<p>Considering freshman year, my GPA is a 3.2. Also, I am apply to top tier schools. Should I apply ED/EA to some of them, or apply RD so that my first semester senior year can raise my GPA?</p>
<p>Well…you said you are in one of the top 50 high schools. Colleges do consider the quality of your high school when looking at your GPA. Also, your other awards and ECs look awesome, so I’m sure you’d be fine applying ED/EA.</p>
<p>Princeton and Stanford both don’t look at Freshman year grades. Without them, your GPA is way better. You could do REA at Stanford, if you wanted, but you couldn’t apply early anywhere else (except for a state university, I believe).</p>
<p>Although Princeton and Stanford do not consider freshman grades, they are still on the transcript, and they play an important role in determing class rank. OP, your chance thread did not mention your class rank - if you are not in the top 10% of your class, your chances for top schools decrease significantly.</p>
<p>It is not true that P and S do not look at freshmen grades. Rank remains the number 1 most important factor at these schools. That they don’t use those grades in the equation when recalculating GPA is very different than not looking.</p>
<p>Frankly when you apply does not matter much at top schools.</p>
<p>Precisely. They may compute your GPA without freshman grades, but if you got two C’s and a handful of B’s freshman year, even if you maintained a 4.0 through the end of junior year, it’s highly doubtful that you’d be in the top 10% of your class. And for schools like Princeton and Stanford, being outside that magical 10% is an ominous sign that indicates your chances are very low, unless you attend a prestigious boarding school such as Andover or Exeter, or a renowned public school such as the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be the case for Stanford. But Penn, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown and several other top schools have Early Decision which, although not a huge boost, does offer a considerable advantage over RD applicants.</p>
<p>^Yeah, for schools not considering freshman year (i.e Stanford). On the subject of Stanford, I hear that the RD admit rate is higher than the EA admit rate. If this is true, than would it make sense not to apply EA?</p>
<p>Generally true, but that shouldn’t deter one from applying to Stanford SCEA if it’s their true first choice. If you would’ve been able to get in RD, you’ll almost certainly get in SCEA or get deferred, although there will be a small handful that prove an exception to that rule. Seriously, though; if Stanford’s your number 1, you’d best apply EA since it’s non-binding.</p>
<p>You can’t apply to Stanford EA if you’re planning on applying early to any other schools, it’s restrictive. So choose Stanford or the other schools you wanted to EA, not both.</p>
<p>But yeah, i don’t think your GPA will hinder all the other successes on your stats list. Go for it!</p>
<p>EA/ED admits at the ivies and Stanford include most of the recruited athletes, legacies, staff kids and development candidates. This is largely why the admit rate is so much higher.</p>
<p>These schools are not letting marginal students in because they apply early. It can be a boost for a highly qualified candidate in a crowded pool. Say an Asian top math kid from CA, or a high stats white candidate from a NYC prep school. In the RD round there will be so many who read just like them, good chance they won’t look as special.</p>
<p>As for rank being the number one factor, it always has been-it represents academic performance over 4 years in context. What could be more important.</p>
<p>I imagine that a candidate with a 2400 SAT score who is at the lower end of the top 10% of his or her class would have a significantly better chance at getting into Stanford than a candidate with a 2100 SAT score who is his or her school’s valedictorian. That being said, such a circumstance is very rare. Still, however, test scores are vital; class rank doesn’t matter if your scores aren’t up-to-par with other acceptees.</p>
<p>No. The 2400 kid is smart, but not a hard worker. That is not a recipe for future success and future success is what these colleges are looking for. Stanford would not take either of the students you describe, they have way too many applicants with it all that they have no space for and have to reject. But the last thing they would take a kid for is a high score, they are a dime a dozen at top schools.</p>
<p>Anyone who is in the top 10% of their class at a competitive public HS, public or private, is a hard worker. Granted, some are harder workers than others, but top schools would rather have semi-diligent kids who are brilliant than extremely diligent kids who are not brilliant. It’s a sad but true fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone with a 2400 on the SAT will probably have an easier time passing classes at Stanford than someone with a 2100. Hard work is very important, but once again, class rank is not the make-or-break factor that determines a person’s chances. Valedictorians and salutatorians may be helped out a bit, but as long as one is in the top 10% of his or her class, other factors will play just as important as a role in determining the decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt that even Stanford has enough 2400, Valedictorian applicants to fill their entire student body. My point is that other factors can play a role just as important, if not more important, than class rank. Who has a better chance; a kid ranked 10th in a class of 350 who won nationally in debate while serving as captain of a varsity sports team, or a valedictorian of that same class with mediocre EC involvement and no leadership positions? For Stanford, I would be very surprised if the latter was chosen over the former.</p>
<p>Top 10% at the vast majority of high schools is not what Stanford is looking for. They reject the majority of vals and 2400s and could fill several classes with very high stats kids. I think you don’t understand how competitive this is.</p>