<p>I met the admissions director who said it did not impact how students are admitted. If this is true, why does the idea that ED gives an advantage if one has borderline stats persist? I tend to think ED may be easier at colleges that are concerned with rankings and yield, but I don't see Mudd as needing to play that game. Any experience or knowledge of different admissions criteria for ED at HMC?</p>
<p>I agree with you that ED for Mudd seems to favor Mudd more than the applicant. They know you are bound to attend, do not need to put any merit money on the line to get you, and don’t seem to have trouble getting good yield (in fact, last year they had more students accept than expected – this year I heard they came within one student of their planned yield). If you are full pay, they know you have to attend (no financial aid offer to review).</p>
<p>The State of the College Report for this year said “Regarding Regular Decision admits, there were 38 this year
compared with 52 as of April 25, 2013.” I don’t know if that means that only 38 out of 500 people were admitted regular decision, or that 38% were admitted regular decision. Maybe it means that 38 people had accepted the offer at this time as opposed to 52 last year. Either way, I’m guessing this means that fewer people are being accepted during regular decision than in past years. (?)</p>
<p>I asked the same question of the Admission Director. He indicated that they try to keep the admission rates between ED and Regular Decision pretty equal, but the fact that they can only compare the ED applicants with the previous year’s Regular pool makes it difficult to do so. In the end the ED folks tend to have a higher rate of admission, and I think this is backed up in their stats. Another factor he cited was that ED applicants are able to indicate the good fit with the college and make that case better than a lot of the Regular applicants. </p>