Based on last year statistics of the schools that haven’t reported ED data, there are probably a handful of schools that may have lower ED acceptance rates than Brown (+/- 2%): Columbia, Cooper Union, Harvey Mudd, Pomona, and Rice. Note, that the acceptance numbers seem to decrease from December reported numbers to Final spring reported numbers, which suggests that the schools that don’t report in December get a bump in their numbers in comparison to schools that do report in December. You’re comparing apples to oranges somewhat.
@8bagels, any source for this information? I could not find any public release by Amherst on ED.
It’s on their webpage - I think discussed in the most recently issued “President’s Message.”
How about any news on Wesleyan (CT).
Nope, Wesleyan doesn’t publicly release any of their ED statistics. From the profile of last year’s entering class (class of 2019), it says that they accepted 370 out of 960 ED1 and ED2 applicants for a 38.5% acceptance rate.
@jman457 I believe Wesleyan ED is heavily weighted towards legacies.
All ED pools are weighted toward legacies and athletes, but probably relatively less so at Wesleyan. Wesleyan fills about half their class through ED, but only has 7% of students who are alumni children, which is much less than other groups such as URMs (24%), first-generation students (17%), and internationals (14%).
https://www.wesleyan.edu/admission/facts_faces/Class%20of%202019%20Profile%20-%20August.pdf
how is early decision disadvantageous to low income students? @HRSMom
Bc it is binding and does not allow them to shop around for the best financial aid. @itshalimathenerd
@itshalimathenerd it’s also disadvantageous in the sense that it’s easier for students who don’t need FA to use it. Especially with schools like Northwestern or Williams that fill about half the class through ED. So half the spots are already taken by the time the low income student applies RD.
Stanford was brutal
Re-posting all the current reported data that we have. Nothing has been release recently, but I expect some more schools will come out with information through the school newspaper as the schools get back into session this month.
MIT EA 656 out of 7,767 (8.4%) (4776 deferred=61.5%) (2175 rejected=28%)
Stanford REA 745 out of 7822 (9.5%)
Georgetown EA 892 out of 7027 (12.7%) (remainder deferred=87%)
Harvard SCEA 918 out of 6173 (14.9%) (4673 def=75.7%) (464 rej=7.5%)
Yale SCEA: 795 out of 4662 (17.1%) (53% def) (29% rej)
Princeton SCEA 785 out of 4229 (18.6%)
Brown ED 669 out of 3030 (22.1%) (1905 def=62.9%) (456 rej=15.0%)
Penn ED 1335 out of 5762 (23.2%)
Duke ED 813 out of 3455 (23.5%) (1663 def=19.2%)
Dartmouth ED 494 out of 1927 (25.6%)
Notre Dame EA 1610 out of 5321 (30.3%) (818 def=15.4%) (2893 rej=54.4%)
Johns Hopkins ED 584 out of 1929 (30.3%)
Northwestern ED 1061 out of 3022 (35.1%)
Williams College ED 246 out of 585 (42.1%)
Davidson College ED 207 out of 458 (45.2%)
Middlebury College ED 338 out of 636 (53.1%) (74 def=11.6%) (224 rej=35.2%)
University of Georgia ED 7500+ out of 14516 (51%+)
Georgia Tech reported their EA stats, see link below. 4424 out of 14,861 (record # of applicants), 29.8%
Ave scores of accepted candidates: 33 ACT/1453 (out of 1600)–that is surprisingly high to me.
