<p>Well, this is relative to RD, not relative to other applicants in the EA round. Applying REA doesn’t make you more competitive than the other applicants who also apply early. Rather, you’re supposed to have a slightly better shot applying early than you would applying regular decision. Supposedly, RD doesn’t demonstrate as much commitment to Stanford as does REA (this is true if you’re comparing matriculation rates from admits in the REA and RD rounds). According to the admissions officer with whom I spoke, because applying REA means Stanford is your first choice, the adcoms will look slightly (and I mean VERY slightly) more favorably on you than if you applied RD.</p>
<p>Now, personally, I’m not really inclined to believe her statement. I mean, Stanford’s yield is one of the highest in the country, so I can’t imagine they’re terribly concerned about commitment. But, there you have it. That’s just what I’ve been told.</p>
<p>Binding early decision is a boost at most schools, given the applicants’ absolute committment (although at top tier schools, the early pool is quite strong). Non-binding early action is nice if you get it (fewer applications to complete), but at S. is a paltry boost if any; if ED/EA is being used strategically, save it for an elite institution where it will count.</p>
<p>Having watched Stanford admissions for a while, I’d answer this question: It depends.</p>
<p>Just my collected observations, but:
I think the Stanford admissions people want to make decisions about a relatively small number of students during EA. They are interested in recruited athletes (obviously). EA apps may also work well for strong students (scores + GPA + EC’s) coming from high schools where Stanford gets a number of strong applicants and (often) knows the GC’s. This would be (for example) Paly and Gunn in CA, others in CA I am not familiar with, maybe New Trier in IL, etc. EA may work well for those with a “hook,” although Stanford legacy probably does not count as a hook EA. Completely knock-your-socks-off applicants will do well EA. But they really have to be in that category. Students from states that are under-represented at Stanford may do well EA (but there are no such states in the East or Midwest).</p>
<p>Stanford does not appear to run EA–in my neck of the woods, anyway–the way that Yale does and Harvard used to. Princeton, which used to have ED, was in a somewhat different category.</p>
<p>In particular, Stanford rejects many students EA, including some whom I think would have had a realistic chance RD. A run-of-the-mill-outstanding applicant (by which I mean 2400 SAT I, 2400 SAT II, 36 ACT, 4.0 UW GPA, AP National Scholar + post-AP University courses + state-level awards + varsity sports + good-but-not-Pulitzer-prize-winning essays) is–in my opinion–better off applying RD.</p>
<p>Also, for what it’s worth, if you are deferred EA, Stanford may tell you that they want to see your first semester grades senior year. However, don’t count on all A’s in AP courses + university courses to tip the decision in your favor.</p>
<p>Just an additional comment: Stanford admissions has posted (somewhere) the opening lines of a few essays they really liked. If you read them and then think about what they have in common, I believe that you can actually boost your chances (assuming that writing in that mode is authentic to some part of you).</p>
<p>^+1 to QuantMech’s post #25. That’s what I was trying to convey about REA, but QuantMech did it more completely and eloquently. Prospective applicants would be well advised to heed QuantMech’s description of a well-qualified, but not knock-your-socks off candidate, since every year it seems that many hopeful students conflate the former with the latter, with disappointing results. (BigMike has made this point as well on several occasions.) Wonderful stats, in and of themselves, plus the usual EC’s, won’t put you over the top in REA–there needs to be a substantive “plus”, which can take a wide variety of forms. (Legacy status usually isn’t that type of “plus” in REA, though it surely won’t hurt and might be a bit of boost in RD; I don’t think it’s much of a boost there either lately, judging from all the cranky rejected legacies and their parents who have posted in this forum in recent years.)</p>
<p>In retrospect, I wish I would’ve applied RD. Unless you are a recruited athlete, national level honors/award winner I would apply RD unless you feel 100% confident in what you have.</p>
<p>tenor, I bet you’re going to have an amazing time at CMC. I’ve met lots of people who either go there or to another college in the Claremont Consortium and they have been extremely happy with their experiences.</p>
<p>thanks! I’m VERY VERY excited. It all worked out for the best!!</p>
<p>Also in retrospect, I’m glad I’m going to a liberal arts college, especially b/c I’m going pre-med so I can have more opportunities with research and getting to know my professors and having a bond with them. Stanford Medical School look out =)</p>
<p>I love all these silly discussions about EA/RD. Everyone has an opinion, and no one can support it. I’d be very interested to see statistics that support one side or the other (or even inconclusive stats), but no one has them. (zenkoan: What you posted does not count.) In fact, I’m guessing hard statistics will be hard to come by due to the very nature of holistic admissions.</p>
<p>So given the lack of stats, here are two things that I have been told multiple times by an admissions officer:
Stanford holds applicants to the same standard in both rounds.
SCEA is for those students who are certain that Stanford is their first choice.
(I take 2 to imply “regardless of qualifications”; you may disagree.)</p>
<p>Until someone can convince me otherwise, I will assume (1-2) to be true.</p>
<p>im just gona give my advice not to try to use EA as a strategy at stanford unless you are a recruited athlete. apply REA if you want to. its your choice</p>
<p>True–in practical terms, you can use it even if you’re not sure. But I’m just repeating the recommendations from admissions. (For the record, I may have the tone or wording of that statement slightly off.)</p>
<p>I would add don’t apply early if you do not think you are ready essay-wise to submit your app. Essays are really important, especially for Stanford. If you need the extra time winter break provides to really fine-tune your essays, go for it.</p>
<p>Numbers wise, EA looks easier (13% instead of 8% acceptance rate) but as EA applicants are more qualified, it’s actually harder.
EA also is more difficult because unlike ED, the college does not have a fully accurate assessment of how many students it will have after early admissions.</p>
<p>zenkoan, I was referring to your claim that “the double acceptance rate compensates for the generally higher level of competition”. This is a claim that requires real statistics to back it up, not just a guess.</p>
<p>^Sly, I think it’s pretty obvious that no one but an admissions officer is privy to the information that would be required to make a statistically-valid assessment of the (historically-based) probabilities people try to get a sense of on sites like this. My statement was based on conversations with admissions officers who repeatedly said that, for “outstanding” applicants (by Stanford’s standards), REA and RD present equivalent opportunities for admission, with perhaps a small advantage in REA for those applicants since (1) the REA pool is much smaller and thus there is more time to review each application, and (2) Stanford wants to grab, ASAP, students who would not only be admitted RD but who also would very likely be admitted to peer colleges. </p>
<p>I certainly agree with the point that “chances” threads are kind of inherently ridiculous, but that won’t stop prospective students from posting them to find out whatever they can that might help them assess their own situations. IMO the more helpful information involves understanding the differences between a well-qualified candidate and an outstanding candidate from Stanford’s perspective, although this can’t be precise either since the process is holistic and malleable by its nature.</p>