and their parents to understand what schools are reasonable reaches is something else entirely, and not limited to students in affluent areas.
Another thought…Perhaps this student indicated to the GC that he or she really didn’t have a top choice school. Perhaps the GC simply recommended that RD would be the better choice because it’s not a binding acceptance.
1 Like
The post said, “particularly in wealthier areas”, meaning more common in wealthier areas than less wealthy areas, but not all GCs and not all students. Not having seen this in limited interactions within your HS, doesn’t mean it is a false statement. Wealthier areas tend to have fewer students per GC, more GC-student-parent interaction, GCs who are more knowledgeable about admission to Ivy-type colleges, etc. This can contribute to different college application behavior, including GCs provide more/better guidance about what schools are reasonable reaches and more/better guidance on benefits of applying to those reasonable reaches during ED. Selective private HSs (that tend to have a much higher rate of affluent kids) also often have additional motivations that are less prevalent in typical non-selective public HSs, which can contribute. Demographic differences (correlated with affluence) also contribute.
1 Like
Absolutely not an exercise in futility. Just, where is the best shot.
1 Like
Best shot whether early or regular is a college where you are squarely within the bounds of “we take kids like this”. You can’t look at the kids in the bottom 10% statistically and say “Oh, they must have applied early”. Or “The college got tired of reading applications in the regular round so he squeaked in”. Anyone squeaking in has a significant hook. If Naviance says you’re not getting admitted, then taking “the best shot” is fine as long as the kid is truly in love with a more realistic set of schools. I know kids who have trudged off to fantastic places in August, still stung and hurt by first a deferral and then a denial from a school which was clearly a mega, mega reach back in the early round.
One “once in a blue moon” application? Sure. But then forget about it and focus on the other places where they will love you back.
4 Likes
ED2 is better than RD. In ED2, the admissions committee can admit based on individual talent rather than focusing on finalizing their class in the RD round. In other words, AOs have more flexibility in ED2 than RD, so go for it if the school is your top choice and a binding decision is not an issue.
2 Likes
I agree @Data10, this strategy more or less fits private schools I am familiar with, and it does make me wonder if indeed the student failed to communicate (or misunderstood) the full GC plan to @Lindagaf.
2 Likes
Not an expert here but based on acceptance rates and I know they often include athletes , etc but ED is almost always better odds. If the student were deemed not right, they’d be rejected no matter what. If the student is borderline, they’d possibly get deferred.
So I’d assume two cracks at the apple are better than one…especially when one round has a higher likelihood of acceptance based on percentages.
Also we don’t know that the ED pool is stronger. In fact, financially viable or sure case high need students might apply ED to improve their odds and may be similar (below the averages) hoping for a lift where a strong student may wait for non-binding.
Also many families (mine) will not let their kids ED no matter what.
Logically if they’re ready to commit and are ok with the $$, I’d have to think the ED avenue is best.
If a student is flat-out rejected ED, one more set of grades wasn’t going to turn that into being accepted RD.
If deferred, the updated grades will be considered in RD.
I don’t see a downside to ED (barring some unknown information like winning a Nobel between ED and RD).
4 Likes
Thanks all. I agree with the majority. To me, the most sensible avenue is to apply ED2.
1 Like
Selingo in his book says shaping happens at the very end
This is what I am trying to say. It happens at RD after the ED/ED2 rounds, the AD’s fill in the gaps. Not a main focus, but where else would it happen?
After RD