<p>Why do some colleges strongly encourage ED, while others seem to play it down?
Some colleges will say that there is no real advantage of applying early, other than "knowing" early, even though the admissions data seems to imply otherwise.</p>
<p>for instance:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the class of 2011, CMC accepted 24.2 percent of its total ED applicants (including ED I and ED II). In contrast, CMC accepted only 14.9 percent of those students who applied regular decision. Although there is clearly a disparity in acceptance rates, Dean Vos rejects the notion that CMC discriminates in favor of early applicants
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is there a strategic reason behind this?
It seems pretty clear that due to the binding nature of ED, it is really only a good deal if it enhances one's admissions chances, or?</p>
<p>They are being honest. The numbers look better because they are admitting most of the hooked in that round–athletes, legacies, staff kids, development and children of the powerful and famous.</p>
<p>It does enhance the chances of some but many misunderstand who. At CMC, for example, they’ll grab unhooked kids during ED who they know can get into an ivy RD. Won’t they don’t do is take kids with lower stats than they would accept RD.</p>
<p>^ I think hmom5 is right that highly selective colleges accept a lot of “hooked” applicants ED, and that they won’t take unhooked applicants “with lower stats than they would accept RD.” But the reality is, even at the ED stage they’re interested in more than just legacies, URMs, athletes, development cases, and the famous or offspring of the famous… They also face the imperative to build a class that has the strongest possible academic stats; if they don’t, they’ll look weaker than their peers and competitors and lose ground in the overall competition. Consequently, while I don’t have the data to prove it, I strongly believe that if you’re in the top quartile of a school’s academic stats, it may very well be advantageous to apply ED. If you’re in the middle 50%, it may not help much if at all. If you’re in the bottom quartile, there’s little reason to think it will help you. But for those in the top quartile, they’d be foolish to turn away the very types of students they’d be scrambling to get at the RD stage, especially since by taking you ED they’re getting virtually 100% yield and building a solid statistical profile around which to fill in the rest of the class.</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree. Also for students that tend to be a little more “average” (but still in the top 50 percentile academic-wise) should have more advantages in admission than during RD. This is kind of personal experience, but I believe that say you are applying ED to U-Penn, you’re competition would be a little bit easier than RD, simply because people that have amazing stats wouldn’t want to apply to U-Penn, and would rather apply to the HYPS along with U-Penn during RD.</p>
<p>There are plenty of very high stats kids who want Penn over HYPS, you’d be surprised. And for the unhooked, the admissions rate is not a heck of a lot different, maybe 4% at HYPS vs. 8% at Penn. </p>
<p>The unhooked kids who benefit from applying ED are kids from very tough pools–white New England prep school kids, Asians from NY and CA, etc. who have high stats but a lot of competition from kids who read just like them. Another group that benefits is qualified URMs. </p>
<p>Yet so many believe ED at these schools gets you in with lower stats. It doesn’t.</p>
<p>Sounds like the consensus is that even if are really, really, really sure that a school is your #1 choice, and financial aid is not an issue, but you are unhooked and not top 25%, ED does nothing for you?</p>
<p>I don’t know of any college that “plays down” binding ED. They offer it for a reason: to lock in top kids who otherwise might be tempted to go elsewhere. Since it is a big benefit to the college, they like ED. And, if that same college is your absolute favorite college choice, then ED also offers a benefit to the applicant. Of course, the limiting factor is that the acceptee is unable to compare finaid offers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With this, I disagree. Of course, “lower stats” is all relative. Sure, ED won’t boost an unhooked 10th percentile candidate in the accept pile, but just may help out that kid at the 45th % (which, in my definition, is “lower”).</p>
<p>There is only one (dated) study of ED and it clearly showed that ED was worth ~100 SAT (old scoring range of 1600) points to unhooked applicants. EVERY adcom I have every spoken with admitted that ED admit rates were higher than RD for unhooked apps and that ED gives a “boost.” While that boost may only be a 2-3%, when the highly selective college admits 10% in RD, that 2% boost is in fact a 20% gain in chances!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Highly unlikely IMO, and experience. (Cal’s name is too big to pass up (and close to home) for ED twice the price unless its HYPSM – none of which offer ED.)</p>
<p>Let me clarify, my comments were about highly selective colleges.</p>
<p>At most, ED will help any applicant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This appears to be true at highly selective colleges, the ones that tell you ED doesn’t make a difference. There are of course exceptions as noted above and others–if you’re a 50th percentile kid from Alaska or otherwise meet a hard to find institutional need, they may well grab you.</p>
<p>So, to add to the confusion – can someone explain the strategy behind ED II – both for the college and the student?
Clearly, the binding nature works for the college. But doesn’t ED II only say one of two things about the student? Either they weren’t organized enough to meet the earlier deadline or they were reject by their ED I school.</p>
<p>Schools use ED in different ways. At the less popular schools, it’s a way of guaranteeing yield. Students also use ED in different ways. Some apply because it’s their favorite schools and others use it as a strategy to get into one of their top choices.</p>
<p>EDII is a way for colleges to manage enrollment and for kids who were not ready or hadn’t decided by EDI. No points for being organized enough to apply early.</p>
<p>If we knew what schools you were looking at and your stats, we could be more helpful.</p>
<p>I think if you look at schools that use ED II, they’re mostly schools that historically get a lot of students on the rebound from rejections at more selective schools. They’d never say so, but I think they expect they’ll get a lot of ED II apps from students for whom they may be the #2 choice and who will be happy to attend if they get rejected from their #1 choice on ED I. Yes, it’s a yield management tool for them, but it’s also a way to identify kids with a strong self-identified positive interest in the school. At many LACs that matters a lot. They want kids who genuinely want to be there, not those who are there only grudgingly because they got rejected from all their top choices. There as a second choice? Good enough, that kid is going to be grateful and happy to be there.</p>
<p>Whether ED helps the applicant or not is, IMO, largely a function of the admit rate of the school in question. HYPS-level schools don’t much care whether you really love them; they know they’ll win most cross-admit fights against everyone except their own small handful of peers. And they have the luxury to be just as selective at the EA or ED stage as later because to them applicants with top credentials are a dime a dozen. That’s probably why some schools at this level have eliminated ED and/or EA.</p>
<p>Just a notch down, it’s different. Schools at this level (roughly, the #7 to #25-ranked universities and most top LACs, possibly excepting 2 or 3) are in intense competition for top students, just as top students are in intense competition for admission to top schools. Athletes, legacies, and URMs aside, ED helps these schools manage yield, helps them identify the applicants who most want to be there, and most importantly helps them build the foundation for the statistical profile of the class they want. That’s why I say if you’re unhooked, ED probably helps you most if you’re statistically in the top quartile of students they’re likely to get (i.e., last year’s admitted class). In that case, your admission only helps them. But I agree with hmom5, it probably won’t help you much if your stats are middling or subpar for the school in question.</p>