http://www.news.gatech.edu/2016/01/09/number-early-action-applicants-hits-record-high
Thank you, adding GA Tech:
MIT EA 656 out of 7,767 (8.4%) (4776 deferred=61.5%) (2175 rejected=28%)
Stanford REA 745 out of 7822 (9.5%)
Georgetown EA 892 out of 7027 (12.7%) (remainder deferred=87%)
Harvard SCEA 918 out of 6173 (14.9%) (4673 def=75.7%) (464 rej=7.5%)
Yale SCEA: 795 out of 4662 (17.1%) (53% def) (29% rej)
Princeton SCEA 785 out of 4229 (18.6%)
Brown ED 669 out of 3030 (22.1%) (1905 def=62.9%) (456 rej=15.0%)
Penn ED 1335 out of 5762 (23.2%)
Duke ED 813 out of 3455 (23.5%) (1663 def=19.2%)
Dartmouth ED 494 out of 1927 (25.6%)
Georgia Tech EA 4424 out of 14861 (29.8%)
Notre Dame EA 1610 out of 5321 (30.3%) (818 def=15.4%) (2893 rej=54.4%)
Johns Hopkins ED 584 out of 1929 (30.3%)
Northwestern ED 1061 out of 3022 (35.1%)
Williams College ED 246 out of 585 (42.1%)
Davidson College ED 207 out of 458 (45.2%)
Middlebury College ED 338 out of 636 (53.1%) (74 def=11.6%) (224 rej=35.2%)
University of Georgia ED 7500+ out of 14516 (51%+)
Hello, does anyone know why certain colleges do not release their ED stats until long after applicants have been notified or as in the case of Rice, for instance, which doesn’t report their ED stats until they report their RD stats? I’m quite sure that was the case last year with Rice. spayurpets, I saw where in one of your posts you stated that those colleges who report ED stats after December get a bump in their numbers. Sorry to be dense here, but could you explain that? Thanks.
@Maximilias I believe too much transparency could be bad for some colleges as students could interpret the data certain ways and learn of how they could maximize their chances of admission at specific schools. In some cases too much transparency could show that certain students are admitted with very low scores or that top scoring students aren’t admitted at the highest rate. This could lead to a lot of criticism of the admissions process. I have a pdf of Cornell’s class profile for the class of 2017 were it clearly showed the admit rate by test scores and gpa. Students with a 34+ or a 2200+ has a +30% chance of admission or more than double the mean admit rate. For some reasons in recently published class profiles Cornell no longer shows these stats but gives more generic statistics on the percentage of students matriculated with specific score ranges.
If a student learns that he or she has a 33% admit chance at Cornell for their test score or gpa(34+/2250+) then they may not be as committed to the university and perceive it as being less selective. That is why top schools aren’t as transparent and in this case don’t release their admit rates because they know how the data would be interpreted and how they’d be perceived. That is why it serves the colleges well to be less transparent(especially ivies).
I agree with @ali1302, in that the selective schools that don’t report may not want to participate in the “gaming” of the admission systems that students and their parents and advisors perpetuate. It is in the interest of the schools to show that the admissions process is fair, and that all applicants are treated equally. Reporting statistics that show a disparity between the early applicants and the regular decision erodes the trust in the system.
For a school like Rice, they have good statistics that show they are very selective so it should be something they’d want to crow about in press releases, etc… But reporting the stats once create expectations the next year and the next year after that–is the school getting more selective? is the selectivity higher than Harvard or other peers? why did the school acceptance rate go up by 2% this year and on and on. You start to get pressured to play the game. I won’t fault a school that decides it doesn’t want to get on to this treadmill of competition.
Well, I should have caveated that my statement was just speculation, but I noticed that for a lot of the ED schools that report early their EA or EA stats, their number of accepted go down by the time the final stats come out in the spring, sometimes by just a few, but sometimes by more. I don’t know how that happens; maybe some accepted students are released from ED because they beg out of it for financial reasons or a misunderstanding; maybe some decide to take a gap year, and the school takes them out of the ED stats; maybe some are bounced in the spring because of bad grades or disciplinary reasons; I don’t know. (We know that there is “melt” between the RD decision deposits and fall enrollment, and I would guess there is also some melt between ED and the spring.) But based on this, I was speculating that the ED acceptance rate may tend to go lower, the longer the school waits to finalize their numbers. The spring reconciliation of the numbers may result in a lowering of the ED/EA acceptance rate by 0.5-1.0%, and schools may want to wait to put their best foot (lowest acceptance rate) forward.
Ali1302 and spayurpets, thank you so much for explaining that to me and shedding some light on this process. Very interesting. I suppose that explains why admission officers say that grades and scores aren’t everything and that a number of more subjective factors are often at play. And though they try to make it sound like the admissions process is a very judicious process, it’s all rather a black box, isn’t it?