<p>So qwerty11, you’re a legacy??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most students, parents, alumni and adcoms would disagree with that.</p>
<p>^You do realize a vast majority of the people accepted ED are either legacy or recruited athletes. Only a small percentage are unhooked.</p>
<p>^No, that’s not true at all. A majority of legacy applicants and an even higher majority of recruited athletes ED to Brown, but that does not mean that the ED pool itself is predominately hooked. These kinds of applicants still comprise a small subsection of all the EDers. </p>
<p>That’s not to say that there isn’t a certain degree of causation between EDing, however…</p>
<p>At the info session, they said percentage-wise, correcting for atheletes and everything, you have about the same chance ED as RD. However, remember the ED pool has less of the “extremes” in either direction. You don’t have so many people applying with like… idk 1500/2400 SAT but you also don’t have so many people who don’t want to tie themselves down because they have a good chance at HYP.</p>
<p>All specificslegacy, athleticsaside, one can conclusively say that you have a much better chance of acceptance statistically ED. I did some calculations today on ED data from last year:</p>
<p>Out of 2847 applicants for the class of 2014, 567 (19.9%) were accepted. 400 (14%) were rejected outright. </p>
<p>Assuming you love Brown enough to wait for acceptance, though, your overall chances are actually much higher as an ED applicant.</p>
<p>Brown states that an equivalent percentage of those deferred to RD are accepted as RD overall. They may be down-playing the advantage a bit, because they will undoubtably look at the fact that you applied ED, but let’s assume for the moment that, say, 190 (~10.1% of deferred) get accepted from ED deferrals. Not too impressive by itself.</p>
<p>Consider, then, the percentage of students offered a spot on the wait-list. In years past, it has been about the same as, if not a bit larger than, the number of students admitted. So once again, let’s assume that around 200 (~10.6% of deferred) are wait-listed. ************** cites a 15% acceptance rate off the wait-list for those that accept a position on the WL. This is fairly high for an Ivy, but Brown has one of the lowest yield percentages among them, so it is understandable. However, as applications soar, yield percentage will probably increase a good deal as wellbut let’s just cross our fingers and assume that by some miracle 15% of the WL is accepted (though once again, their applications will be stamped with ‘ED’, and therefore considered as passionate about the school). </p>
<p>If 15% of the 200 that were wait-listed (assuming they accepted a spot on it) are accepted, that means that an additional 30 students would be joining the class of 2015.</p>
<p>Quite a lot more than originally considered, right?</p>
<p>Let’s do the math here. If 567 were accepted ED, 190 were accepted RD, and 30 were accepted off the WL, that would be a total of 787. </p>
<p>787/2847 = 27.6%</p>
<p>Yeah. That’s right. The actual statistical acceptance rate for applicants who apply Early Decision is 27.6%. </p>
<p>Furthermore, if you are academically viable, and not rejected ED:</p>
<p>787/2447 (2847 - 400 rejected ED) = 32.1%</p>
<p>Therefore, if you have the grades to not be rejected ED, you literally almost have a 1 in 3 chance of acceptance ED. </p>
<p>Probably should have spent today working on my IB Extended Essay instead of that.</p>
<p>@ kennethkcy, yes i’m a legacy.
@ billabongboy9828, it wouldve been nice if u’d have chosen a lengthier nick cz really all i had to do to write urs was to chek it for errors about a dozen times. and i dont think many people here disagree with me, so i doubt that most students/parents will. there is simply no reason which could form the basis for one saying that applying ED increases an ‘average’ applicant’s chances. average here means an applicant who’s average by ivy standards.</p>
<p>@jjjjoseph: im sorry but your calculations dont seem very accurate. its not all that straight forward. it can not be surely said that, firstly, 10% of the defered guys are accepted in RD, and secondly, the students who apply ED are stronger applicants compared to RD applicants on whole so they have a better acceptance chance, but NOT bcz ED magically increases acceptance chances. which means that if they applied RD there would be a great chance that they’re accepted, if they were accepted in ED that is. the accepted ED students are legacies athletes and strong applicants. admission officers arent stupid that they’d chose weaker applicants from ED just because those guys applied ED and not RD. good applicants in the RD will be rejected for weaker applicants in the early decision, that is what you said without realizing. dont flare up though im not criticizing you, i just mean to say that you havnt got it right.</p>
<p>@qwerty Haha don’t worry, I’m not going to ‘flare up’ lol.</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying. However, the truth is—and this has been mentioned in a few posts before mine—that ED applicants are actually a bit less qualified than the RD applicants who are accepted. Imagine for a second that I am the perfect student, with qualifications that could get me into multiple ivies, and possibly Harvard, Princeton or Yale. Am I going to apply ED somewhere? No. Absolutely not. If I am an under-qualified legacy or athlete am I going to apply ED? Yes, for sure. So on the whole, ED applicants are not any more qualified; half of those accepted are legacy/athletes. You’re right in the fact that it isn’t any easier ED though. </p>
<p>However, I’ll defend my data. Brown, and many other schools, state that about the same percentage of deferrals are accepted from ED as are accepted overall. 9.7% were accepted overall. Is it that much of a stretch to assume that .4% more will be accepted?</p>
<p>Sure, my data is a lot of guesstimation, but it’s educated guesstimation. The point I’m trying to make is that we should consider the overall acceptance rate after every round of acceptance when looking at ED.</p>
<p>but will those underqualified legacy/athletes be accepted on the grounds that they applied ED? if they are accpeted it should/will be bcz they were a good fit in that university. but im getting your point too now, that whatever the applicant may be like, stats show that somehow if they apply ED they have a better chance of acceptance. this is strange.
