<p>There are still a finite number of slots that the college is going to allot to its ED applicants, and it in the college’s interest to accept the best students from the ED pool, not the weakest. So unless the ED pool is overall substantially weaker than the RD pool, the students who are going to get accepted ED are the ones who are either hooked or are in the strongest segment of ED applicants. </p>
<p>“Strongest” does not necessarily mean “highest test scores”. The test scores are probably the least relevant piece of data we could be looking at to make any sort of judgment about the quality of the applicant. Many applicants have stronger test scores than grades, and early appliers with any sort of weakness in GPA are likely to be deferred to the RD round so that the college can see their midyear transcript, no matter how strong their test scores.</p>
<p>calmom - According to the Atlantic article (admitedly dated) cited by Dadinator in Post #141, the reported study concluded that ED definitely improved the chances for unhooked, weaker students. And it at least implies that the very students that you say have the least chance (“highest test scores”) may in fact have the best chance because those scores are reported by USN&WR whereas GPA is not. If a school wants to move up in the rankings, ED is perfect, especially if combined with a large waiting list in the RD round.</p>
<p>If the goal was to move up in the rankings by accepting high scorers in the ED round, then the college would tend to accept the highest scorers in the pool – so unless you believe that the ED pool has overall substantially weaker scores-- you are still left with the reality that it is not in the college’s interest to accept weak applicants over stronger ones.</p>
Ah, but yield is also a factor in U.S. News rankings (IIRC), so accepting many students- even ones with slightly worse stats than the usual- may help their ranking, as 90%+ of ED students will attend.</p>
<p>as blossom eloquently states, I think a major distinction needs to be made between those highly selective schools that are commonly discussed here on CC and the ones below that both for national, public, private, LAC’s etc in reference to ED advantages.</p>
<p>Attended junior night at daughter’s school last night…all three college reps made it VERY clear that ED has an advantage at their schools…for the unhooked applicant…if anyone would like to know which schools these were, please PM me; I’ll clear my inbox…</p>
<p>just don’t think it’s appropriate to publicly post…</p>
<p>The reps did not discuss full pay…but I actually think that one of them gaps to 100% if I’m not mistaken…(not a school on my daughter’s list)
they were NOT from highly selective schools…but not “chopped liver” either if you know what I mean…?</p>
<p>Yield has been removed from the USNews equation a long time ago. OTOH, yield might have an impact on the school reputation, including its financial reputation in the bond market or with alumni. </p>
<p>PS Yield is the ratio of enrolled students over admitted students. Harvard combines an extremely HIGH yield and an extremely low admission rate. USNews only tracks the admisson rate for its selectivity index.</p>
<p>I have been told the same thing from every college session that I have attended and the school offered ED. (Obviously, I didn’t attend them all!). And, I’ve posted names before – it’s not a state secret.</p>
<p>But yet, I’m struck my calmom’s apparent logic…</p>
<ul>
<li>Thus, are the reps lying in these sesssions? (Perhaps to boost applicants?)<br></li>
<li>Is the one study – which clearly showed that ED was worth 100 STA points to the unhooked ED applicant – fabricated? (Isn’t Prof. Avery at Harvard?)</li>
<li>Since any ED advantage is politically-uncorrect, why would a school say there is one when there is not?</li>
<li>If the school’s goal is to lock in full-payors, then is it an advantage to be house-poor and apply ED, i.e., live in a nice 'hood (so the adcom thinks you could be full pay and thus, receive an ED boost), but yet you are not full pay so receive need-based aid?</li>
</ul>
<p>Or, perhaps a college can and does accept some sub-median stat apps during ED bcos they know with certainty they will receive some of the high-state HYP/Williams/Amerherst/Pomona/CMC left-overs during RD.</p>
<p>BB, this might be a case of being misinformed versus deliberately lying. Haven’t we discussed how many of the information sessions are conducted by the most junior adcoms who have not learned the nuances of the trade yet. Also, there is a (huge) difference in answering questions that need to address an audience in general and an individual case.</p>
<p>Is the one study – which clearly showed that ED was worth 100 STA points to the unhooked ED applicant – fabricated? (Isn’t Prof. Avery at Harvard?)</p>
<p>Christopher Avery is indeed at Harvard’s KSG. The study was not fabricated and has been partially updated with newer numbers. More remarkable is that there is not a single study that could contradict the conclusion of AFZ. Of course, it would hard to deny the validity of an examination of more than 500,000 applications to 14 elite colleges and hundreds of interviews with students. </p>
<p>However, it is important to underscore the differences between schools that have switched to restrictive early action or dropped ED altogether and the remaining ED schools. For the highest ranked schools, some of the conclusions of Avery have lost their relevance. </p>
<p>**Since any ED advantage is politically-uncorrect, why would a school say there is one when there is not? **</p>
<p>Because the schools that tend to get a lot of press are not necessarily lying when commenting on the strength of their applicants. Also, it is a given that they can and do use reports that are controlled for certain factors (athletic admission for instance.)</p>
<p>OTOH, aren’t we used to schools saying something and doing something else? Schools have lauded the benefits of diversity for decades (or centuries in the case of Harvard) but yet maintain policies that clearly undermine the increase of diversity at their school (ED being one.) And when it comes to diversity, aren’t we too focused on racial diversity? Compare the admission of about 3% of applicants (at highly selective schools) from the lower SES quartile to the percentage of blacks and hispanics? </p>
<p>Xiggi - But, if the school takes a large percentage of its applicants at ED, very few at RD and then puts a large number on the waitlist, it can carefully select those waitlisted students who are willing to commit to the school from the waitlist thereby boosting both its yield and selectivity. I have heard that WUSTL used something similar to jump in the rankings back when yield was a factor and that Penn uses something similar today. And Penn is very upfront about the necessity to apply ED if you want to take advantage of your legacy boost thereby increasing their ED pool and placating most of their alums.</p>
<p>Oh, I do not disagree with your example that fits the practices of many schools, especially famous Southern schools that are obsessed with cracking the sub-20% admit rate. I was only pointing out that yield is no longer a metric measured by USNews. </p>
<p>So reps from a need-aware school that is relatively easy for qualified applicants to get into, tells students and parents that there is a big “advantage” to students who will apply to a binding early admission program?</p>
<p>My point is that some healthy skepticism of what sales representatives say is in order. </p>
<p>Some colleges are hungry for students; they have a hard time rounding up full payers and may be under-enrolled. Yield IS very important to those schools, not because of rankings, but simply to be guaranteed an adequate number of students for the coming year. They have every reason to push for more ED applicants.</p>
<p>when the SoCal rep from Duke, who has been in the job 3+ years (and an alum who worked/volunteered in admissions while an undergrad), publicly states in an open forum that ED is worth approximately “10 percentage points” for the unhooked, would you conclude that she is:<br>
a misinformed rookie;
represents an ED school that is no longer “relevant” to Avery’s conclusions; and,
well, sorry, I don’t understand your third point.</p>
<p>BB, you’re talking about Duke? I can see how my comment about the highest ranked school was unclear. Fwiw, I think that Duke is a school that could be the poster child for Avery’s conclusions. Then and today!</p>
If there were another goal…</p>