<p>“If someone’s not full-pay, it’s unwise to apply ED”</p>
<p>Why is it unwise? ED really can increase the chances of being accepted to the dream school. If the FA offered is insufficient, the student says thanks but no thanks, and applies RD to other schools.</p>
<p>^^^ what kind of documentation is sufficient for claiming that finances won’t let you accept an ED offer? If I have to show my FAFSA EFC of 40,000 (ludicrous, BTW, no way we could afford that EFC), they would laugh in my face and say that the deposit was due and we were expected to honor the ED.</p>
<p>The thought of having to show cost of living analyses of where we live, support for family members, charitable contributions, upcoming college students’ saving (all the things that don’t show up on FAFSA) would make my head spin.</p>
<p>No further documentation is necessary; unless significant changes have occurred, all pertinent documentation has already been submitted. However, there’s no reason not to appeal; some schools have been known to increase their offer. Note that, e.g., consumer debt is not a FAFSA factor, but yet it can be very real for some families. Thus, it is not unusual for an ED FA offer to be insufficient, though the online calculators can give an early warning.</p>
<p>It would be pointless for a school to force matriculation and then expel the student when the bill is not paid.</p>
<p>This may be of interest:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/education/edlife/strategy.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/education/edlife/strategy.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What “past years” are you referring to? According to the most recent [Barnard</a> CDS - 2008-2009](<a href=“http://www.barnard.edu/opir/pdf/CDS2008_2009.pdf]Barnard”>http://www.barnard.edu/opir/pdf/CDS2008_2009.pdf) available, they accepted 33% of their entering class in 2008 from the ED pool. (567 enrolled students, 187 ED admits – only 11 students taken from the waitlist)</p>
<p>That’s up a whopping 1% since the year my daughter was admitted (2006), when Barnard accepted 175 ED students for an entering class of 550 students - or 32% of their entering class. </p>
<p>So I think its pretty fair to say that Barnard generally accepts 1/3 of its entering class from the ED pool, and 2/3 from RD. In 2006 it was overly selective with the RD pool, under-predicting yield, requiring that they go to the wait list – in 2007 & 2008, they increased the percentage of RD admits and have had only a handful of waitlisted students admitted. Overall admission “chances” for the ED pool has increased partly because the number of ED applicants has been steadily declining – as I’ve already shown, because of the relatively small size of the ED pool, small changes in numbers have a bigger impact on overall percentages.</p>
<p>I looked at Smith’s numbers for the entering class of 2009 – 166 admitted from the ED pool, 665 enrolled students – which is obviously an even smaller percentage of their overall class - roughly 25% – so again your claims are easily disproven by the numbers.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, Voss. I still maintain that applying ED, as stated in the article, is a question of honor. I couldn’t enter into an agreement with a college in an ED scenario knowing that FA would be a huge factor, and one that could cause us not to attend. I would feel bad. ~Shrug~.</p>
<p>^ Well, I don’t think you should :); it’s built right into the ED agreement:
<a href=“https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/docs/downloadforms/ED_Agreement.pdf[/url]”>https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/docs/downloadforms/ED_Agreement.pdf</a></p>
<p>1) Since the ED pool is largely made up of more wealthy students, the more the school relies on ED, the more it becomes seen as a bastion of privilege."</p>
<p>I’m just playing devils advocate here, but I find it hard to believe it would negatively impact an elite school if it was predominantly made up of wealthy full pay kids and was seen as a “bastion of privilege.”. Part of why parents seek elite schools is the perceived benefit of having their kids rub elbows with the wealthy and well connected, no? However laudable of a social goal it may be to offer tremendous aid and/or be need blind, I don’t think that factors into the calculus of “prestige.”. Building a diverse socioeconomic class may be an institutional goal, but not for prestiges sake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s unwise because even if the FA offered is sufficient, the student might have gotten an even better FA package from another school. In some instances, the difference in the FA packages might be big enough to affect the student’s decision about which college to choose.</p>
<p>Colleges may claim that they meet full need, but often they “meet” part of that need with loans. The proportion of the financial aid package that consists of a loan may differ greatly from student to student and may reflect how badly the college wants that student. </p>
<p>Let’s say that the student applies ED to college A and gets a $15,000 financial aid package, consisting of $5,000 scholarship and $10,000 loan. If the student and the family consider this sufficient, then the student goes to college A and ends up $40,000 in debt (assuming that the FA package doesn’t change over the four years of college).</p>
<p>But what if the student had applied RD to colleges A and B, which have the same cost of attendance? A offers the same package as mentioned above, but B offers a $15,000 package with $12,000 scholarship and $3,000 loan. The student might want to consider B, even if it was not his original first choice, because of the much lower level of debt that he would end up with. But if the student had applied ED, he would never even have known that such a choice existed.</p>
<p>^ I totally agree if the subject is first vs. second choice schools, but, as I said, I specifically mean “dream” school. If a student wants to compare FA packages, ED should not be used. But for a dream school, I see no downside in applying ED, since it usually increases one’s chances of being accepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not much of a believer in “dream” schools because these are usually schools where the student’s credentials are on the low side, in comparison with the pool of admitted students. </p>
<p>If the student gets in, he/she then faces the problem of being less qualified than most of his/her classmates. That “dream” could quickly become a nightmare.</p>
<p>One of my kids did apply and was accepted ED, but the school was one that was a realistic choice anyway, and for which she was not underqualified. It worked out just fine. I would have been much more reluctant for her to apply ED to a superselective dream school. What if she had gotten in? Would she have spent the rest of her senior year agonizing about not being good enough to succeed at that school? Would she have encountered academic problems when she got there?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree. D was one of those students who had a “dream” school, but her stats were very competitive. It was still a “dream” school because it is a highly selective school and with the numbers of students applying these days, almost no one is a sure thing.</p>
