<p>Does anyone have any numbers on the percentages of applicants who applied ED, got deferred, then were eventually accepted?</p>
<p>I got this from the official Dartmouth website:</p>
<p>For the class of 2013, approximately one third of early decision applicants were deferred, and 8% of those applicants were accepted in the general pool.</p>
<p>Thanks Ed! Didn’t see that on their site. Helps in trying to figure out a strategy if D gets deferred. I’d hate to advise her to wait then she ultimately doesn’t get in.</p>
<p>No problem! It was on Dartmouth’s Q & A site which you can find here: </p>
<p>[Ask</a> Dartmouth - Questions by Category](<a href=“Home | Dartmouth Admissions”>Home | Dartmouth Admissions)</p>
<p>1/3 of ED applicants are accepted so if your daughter is a qualified applicant her chances seem pretty good to me. Good luck to you and your daughter!</p>
<p>That ED acceptance percentage can be a little deceiving as many of those accepted are recruited athletes who are told to apply ED. Nevertheless, if Dartmouth is a strong first choice and your child has the requisite grades, scores, and recommendations, I’d highly recommend ED as acceptance percentage is still a bit higher even with the athlete issue. My child adored D and was accepted ED(and not an athlete).</p>
<p>I asked a infomation session guide a few days ago what the ED acceptance rate was when the legacies and athletic kids are taken out, and she said roughtly 14%. Big drop from the 35% that they advertise ED as. =/</p>
<p>Wow Bex – big difference! That’s definitely good to know. I may steer her for a more likely choice for ED. It’s like Deer Hunter – you’ve got one shot.</p>
<p>I suspect bex is making that up. Information sessions are led by admissions officers, who will never disclose information like that. If bex meant her tour guide gave her that info, take it with a grain of salt. Tours are led by students who don’t have the first idea about what percentage of regular candidates–if you can call them that–are accepted ED.</p>
<p>Grain of salt taken – thanks, Dartmouth Forever. Feeling better. She LOVES the school – location, size, D plan, students she met there. She’s on the cusp with scores, but in other ways seems like she’d fit (XC Captain, leadership positions, passionate about government) so I feel like it’s worth a shot.</p>
<p>Actually, the 8% acceptance rate of deferred ED applicants is not much worse that the RD acceptance rate for the class of 2013.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Au contraire. When asked, most admissions officers will respond with a politically-correct, but honest answer answer. For example, when I asked at a Dartmouth session, the regional adcom said that the ED acceptance was worth a “few percentage points” for the typical applicant who was not an athletic recruit, legacy or other special admit, i.e., the unhooked.</p>
<p>At Duke two years ago, the adcom was quite upfront, and that Duke shows ED applicants the love: ED is worth “ten” % points for unhooked applicants.</p>
<p>However, none of that answers the OP’s question. Approx 12 years ago, when Michelle Hernandez roamed the halls of McNutt, she wrote that the ED-to-RD acceptance rate was 5%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a hard time believing that, just because it’s impossible to (accurately) quantify what the boost is.</p>
<p>^^Huh? You calculate the acceptance rate for all the unhooked candidates who applied ED. Then you calculate the acceptance rate for all the unhooked candidates who applied RD. The difference (assuming the ED rate turns out to be higher) is the “boost.” What’s hard to quantify about that?</p>
<p>Applicants aren’t picked by probability. Thus, saying your “chances” are increased by 25%, 50%, or 100% doesn’t really mean anything in college admissions.</p>
<p>^^Do you really think that Duke, with one of the brightest bunches of folks around, can’t conduct a simple analysis? Or, Penn (which also loves ED). Or even Dartmouth? </p>
<p>Or, was the Duke adcom ‘fibbing’ to boost her applications?</p>
<p>Or how about the study that was published (by Harvard researchers) several years ago that demonstrated that ED was worth 100+ SAT points (old format) for unhooked candidates?</p>
<p>It ain’t rocket science…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/the-early-decision-racket/2280/[/url]”>The Early-Decision Racket - The Atlantic;
<p>It’s not a “simple analysis.” If it’s so simple, explain the methodology to me.</p>
<p>Sure, take out the recruits, legacies, and other hooked candidates. What are the SAT scores of the accepted unhooked students? Why were they accepted? The boost? Extraordinary ECs? Excellent LORs?</p>
<p>And how can one say that an applicant’s chances go up 10% if s/he applies ED? There are too many other factors – namely, that the ED pool is generally stronger than the RD one.</p>
<p>All this is to say that ED improves an applicant’s chances, but that boost cannot be * accurately and incontrovertibly * quantified.</p>
<p>^^So you are claiming that Hoxby et al at Harvard produced a poor study?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hoxby covered that, an an analysis of half a million students. </p>
<p>Again, are you suggesting that the Dartmouth adcom or the Duke adcom was just making up numbers? Mis-stating guesses/facts? What would be the value to them to give anything other than the politically-correct statement,‘there is no advantage to applying ED for unhooked applicants’? Why would they purposely fabricate a response when the PC is the best (if only it were true)?</p>
<p>btw: I suggest not making up strawmen (who said anything about “incontrovertable”?); that kinda of discussion may work in HS, but any D professor jump all over it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe that their study is fully accurate. No study can be in an admissions process touted for its subjectivity (i.e., “holistic review”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suggest learning how to spell “incontrovertible.” That kinda spelling may work where you’re from, but any D professor [will] jump all over it.</p>
<p>My point: Let’s refrain from the sass. We can throw it back and forth all day, but it doesn’t actually enhance the discussion.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with blue bayou that even factoring legacies and athletes your chances simply are higher and especially if you are qualified you probably get a fresher read from ADCOMS. Not saying its a huge advantage but if you think of it from any ADCOM perspective it seems obvious that they are looking for certain types of students and they still need to be in the bell curve but character issues like being a good FIT might be stronger in this pool as well-I mean you ought to choose a school you fit in best and you know as well as they do almost right? Assuming holistic is the operating term here it only stands to reason there should be an advantage on intangible issues especially.
Does study reflect the probability only for all applicants (sorry I know its been asked but did not see clear answer) or factor out legacies, athletes, and minority recruits. As I think those 3 categories might gain a favor equal to about 100 points on the SAT alone. But regardless, I think the fact that you make a school your first choice and you have stats that could get you into HYPS has to have an affect on the ADCOMS view of you. You have stated that you love and want to go to this college and they can be sure of filling up the baseline core of their next class with happy kids, who write good essays, whose peers show them to be great glue students that will help be the foundation for a great class. I think that this weighs on the entire enthusiasm of a class and so these ED applicants, especially the best ones, really deserve that advantage. I think the schools like HYP have decided to stop it because they realized that they can always get the pick they want and some claims of it favoring legacies etc. was made…and also favoring wealthier applicants especially as you do not need to wait to compare FA as much-even though you can back out if they do not provide enough for you to go…as much as I heart it confers no advantage I hear whispers that it does–and the whispers are not PC-they are likely informed opinions. The answer that taking out legacies and athletes its 14 percent does not sound like an answer one would have off top of ones head but if it is its confounding.</p>