lets say i appllied ED…
acceptance chance=567/2847=19.9/100. but some percentage of this is surely allocated to legacies and athletes. so acceptance rate for normal candidates would be like 15% i guess… which is more than avg for some reason…which is bad for RD people.
acceptance through deferal chance=66/100 x 10/100=6.6% only. so if defered you have a chance of acceptance which is 2/3 of the RD acceptance chance. and thats possible when u’ve beat the rejection chance of 14%. so if someone is unsure about their accpetance in ED then its better for them to apply RD.
for some reason i really want to take the average of 15%(normal candidate ED acceptance) and 6.6% which is 10.8%. thats equal to RD acceptance rate. so if my calcs are right, then theres no difference b/w ED and RD. although i have i no idea what taking that average means. maybe it means your net chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>i have a funny feeling that my post makes little sense.</p>
<p>Yeah… Huh?</p>
<p>I think I understand what you are saying kinda… Not really sure where you got the 6.6% though. I’m sure it’s higher than that for deferral acceptancesat least Brown says it is. </p>
<p>I’ll try to make sense of your post:</p>
<p>So lets just throw a number out there. Say 200 of those accepted ED are legacy/athletes. This would make the acceptance rate for non-legacy/athletes 13%367 applicants. </p>
<p>Assuming Brown isn’t lying about deferral acceptances (I seriously hope it’s not 6.6%), we could use my numbers from the last post, and say 190 are accepted from deferrals. </p>
<p>Plus the total accepted off the wait-listaround 20, for arguments sakewe come up with:</p>
<p>367+190+20 = 577</p>
<p>577/2847 = 20.2% </p>
<p>So if you aren’t legacy/athelete, the ED rate provided by Brown is fairly accurate. You’re right qwerty, I should have included the legacy/athletes issue in my original calculations. However, to make the data a bit more optimistic, let’s assume you aren’t rejected ED…</p>
<p>577/2447 (2847-400 rejected ED) = 23.5%</p>
<p>So that’s a bit more inviting than 19.9%, I guess. I wish we had data on the # of legacy/athletes accepted. That would help a lot.</p>
<p>the 6.6 comes from here: for getting accepted after being waitlisted you have to first get waitlisted. the probability for that is 1880/2847=66%. right? once uve achieved this goal, you move on to getting accepted and thus be one of those 190 applicants you mention. the acceptance rate for RD is 10%, and since now we’re competing RD we have a probability of acceptance of 10/100=10%. right?. now whats the probabilty of die 1 landing on 4 and die 2 landing on 5?, its 1/6 x 1/6=1/36. so the prob of getting defered and getting accpted is= 66/100 x 10/100=6.6%. right? :)</p>
<p>now assume we have a guy who we know is accepted and who applied ED. what we dont know is whether he got accepted directly or after being waitlisted. so we take the average of both chances, to find out his net chance = 13+6.6/2=9.8%. same as RD chance. considering 200 legacy & athletes are accepted(your idea), i rather thought they might be 100-150.</p>
<p>you cant quantify this because you will never know if a legacy was accepted because of their stats or because of their legacy…</p>
<p>we’re just assuming all legacies are just legacies and nothing else.:)</p>
<p>^ That’s arguably the most unfounded assumption I’ve ever seen being made. Sorry. </p>
<p>Less than a quarter of legacies are admitted to Penn. I’m assuming Penn’s peers (in this case, Brown) admit/reject legacies at a very similar rate.</p>
<p>this guy ‘’ 
‘’ was supposed to tell you that what i said was a joke…i have no idea why he didnt.</p>
<p>Querty & whatsgood –</p>
<p>In this house we are Brown 74 & Brown PhD 79, and a dau Brown AB '01, MS 03. </p>
<p>Older daughter was accepted early action; she graduated 2nd in her class and her SATs were 1590 (when you could only get 1600). She carried a Natl Merit Scholarship to Brown with her, and several others.</p>
<p>Yeah, she was a legacy but I think she was a strong candidate for the place and would have been anywhere else, too (was accepted at all schools to which she applied). They told us at that time that the legacy accept rate at B was 50%.</p>
<p>Younger daughter is looking at schools now & when we visited Brown I asked the legacy question. The AO told us that today the legacy accept rate is 36% and it only helps if “all other things are equal between two students” then the legacy thing winds up tipping the balance in favor of one of them.</p>
<p>So there is your answer – if a legacy is accepted at Brown, they were genuine competition for the rest of the applicants too. Sorry if you do not like the 36% rate as opposed to 9.6% for the rest of the applicants — do bear in mind that many of those 90.4% non-accepteds were not going to get into Brown no matter where their parents had gone. </p>
<p>And some of them are among the 64% of legacies who were not accepted.</p>
<p>
I don’t understand how you came to this conclusion. According to this, Brown only loses cross-admits to Harvard/Princeton/Yale among the Ivies: [The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html]The”>The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices)</p>