<p>I visited Miami University recently, and the rep. said that they're more lenient towards accepting students who apply early decision because this shows them that the student has dedication towards their school. I was wondering if this was the same for early action too. thanks :)</p>
<p>More than RD but not the same as ED. I mean ED is obviously the best indicator of commitment to a school you can get. Duke has something like a 40% ED admit rate but only a 16% RD admit rate. EA is less so though because obviously you can apply to as many schools EA as you wish. However it does show that you are very interested in the school since you completed your app early.</p>
<p>tl’dr yes EA helps, but not as much as ED.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Keep in mind that for highly selective colleges, most don’t care about showing interest and completing the application early.</p>
<p>EA does often have higher admissions rates than RD, BUT and it’s a very big but, EA helps the standout, tippy top applicants, not the average competitive candidate. The purpose of EA from the college’s POV is to get top students early so that they have more time to convince them to matriculate at their school. They select the applicants that they would accept in ANY pool of candidates, applicants that if they decide to apply to RD schools are likely to be accepted at other peer schools. Competitive, but not outstanding, applicants are deferred to the RD round where they can be compared within that larger pool of candidates.</p>
<p>^^ What entomom said also holds true for ED (self selective → higher acceptance rate). </p>
<p>Also, some colleges (such as MIT) have publicly stated that its harder to get in EA than RD. </p>
<p>However, as you get to less and less selective colleges, demonstrated interest does become a factor, and applying ED is the best way to demonstrate your interest.</p>
<p>The work of Avery <a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf</a> strongly suggests that at most colleges there is some benefit to applying EA although not as much as ED. There’s no real disadvantage either because if you are a competitive applicant you will get deferred early instead of being rejected so. Even if the standards were the same between rounds having your application go through twice is likely to be of modest benefit.</p>
<p>Even at places like MIT I don’t think you put yourself at a disadvantage be applying EA. MIT is pretty unusual in that it if X% of domestic applicants apply early then no more than roughly X% of acceptances will come in the early round. For example of domestic applicants applying in the 2010-11 cycle [international applicants must apply RD and are thus excluded] 46% applied early. 49% of acceptances were early another 15% were early applicants who were deferred and accepted in the regular round and 36% of acceptances were from RD applicants. Thus, the acceptance rate for early applicants was over twice the acceptance rate for US regular applicants. I’m not convinced that when you account for EA applicants getting admitted RD that there is no advantage to apply EA.</p>
<p>Etuck, you’re Duke numbers are quite a bit off (Duke now boasts ~12% acceptance rate).</p>
<p>Anyways it might confer a slight advantage, but not as big of an advantage as some EA acceptance rates would indicate. For example, both Harvard and Princeton had SCEA acceptance rates around 20%, but do not be fooled. The pools are very self-selecting for those schools early so while it may appear to be significantly easier in the early round for those schools, it really isn’t though that’s not to suggest that they don’t get a slight bump from applying early.</p>
<p>^
Yeah, I thought Princeton SCEA would give me an advantage. It didn’t.</p>
<p>Honestly, SCEA is a questionable tactic. Gives you no advantage and prohibits you from applying EA to schools you might have had a better shot at.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting that you cite a S study and then say this. Of HYPS, S is the one where relatively few EA applicants are deferred:</p>
<p>[Restrictive</a> Early Action : Stanford University](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/application/decision_process/restrictive.html]Restrictive”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/application/decision_process/restrictive.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another thing to consider is the status of the candidate’s application on Nov 1 vs. Jan 1. If first semester sr grades, additional testing, awards, etc. are a consideration, then the application may be stronger RD than EA.</p>
<p>The thing I find most interesting in these discussions is that students almost always consider early programs from their own POV, when it is the college Admissions Office POV that they really should try to understand. The reason colleges use early programs isn’t to benefit the applicant (although it can result in their benefit if accepted) but rather for enrollment management and financial purposes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I’d pick SCEA over ED any day. SCEA is simply ED with no obligation to go if your accepted.</p>
<p>SCEA should be one part of an overall application strategy. If you are not a standout candidate for the SCEA schools, then you may be better served by applying to multiple EA schools (if they fit your needs).</p>
<p>Thanks, everyone. I will be applying to Miami U, Indiana U and Illinois State (and a few others that I haven’t decided on yet), and I’m a strong candidate for all of these schools, so I think that applying EA wouldn’t be beneficial in my case.</p>