<p>The article shows that SCEA admissions at Yale has dropped slightly since last year when Yale saw a huge increase in early applications after it went from ED to SCEA. It also provides figures for Harvard and Princeton which both reported increases in the number of early applicants (SCEA at Harvard, ED at Princeton).</p>
<p>I'm not that surprised by those statistics. Princeton's adcom director is saying their apps are up due to making the app online for the first time. Perhaps that is the reason. But I think it may be partly due to two things...one is that last year, their application became available on the late side, later than any other app. Secondly, last year the "odds advantage" of applying ED at Princeton was quite significant over the RD odds there. That was NOT the case at Yale last year. I am sure anyone following such things who does not have a strong preference between Yale or Princeton, may have shot for Princeton this year because the ED admit rate last year there was really "good". Just my thoughts, nothing that can be proven.</p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>I think, though, at Princeton, your stats have to be very very good in order to get in ED. People in my son's school thought since the odds are 30% or so, then this works in their favor. It didn't. Only the top 2 students (2! ) got in out of the 15 or so submitted. I know it has been repeated many times before. I hope future applicants know that. After the remaining 13 were rejected/deferred/later rejected, there was a rumor circulated that Princeton does not like local boys and girls. These were top 2% students in our school (not so good but not bad either) . :)</p>
<p>Achat...
In my daughter's case, she was waitlisted at Princeton. Princeton wrote that they only had a couple hundred on that waitlist. The ED rate of admission last year at Princeton was (forgive me a year later I forget the stats so I am ESTIMATING from memory on this one) around 30%. The regular decision rate was 8.8% there. I tend to wonder given she made a fairly small waitlist from the RD round with such a low admit rate if she may have gotten in if applying early with a much more significant admit rate. There is no way to tell and it is just a thought. It does not matter one iota because she would not have applied to Princeton ED no matter how much better the odds were over Yale because Princeton was not her first choice school. I would say it was her fourth choice at the time. The "advantage" of applying EA at Yale last year was not too much over RD. They took about 16% in the early round and about 9% in RD. The early admit rate at Yale went way down last year from previous years when it was more like the one at Princeton. But last year Princeton's early admit rate was one of the highest of the Ivy league (not necessarily THE highest....I know Penn's is high). </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>Susan, yes, I get your point. I think your daughter would have gotten in at Princeton ED. Granted it wasn't her first choice and there is no point in wondering since she is happy with Brown. I was referring to the odds for people who are not first in their class, and I wonder if people understand that difference. In our school, people did not. Those stats are still misleading, in my view.</p>
<p>Achat, I agree how difficult it is to get in ED at Princeton and I do not think some people realistically view their chances at some of these elite schools.</p>
<p>In my mind (and I'm not an expert, my son only applied to one ivy and did NOT get in - Columbia), those stats for Princeton should come with the caveat " for exceptional scholars who would normally make the cut RD, there is a 30% chance they will get in if they apply ED. For all others there is almost no chance". If you accept that and still love Princeton, there is no harm in playing a $70-plus-a-lot-of-effort lottery. I could be completely wrong.</p>
<p>Many elite schools, including Princeton, repeatedly tell kids that the early admit pool is stronger than the regular pool. Some choose to listen and others do not. However, early applicants may be better "matches" for their early school, which can increase the admit rate. The Princton website actually states that consideration is given to early applicants to the extent that they have researched Princeton and decided that is is the best match for them.</p>
<p>It's actually a very clever way of assuring that a very large proportion of the entering class will not require financial aid, while at the same time maintaining the "need blind" fiction.</p>
<p>In the case of Princeton, it's also a way of jacking up yields to the level of their peer group, who have mostly dropped ED. (expecting flame).</p>
<p>Mini-- I can't comment on the entire Ivy League but I know at least two kids with very significant financial needs; one an ED admit at Princeton (who had no package to compare, obviously) and one EA admit at MIT (who had several packages to compare). Both had world class stats, national recognition in EC's, etc-- both sets of parents report how generous they found the schools. (even MIT which is not reputed to be that generous). I know you have a distinct point of view about how the elite schools don't support low income kids and I'm sure on a national basis you are right. However, when faced with very talented kids with high financial needs, I believe that most schools go to the mat to get those students.</p>
<p>I am not as cynical about you when the schools report on the strength of the early pool; I don't think it's a statistical myth. I'm alway surprised when the NY Times reports on the Intel semi's in December how many of those kids already know where they're going. Kids who've been to RSI (which is FREE) pick MIT early on; ditto for other schools who do extensive outreach with high school kids. No mystery that these cultivation efforts pay off when the tippee top of the applicant pool picks your school for their ED app.</p>
<p>This was NOT a comment on Princeton's financial aid, but rather on who applies (and hence might be accepted) ED. If a student is in need of substantial financial aid, it makes logical sense that students will want to compare financial aid packages (which, and I can speak from personal experience, can be VERY different - even given the same EFC -- at schools of equal academic caliber.) The likelihood is that there will be proportionately more perfectly well-qualified legacies and developmental admits in the ED pool. There is nothing wrong in that - it is just the way it is. (I'd run my school the same way, except I'd raise tuition prices.)</p>
