<p>researchmaven- excellent points. I keep forgetting what a prime spot Foggy Bottom is. My friends rented an apartment right around there and I stayed with them for a few days and I was so surprised how easy it was to get anywhere that I needed to go (given that I lived up in northern parts prior to this...).</p>
<p>Then I wonder about NYU... but that's a different topic.</p>
<p>I cannot find anything whatsoever on this. Where did the "28%" come from?</p>
<p>I wouldn't put any faith in that website at all.</p>
<p>Harm? Giving away personal information on line to a dubious website is never a good idea. </p>
<p>Only post? Maybe someone promoting their own site?</p>
<p>Does anyone think that with more ED candidates schools will admit more then the usual # of ED candidates? Also would love it if anyone has info on ED at Vassar
Thanks</p>
<p>O.K. It is true that ED is easier than Rd. But the flaw about the introduced website above, I personally think, is that it completely disregards the fact that ED pool always consists of a large contingent of athletes who are "automatically" accepted without having to go through the legitimate application reading process. They generally "commit" over the summer or whatever, and ED is always their application choice, thus making the whole rate appear easier for us normal applicants.</p>
<p>As for the question above, I was thinking about that last night. Schools love to accept students through ED, because of the binding contract, they get a high yield which is always good for the school stats and boost its ranking. It's their good chance to increase their yield if they're looking to select a large part of their 2013 class from ED. But then they also might want to wait for RD, because generally RD applicants tend to have stronger stats, and given our strange economy sitch here, a lot of people probs wanna weigh out f/a factors, and the admission officers are smart people and all are aware of that</p>
<p>Post #88 - I'm not sure about RD stats generally being stronger than ED, but I do know that the statement about ED athlete applicants being "automatically" accepted is not correct, especially at a top LAC's. At most schools around the country, athletes have to meet some minimum academic standards. At many top LAC's, they must have stats that would show they can compete academically at the level expected of other students. For example, the coaches can support an athlete's application, which can tip the balance in their favor, but it is certainly not automatic. There was a series of articles done by the NY Times that followed the recruiting process at Haverford, and they gave several examples of highly recruited athletes who were at the top of coache's preference lists, but did not get in even though they had stats within the range of the general student population. Also, it is interesting to note that the Haverford baseball team had a higher average GPA than the student population as a whole.</p>
<p>Has anyone heard of the number of applicants at Cornell and UPenn this year? ED rates up or down and by what %...? Thank you.</p>
<p>Any data for Columbia and University of Pennsylvania?</p>
<p>No data yet for Columbia, UPenn, Vassar or Cornell. Any school that we do not hear about in the next week or so probably means their ED numbers were flat to negative.</p>
<p>agree w/ researchmaven....may have to wait a bit. But if there was "good" news", I'd expect each school would want to get that news out expeditiously.</p>
<p>...while we are waiting, here are some early action/decision data for LAST YEAR, taken from a xiggi post (#16) of this thread: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/447625-applications-growth-class-2012-a-5.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/447625-applications-growth-class-2012-a-5.html</a></p>
<p>REMEMBER, THE DATA BELOW ARE FOR LAST YEAR!!!! FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES.</p>
<p>
[quote]
App Volume 2011 2012 Change
Brown ED 2,316 2,461 6.26%
Chicago EA 3,041 4,349 43.01%
Columbia ED 2,429 2,582 6.30%
Cornell ED 3,015 3,110 3.15%
Dartmouth ED 1,285 1,429 11.21%
Duke ED . 1,187 1,247 5.05%
Georgetown EA 4,573 5,925 29.56%
J. Hopkins ED 997 1,055 5.82%
MIT EA ... 3,493 3,928 12.45%
Notre Dame 3,809 4,247 11.50%
Penn ED . 4,001 3,929 -1.80%
Stanford SCEA 4,636 4,551 -1.83%
Vanderbilt ED 803 1,133 41.10%
Yale SCEA 3,541 4,888 38.04%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>[more detail on these 2012 EA/ED numbers by Hawkette on post 170 of that thread also.]</p>
<p>Numbers to numbers, not much correlation to what is happening this year so far to last year. Examples....Brown goes from positive growth last year to negative this year; Stanford down last year 2%, but apparently up this year 18%; Dartmouth running about the same at plus 11% to 13%; MIT doubles from +12% to +25%; Duke zooms from +5% to +25%; Yale cools off with "only" 10% growth this year (coming off 38% last year, 10% growth still seems pretty remarkable).....certainly more gains reported thus far, but that is to be expected given the timing of annoucements, that is, some negatives probably to come.</p>