<p>Our (DD and the parent$) ‘Dream School’ is the one that is a good fit academically, socially and financially. She applied to several ‘dream schools’ she’d love to attend. The one we choose is going to be the best value. This is why we didn’t apply ED anywhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you say that? Why can’t a dream school be something where the kid’s stats are reasonably in line with the pool of admitted students? Dream schools aren’t built on getting-as-high-as-you-can-on-USNWR; they’re built on specific programs, fit, attractiveness of the campus, perceived compatibility with the student body, etc. </p>
<p>In looking at my kids’ schools (prior to visits, of course), their current ACT’s are generally at the 75%th percentile for the majority of their schools. Isn’t that great? These are all great schools, and that means their chances will be decent / in the ballpark. I don’t know why they should start looking at “higher” schools just for the sake of going higher. Silly to have them seek out and dream of Ivys just because they are Ivys.</p>
<p>The problem with the concept of “dream” school is that it is a false concept, playing on student’s emotions, that tends to lead to decisions against the student’s economic interest. They only time a student should rationally pursue one school to the exclusion of others is when the student desires a program that is unique to that school – but in today’s college market, the reality is that for every “dream” colleges, there are dozens of schools that could offer that student an equivalent or, in some cases, even better education and social environment.</p>
<p>For students whose parents plan to pay full fare at a private college in any case, the “economic interest” issue is irrelevant, since private schools far down in the ranking list charge pretty close to the same, and sometimes even more, than the “dream” schools. </p>
<p>But where finances are an important consideration, then it’s a mistake to buy into the “dream” given the disconnect between dream and reality. If the choice were as narrow as Yale vs. 3rd tier state U – then it might make some sense. But the choice is often more like Yale vs. Vanderbilt or Yale vs. Rhodes. </p>
<p>When a person is making a decision that involves taking on thousands of dollars of debt, it makes sense to take off the rose colored glasses and try to make a fact-based decision based on rational considerations, whether it is a dream college or dream car or dream house that seems so enticing.</p>
<p>I agree with calmom, but suggest the rational decision making also include the fact that the most highly selective schools – some of which offer ED – also have the most generous need-based financial aid. Sure, Vandy & USC and Emory and a host of other schools offer full rides. But, those rides don’t go to the “average” Ivy kid – the unhooked, applicant with with test scores in the 25-50%. They tend to be awarded to kids at the top end of the Ivy pool. (using “Ivy” here for the top ~dozen most selective colleges). Thus, an “average” kid at the stat median for Columbia (or Dartmouth, or…) will have to offer a LOT more to Vandy (or Emory) for the big bucks; in addition to test scores & gpa, they need to offer something else that the college wants that year, which maybe race, sex, geographic, intended major, low income, first gen, etc… IMO, that “average” candidate could ED to Columbia/Dartmouth to boost his/her chances for the better need-based aid, instead of holding out that 'SC will think them worthy of a full ride.</p>
<p>“The problem with the concept of “dream” school is that it is a false concept”</p>
<p>This depends solely on one’s point of view. We might be able to convince some students that their concept is false.</p>
<p>the “dream” schools"</p>
<p>Again, this depends on point of view. Some will think Ivies, others will think of the school that they want to attend above all others.</p>
<p>
And then if they do get in, and receive a financial aid award that falls short of their expectations, they have to make a decision as to whether to walk away or opt to pay more than they anticipated in the absence of any information whatsoever as to what their alternatives. Moreover, if their expectations as to financial aid, no matter how much they are grounded in economic realities, are deemed by their high school guidance counselor or the ED college to be unreasonable, they may find themselves practically shut out of applying to any other peer institution. </p>
<p>So their whole college application experience becomes like an episode of “Let’s Make a Deal” where they are holding a middling level, nothing-to-get excited about gift in their hand and have to decide whether to hang on to it, of give it all up in favor of whatever may or may not be behind the curtain. </p>
<p>And all because they have such a poor understanding of numbers and the college admission process that they have grossly misunderstood the level of admission boost, if any, that an ED application have given them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well sure, if you want to open all the curtains, i.e., compare offers, you should not apply ED. That’s a rather simple concept. But, of course that also means there is an increased probability, no matter how small, that the curtain at the “dream” college will not be open during RD. In other words, that ED school may not be an “alternative” in the RD round. That IS the “deal” and has always been the deal.</p>
<p>My intention was to suggest that the odds of winning the full ride (at Emory/Vandy/'SC et al) are even worse for the unhooked candidate than an ED acceptance from a generous need-based school. Applying ED to a generous need-based school can be a perfectly “fact-based rational decision”.</p>
<p>“Applying ED to a generous need-based school can be a perfectly “fact-based rational decision”.”</p>
<p>Yes, and it will be hard to convince someone who received an adequate ED FA package from their dream school that their concept was false.</p>
<p><a href=“http://bucknell.edu/Documents/Admissions/2013BucknellProfile.pdf[/url]”>http://bucknell.edu/Documents/Admissions/2013BucknellProfile.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lafayette.edu/admissions/2013profile.pdf[/url]”>http://www.lafayette.edu/admissions/2013profile.pdf</a></p>
<p>I read these profiles to show that sucessful early decision applicants had slightly lower scores than the class as a whole. The RD applicants and RD matriculants must have had higher scores. Lower SAT scores are less debilitating when going early at these places (without considering recruits, legacies, or full-pays.)</p>
<p>Schools are ranked in 30’s under LAC category by US News.</p>