I would need to go back to re-check, but I’m 95% sure that NU doesn’t change. Vandy was close to where they were (25%ish) and WashU was at roughly 30%. Keep in mind that these are still fairly small non-random samples. I think as a general rule with the need blind schools given similar scores/rigor/GPA, some will emphasize quality of ECs while others will lean more heavily on student narratives related to overcoming adversity. So they’re technically “need blind” but economic status can still be positively/negatively correlated to other aspects… in addition to test scores/GPA/courses I already set as equivalent in the screen.
With a non-need blind school, there is a decent advantage as a non-need student going RD. Some of the may be related to trying to control the aggregate aid award in a class. I also think a bit could be related to yield management to make constructing a class easier.
WashU is a good illustrative example. They aren’t need blind, although they are trending toward that goal under the new chancellor. Their aid is extremely generous compared to 99.8% of schools out there. Per NPCs, it is not quite as inexpensive as the Ivies, another 10 private universities and maybe 10 or so LACs. Students hunting for need often have much longer college lists than those without this concern. So if an applicant is chasing the very best financial package among a very long list of schools, the applicant probably can’t demonstrate interest as much. So the school may view that candidate as a highly unlikely yield target anyway.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the rates were very similar controlling for interest. Being unable to control for DI, quality of ECs, essay narratives, etc is why I caveated the actual percentages. That said, I do think there is an good overall theme to the numbers: if you are a competitive T20 type non-URM RD applicant looking for a spot outside of CS/engineering regardless of need consideration, your admit chances are probably 2-3x higher than a T20 school’s overall admit rate for the entire cycle. That won’t hold for certain schools (NYU should be more favorable than that, for example), but it does reinforce the concept that T20s should generally be considered reaches by everyone. Schools like Georgetown, Emory and USC may be legit matches. WashU may be a low match for non-need and/or high DI students. Vandy tends to be more strict with their quantitative metrics, so if you’re at the high end of the range unfiltered, that may also be a match. Naviance is a much better indicator if your school has a sufficient number of data points.
If an applicant is exclusively focusing on a combination of 7 Ivies+ SM + NU, JHU, Duke, UChicago, Rice among private national universities there is still a very good chance of a shutout. Emory, Cornell, Vandy (at certain metrics), Tufts, Georgetown, ND, USC and WashU (non-need and/or high Demonstrated Interest) are good acceptance “value picks”. If you’re going to apply to 10 total schools from either list above, it’s better to apply to 6-7 of the first 13 and 3-4 “acceptance value picks” that approximate matches than it is to throw all 10 of your picks into that first basket. Assuming you have a good fit with those schools of course. 3-4 from that second list may be able to create a single “safety in the aggregate”. UCs and schools like UMich depending upon residence can carry the same benefit.