<p>Again, these numbers have little to do with chances of admittance, because the ED applicants are highly self-selected.</p>
<p>Is that speculation?</p>
<p>the best way to know whether ED improves your chances at a particular school is to just ask someone on the adcom. you can email them. My experience is that they’ll reply quickly and with a good answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like vossron said, the percentages (especially EA) tell you little about the actual ease of getting in in each round. At Yale and Stanford, early pools tend not only to be self-selecting but to include legacies, athletes, and other hooked applicants. The average applicant is not doing himself any favors by applying early SCEA or EA at selective schools.</p>
<p>My thought was that ED and SCEA are the only ways where you might increase your odds. Those two programs are binding so they increase yield so some schools admit kids with lower stats that way, including athletes, legacies, etc., and at some schools also non-hooked folks with lower stats. on the other hand EA is nonbinding, just an accelerated calendar. I wouldn’t think applying EA would change the odds at all. I haven’t asked taht particular question of an adcom though.</p>
<p>The “Common Data Set” that many schools publish includes this item:
</p>
<p>Unless “Not Considered” is checked, applying ED probably increases your chances (at least somewhat) over applying RD.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SCEA is not binding and, once again, does not help your chances at Stanford and Yale (unless you’re a recruited athlete, legacy, or URM)</p>
<p>This is so much speculation. Self-selecting? What does that even mean?</p>
<p>“Self-selecting? What does that even mean?”</p>
<p>Think of it this way: At RD time, a student can send as many “reach” applications as s/he wants; this lowers the acceptance rate of these “reach” schools when the student is rejected. But at ED time, only one app is sent, and many (but not all) students want to finish the process “early” so they apply ED to a school where they have a good chance of being admitted: they “select” for themselves a “match” school. So for a given school, the lower proportion of “reach” applications at ED time can make it look like the ED acceptance rate is higher than the RD rate, but for a given student, the chances can actually be the same.</p>
<p>@sonicmagealpha- I don’t know the particulars of the stats from ED/RD at Cornell, so I can’t say for sure. But from what I’ve seen, there are 2 kinds of people who apply ED at Cornell. Those who are very motivated, with excellent stats and scores. But there are also those (with average stats) who believe they have a better shot at getting in ED. </p>
<p>So I’d say that given this situation, your chances will still be slightly better in the ED pool.</p>
<p>The RD acceptance rate at Cornell is 17%. The ED acceptance rate is 37%. That’s an extreme difference. I would attribute it to, as vossron said, the fact that people tend to apply to match or low reach schools ED rather than their real reachs. Apply ED to a high reach is obviously a waste of time, but in the RD round Cornell likely gets a ton of barely-qualified applicants. There simply aren’t enough legacy students and athletic recruits to boost the acceptance rate that much at a university of that size. On the other hand, the number of people for whom Cornell is a “match” is very low and the large majority are probably shooting for the top schools in the country. So, this extreme distortion with Cornell is kind of hard to explain.</p>
<p>ED demonstrates interest and guarantees that you will matriculate if accepted. Those who are trying to get into the best possible school generally wait till RD and try the shotgun approach, or try non-binding (EA) early programs at schools on their list. This, coupled with legacy/URM/hooked applicants, means that the (SC)EA pool are often more competitive than RD pools. </p>
<p>But ED is often less competitive because the “shotgun” kids aren’t applying. ED is a great way for the statistically qualified but unremarkable-EC applicant to make his application stand out against more. It is a way for the qualified to increase their chances; the unqualified, however, need not apply.</p>