<p>As to whether the students are stronger - well, if there is a correlation between SATs and ECs and ability to access more difficult curricula and income, of course they are stronger! What's the point?</p>
<p>To Princeton's defense, they have a financial aid calculator on their web site which is pretty accurate and can be tested long before the ED application is due. If someone needs financial aid, can live with the amount Princeton's web site says will probably be awarded and has outstanding credentials, then I think that student should apply ED thereby giving up his 'shopping advantage.' Princeton's leadership in "no loans" financial aid indicates they are extremely progressive in meeting financial need. Finally, read The Early Admission Game. The facts indicate the ED pool is on average very similiar to the RD pool and the higher admission rate (albeit still rejecting over 2/3 of the applicants) is real and should be considered by all applicants with or without financial need.</p>
<p>My comment had nothing to do with whether they should or should apply ED, nor whether the financial aid would be competitive or not. Rather it describes actual behavior. That this behavior allows Princeton to find a ready pool of full-fare customers is just a side benefit. Princeton needs NO defense, and certainly not from me - it is their money and they can do with it what they like, and the percentage of Pell Grant recipients speaks for itself.</p>
<p>"If a student is in need of substantial financial aid, it makes logical sense that students will want to compare financial aid packages"</p>
<p>My comment are directed to this remark not their Pell Grant ratio. In sum, if an applicant has extraordinary qualifications and can live with the tentative Princeton award, I think they should apply ED and realize some admission odds advantage. Therefore, I don't think it is not 'logical to compare financial aid packages' as you state if the applicant's heart is set on a shot at Princeton (or for that matter most other HSCs) and can live with the ballpark grant quote.</p>
<p>I kinda agree with wsox. While conventional wisdom says if you need financial aid, you should not apply Early as you cannot compare financial aid packages. However, with Princeton, there is the estimation in the online quote, plus they are generous insofar as they do not use loans and uses grants instead so it is likely going to be a better package than elsewhere in that regard. </p>
<p>In my daughter's case, financial aid did not preclude an early application. She did not end up attending the colleges that gave her the most aid or even the second or third most aid. We needed financial aid but still let her pick whichever school she liked best and so much of it is loans anyway, which means much of it we are still paying one way or another. She had one free ride, one half ride, one substantial scholarship, and others various degrees of aid packages, though aid of some sort at every school. </p>
<p>It turned out she did not apply ED to any school as she was not ready to commit but applied SCEA to one of her first choice schools. So, in one family's case, applying early did not preclude applying for financial aid (we would have let her apply ED some place if she wanted to). I believe there are plenty of kids who apply ED who also apply for financial aid. I realize it is easier for kids who do not need aid to apply ED but still, others apply early who do need aid.
Susan</p>
<p>Another point on ED. For a reach app of a multi-dimensional person with excellent essays, a stong and well-informed desire to attend the school, and a reasonable "median" record-- perhaps even someone who has mitigating factors that "explain" an imperfect record-- it may be a benefit to get a very careful reading of app in ED or EA as opposed to a fast, exhausted, cursory read later during the deluge. At least I hope this is true!! </p>
<p>For example, my D is definitely not a shoo-in at her #1 school but is certainly basically in the ballpark... SATs of about 35%M and 65%V for school, class rank in upper 15%, grades OK, but excellent ECs, very good (IMHO) essays, and specific circumstances that make flaws in record more understandable (& whole record more impressive.) She also fits school very well on maturity, integrity, etc, and I think her teachers recs would reflect this.</p>
<p>It could be she's the type where a careful read would mean a more favorable impression. She'll need to be admitted as a "whole person" and not on stats alone...</p>
<p>Achat:</p>
<p>"People in my son's school thought since the odds are 30% or so, then this works in their favor. It didn't. Only the top 2 students (2! ) got in out of the 15 or so submitted."</p>
<p>How do you know such detail about the applicants coming out of your son's school? Just cruious.....</p>
<p>In The Dartmouth Online this week there is an article that ED applications dropped by 9.1%</p>
<p>Dean Furstenberg criticizes the SCEA process</p>
<p>Correct link at </p>
<p>"I believe there are plenty of kids who apply ED who also apply for financial aid. I realize it is easier for kids who do not need aid to apply ED but still, others apply early who do need aid."</p>
<p>I believe that, too. It's an obvious truth. But "plenty" is not "proportionate" (nor should it be, with legacies and developmental admits more heavily weighting the ED round - I think they SHOULD admit legacies and development admits at a higher rate, and they do). I am not at all here suggesting what folks "should do", but what they, in fact, actually do. That it aids Princeton (or other places) in limiting the amount they end up having to give out in aid (since they know how much of it has already been allocated) is just a side benefit.</p>
<p>If you believe that the aid calculators are reasonably close to being accurate, I guess there is no problem. Our personal experience was that the differences in both totals in aid packages, the amount of loan included in it, the workstudy expectations (and what the work consisted of), and the summer contribution proportion varied very, very widely among academically similar 100% of need schools, with total differences amounting to more than a full year's tuition, room and board (for us $48k low to high, with differences in loan amounts from $0 to $17.9k, with workstudy ranging from washing dishes to a research assistantship in the first two years, and really, really massive differences in the extent to which financial aid carries over to JYA from school to school.) All based on the same submitted EFC and same FASFA. </p>
<p>Knowing what I do now, if I needed substantial aid, I'd feel like a total jerk applying to only one "need-blind" (doesn't exist) 100% of need school, unless I was sure I was prepared to live with whatever was going to be offered.</p>