<p>OK, so does EA increase ones chance of admission or just notify applicants sooner?</p>
<p>Colleges will routinely tell you that EA applicants are self-selecting: i.e. the more qualified applicants on the whole, apply in EA more than RD. Therefore it goes to reason that the admit rate is higher: the quality of the pool is greater than the RD pool.</p>
<p>The logic is that they admit at a higher rate because they are the better quality applicants, not because they happen to apply earlier.</p>
<p>Some colleges may consider ED applicants more favorably since it commits them to the college.</p>
<p>I agree, and there is no single answer for all schools. Some of the most selective schools say it doesn’t help at all, others say it may help a little.</p>
<p>ED rates at UPenn and Vanderbilt, for example, are typically higher than RD, although that could always change. Schools like Boston College are forthright and tell their EA applicants that the pool for EA is typically stronger, so only the most qualified applicants should apply during this round.</p>
<p>This will likely never be effectively analyzed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. Makes sense to me. So, if someone is waiting for first semester senior year grades to improve their candidacy, I have no idea why they would be applying EA. Thus, it gets down to the specifics of each applicant’s situation.</p>
<p>EA can be helpful to assess the strength of your application before Jan 1 app deadlines. This will allow you to make adjustments to the list of schools you apply to. If you are admitted EA, you have your safety school unless fin aid is problematic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with getting a true safety school under your belt by applying EA there. As long as you would truly consider going there - if not, it’s just a waste of time. </p>
<p>If it’s not a safety school … how is an assessment effectively made with a statistically insignificant sample or EA results? Getting either early good news or early bad news should not change a candidate’s thinking on their strategy. It still becomes a matter of ‘fit and finances’ with an applicant selecting reach/target/safety schools that meet both those criteria. All time should be spent identifying those schools successfully and working on those applications and grades NOT on shifting strategies based on blinking at early results.</p>
<p>^^
I think EA decisions can and should lead to adjustments to the overall list if the EA results are quite different than what you were expecting or include good news about both admission and merit aid. Some examples:</p>
<p>If you EA or ED only to favorite reaches and get rejects or deferred on all the EAs, that may indicate you need to make sure there are some real safeties and matches on the RD list. In other words, if you don’t get in anywhere EA, you need to examine your list to determine if it is too top heavy with reaches.</p>
<p>If you get EA admissions, but with less merit (not need-based aid) than expected, that may indicate your stats are not quite as strong as you thought they were and if you are <em>counting</em> on winning a major merit award to afford college, you’ll need to re-examine the RD list to make sure you’ve got a true financial safety that you can afford <em>without</em> merit aid if need be.</p>
<p>And if you get an EA admission at a place you’re happy to go to with enough merit aid to make it affordable, that means you can out right eliminate any schools on the RD list that you’re not that interested in going to, but included on your list as either financial safeties or admission safeties.</p>
<p>In my S’s case, the EA admissions came with enough merit that we were able to tell him that he did NOT have to apply to a SUNY after all. He really did not want to go to a SUNY, but was willing to apply if the EA decisions indicated that we would not be able to afford the schools he wanted to go to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Students should have some “real” safeties and matches identified as part of the search process … period. This is quite basic and quite fundamental and has nothing to do with with being rejected by EA reaches. If you’ve waited for EA results, you have short-changed your search process. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Never count on anything. Fit and finance are the two key factors in any college search and should be considered for all schools. A financial viable safety that one also sees as a good fit is just part of the process. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but what’s the point? I think students can make the mental leap that if they have gotten into a meet school with good merit aid they can eliminate some schools and save on application fees. If you meant more than that, I don’t think the mindset is particularly helpful. It speaks to waiting until Dec. 15th to find out your EA results before working on those apps. It’s a busy time of the year with Christmas as well as finals (for some) where working on college applications is stress both kids and their parents don’t need. Much better off planning for the worse and having some quality apps ready to rock and roll. Additionally, it’s my viewpoint that apps received close to deadline is an indication to colleges as to the student’s interest in going there. YMMV.</p>
<p>^I think that advice is more relevant if we’re talking about a high match/low reach (or, in the cases of Yale and Stanford, solid reaches), because that’s where everything gets dicier. Yes, applicants should have solid safeties and matches, and yes, they should have applications ready to go regardless of EA results, but I don’t think it’s foolish to make decisions based on EA results. </p>
<p>For example, if I get into Chicago EA, great–three or four of my matches/high matches are no longer necessary, because I’d pick Chicago over them. So while I’ll absolutely prepare applications for solid safeties/in-state matches beforehand, I might leave a school like Northwestern, which I’d happily decline for Chicago, until I know EA results. And if I get deferred, it would be wise for me to tack on a few more matches and consider taking off a reach. Still, it would be silly for me to reconfigure my entire list based on one result.</p>
<p>For others, EA is just a way to breathe easy and avoid the “What if I don’t get in anywhere!” panic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, let’s take your example. You’re already at 3-4 matches and now your suggesting 3+ more matches? In that scenario, how many colleges safety/meet/reach are you potentially sending applications to? 12+? So, one bad result and you’re suggesting adding schools and killing a reach you might get into except you blinked. I would suggest that you don’t have a plan as much as a gaming strategy. And that would be fine other than my time on this board tell me that kids struggle with coming up with a list of meet/match schools and really struggle with safety schools. So, I don’t think you can game that.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to a list of colleges with acceptance rates for Early Action vs: Regular Decision</p>
<p>[Colleges</a> Where Applying Early Action Helps - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/09/30/colleges-where-applying-early-action-helps.html]Colleges”>http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/09/30/colleges-where-applying-early-action-helps.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have one safety, and if I get into Chicago EA, I’ll get rid of three match/low reach schools. If not, I’ll apply to about 11 schools total, about where applicants to top schools should be before they go insane. It’s not that I’ll add schools if I don’t get into Chicago, but that I’ll be able to trim my list. It’s applicants with smaller lists (say, 5 or 6) that should recalibrate (read: add schools) if they have unsavory EA results and really want to attend a Twhatever school.</p>
<p>And what exactly is the difference between a “plan” and a “strategy?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I used the term “gaming strategy” but to answer your question my suggestion for young people to have a plan and stick with it not to go EA and “recalibrate” depending on how things go. It’s just a fundamental difference in approach. My viewpoint is that it’s hard enough for a kid to see himself at a school that’s a good fit academically and financially. So, I don’t see the conversation of 'hey, based on the EA round you need to “recalibrate.” </p>
<p>Come up with a plan with viable and multiple safety/meet/reach schools involving EA/ED as makes sense - that the kid has visited and liked and stick to the plan (we both agree that 5 schools does not cut it). And it doesn’t involve making changes based on statistically unsupported results based on a weak sample of outcomes.</p>
<p>And yes, behind my thinking is that it is a better outcome to attend a safety school that a kid could see himself attending than adding ‘meet/match’ “Twhatever’” schools he didn’t see himself attending nor wanted to apply to in the first place. I guess fundamental to that is my belief that it is far more important what you do at a school than what school you go to.</p>