<p>I think that you are assuming that the colleges pay way more attention to these figures than they do. A modest decline in ED applications isn't "bad news" and an increase isn't "good news", at least at the top of the food chain. Other than the kids who applied ED, and we, of course, I can't imagine who is waiting with baited breath to hear the latest figures. It's just not very interesting. It's not very interesting even if you are a student with an ED application in. What difference does it really make whether you have a 1-in-4 chance or a 1-in-4.1 chance?</p>
<p>A mid-list college that is actively trying to attract attention from more students may trumpet its ED increase as a way of proclaiming "We are hot!" But a college like Penn might get a bigger boost in its overall applications by trumpeting an ED decrease. Increases could make potential applicants who are on the fence decide that the environment is too competitive this year and that they shouldn't bother applying to Penn.</p>
<p>This does seem like a prime domain for a tract on "How to Confuse with Statistics"--since there are so many factors that make comparing these numbers--either across years or between schools hazardous. For example, the post below about recruited athletes. I bet some schools count them in ED and others may not; then there are schools that have ED1 and ED2--these are reported together in CDS I think--but the school newspapers "stats" being trumpeted now are no doubt based just on one year's ED1? And the size of the school/incoming class is also a factor--right? Also, schools have very different rationales for how/why they take their proportion in ED I think. I agree with JHS that there is a small population of us (usually waiting for one ED outcome) who find all this of interest. But for folks to leap to any "conclusion" based on comparing these interesting data bits is very speculative. I do appreciate Papa Chicken's mastery of the numbers and guess I must be more wonkish than I know that I find looking at data on schools I will probably never see still interesting.</p>
<p>More, more, please!</p>
<p>JHS & mmaah-- agreed! just wonkin around as usual! Too many variables to ever make sense of this stuff, but its fun trying.</p>
<p>For the curious....LAST YEAR, first official word from Penn came via the Daily Pennsylvanian on 11/30/07: Early</a> Decision applications decrease 1.5 percent - News</p>
<p>....so, give it another week...also, as Penn put in place a new electronic applications tracking system this year, I'd betya counting apps is the last thing on their minds about now.</p>
<p>research-- just noticed you didn't include on your master list Georgetown's ~+2% mentioned on post #2......from the linked 11/11 article, this year's EA app numbers were estimated at between 6100 and 6200, yielding their ballpark of 2%......I have found no other updating info.</p>
<p>PapaChicken, you are so diligent with your research.
I wonder why the majority of these schools on our list that are experiencing ED applicants increase are LACs? With the exception of Williams and Amherst(top 2 and the most famous LAC), these are all small liberal arts colleges!</p>
<p>thanks starbucks08. I have no explanation for LACs being heavy on the list of those that report these kind of stats, other than the theory that they like the press.</p>
<p>Speaking of LACs....Union now reports +7% (not 8% as listed before):
Early</a> decision applications jump 7 percent</p>
<p>All I can offer by way of explanation is what I see around me in my community: strong students and their counselors are so freaked out by their utter inability to predict what the Ivies (and similar) will do, that anyone who has even a glimmer of interest in LACs is strongly encouraged to pursue that and to consider filing an ED application. And many do. (Many did before, too, but there has definitely been a progressive shift in that direction over the past few years where I live.)</p>
<p>It's rational behavior. There are really good students, relatively insensitive to aid differences, who will say "Why should I apply SCEA to Yale, or wait to apply to Harvard. I'm a great student, and maybe I have a 1-in-5 chance. I'm just as good as the kid they took last year, but no better than five others they turned down. I know perfectly well that I could be happy at [__________], and if I apply ED my chances are probably better than even. Who needs the stress?"</p>
<p>JHS-If you're not interested then don't read the thread and certainly don't waste your time posting about it. The original intention of the post wasn't to "compare" schools. The point, as the title of the thread indicates, is that many colleges had expressed uncertainty about ED applications this year due to the dire financial situation the country is in. Many thought students would want to stay uncommitted and leave their options open to compare financial packages. It was interesting to see that at least at a number of schools the predictions, surprisingly, were wrong. I am reporting the latest numbers to see just how much the results run counter to original predictions.</p>