<p>?</p>
<p>appreciate responses!</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s mostly recruited athletes accepted, but certainly lots of them. Amherst will be admitting about 150 EDs this year, and recruited athletes, togehter with legacies, will probably constitute about half of that number. I asked exactly that question at an info session this summer, and the admissions dean stated that “more than half” of the ED accepted students are not in those favored categories. But my information indicates that it is barely more than half, and that only about 70-75 unhooked ED candidates can expect to get in this year. I am not claiming any insider knowledge of this, but based on all the athlete and legacy statistics, it is my best guess. ED at many competitive colleges is where recrutied athletes, legacies, and development cases (i.e. kids whose parents are being cultivated as large donors) are encouraged to apply.</p>
<p>Don’t forget URMs. I’d really like to hear the number and percentage of ED admits that are athlete, URM and legacy. I’d really like to hear the true acceptance rate with those admits eliminated.</p>
<p>While URMs are a favored admissions category like legacies and recruited athletes, they don’t figure as prominently in the ED round. Many URMs need financial aid, and often prefer to apply RD so that they can compare financial aid offers rather than settle for what is offered at the time of a single binding ED acceptance.</p>
<p>“rather than settle for what is offered at the time of a single binding ED acceptance”</p>
<p>Or turn it down (at common app schools) if the FA offered in insufficient to allow attendance, saying thanks but no thanks, and apply RD elsewhere.</p>
<p>Yes, that happens, but very rarely - only a few accepted ED students do that each year.
The appearance of the binding nature of the ED contract (you sign it, parent signs it, guidance counselor signs it) tends to discourage people from applying if they are not prepared to commit. So, in fact, it does keep the numbers of URMs down during the ED cycle.</p>
<p>^ And that seems to be one (the?) reason some schools eliminated ED; in spite of their best efforts to get needy students to apply ED, they just wouldn’t, probably out of mistaken fear that it was “dangerous.” :(</p>
<p>I am a cynic on that topic, vossron. Only a handful of the most competitive schools have eliminated ED - Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford (the later two have restrictive EA, however) The schools that eliminated ED were actually the schools rich enough to offer very generous financial packages to all of their ED applicants, back when they had it.
The reason they dropped ED is because their yield rates are high enough that they can afford to - basically, they can get away with dropping ED from a competitive standpoint, and they can still look like noble institutions who are doing away with an evil relic.
The schools just below the HYPS tier, including ALL of the top LACs and virtually ALL of the other top-ranked national universities, will continue to use ED as a strategic tool to a) steal some students away from HYPS on the implied promise of a more favorable admission rate during the ED cycle; b)depress admit rates by tying up a big chunk (usually between 30% and 50%) in the ED cycle; c)allow for more accurate predictions of class size and budget planning</p>
<p>Well, I’m too naive and trusting of what they say. 
I would have said that (a) not many kids who want to attend HYPS would give up even the low chance they thought they might have, (b) it doesn’t change the admit rate since the same kids want to attend whether or not there’s an ED, (c) I agree. :)</p>
<p>Don’t believe the party line. The ED admission rates are always higher than RD, which forces top-college aspirants into a strategic decision. Let’s say that you have analysed your chances and you think you have a 20% chance of getting into Harvard (which is nearly 3 times the rate of the average applicant). Let’s say you have a 20% chance of getting into Columbia RD, but a 40% chance ED. You slightly prefer Harvard to Columbia, but Columbia offers a much better chance. Added to that, if you don’t get into Columbia ED or RD, and you don’t get into Harvard RD, you have a very good chance of ending up at Hopkins/Tufts/Wash U, etc (not that there’s anything wrong with that!). But ED does force tough choices for those who really look hard at the numbers.</p>
<p>Also - a school with an ED program does indeed tend to keep its admit rate lower. Here’s how it works: Let’s say you have 10,000 applicants, and you want a class of 1000. If you have no ED, with an overall yield rate (those who you accept, who then enroll) of say, 33%, you would need to accept 3000 of those applicants, for an admit rate of 30%.
Let’s say you still have 10,000 applicants, and still want a class of 1000, but you do have ED. And you accept 35% of your class through ED. Let’s say of the 10000 total applicants, 1000 apply ED, and you accept 36% of them (360 students) They are all obligated to attend, but maybe 10 withdraw for financial reasons.So in the RD round, by design, you have a yield of 97%. Then you move onto the RD round. In RD, you have 9000 applicants, and you still need 650 more students. To get those students, you need to accept 1950 (because your RD yield rate is 33%). So overall, you have accepted 2310 students to yield a class of 1000. Your admit rate is 23.1%, which is quite a bit lower than the 30% rate without ED. See how it works? This is one strategy schools like Penn and Wash U (to give the most flagrant examples) have used to push themselves up through the US News rankings over the years.</p>
<p>Can I just ask how admit rate is figured? Does it include all applications and all offers of admission, (ED + RD)? </p>
<p>Shesonherway: I think that would be a fairly fluid number each year, but I really don’t have a clue.</p>
<p>yes, its simply number of acceptances / number of applicants, including both ED and RD.</p>
<p>When you move the ED kids to RD, you must keep their yield at 100% (it’s still their dream school), causing the school to lower the number of RD admits, raising the admit rate to the same level as with ED and RD.</p>
<p>It doesn’t quite work like that, Vossron. First thing is that the vast majority of kids who don’t get in ED also don’t get in RD at most schools. Second thing is that even when those rejected ED kids are accepted RD, the yield is not going to be 100% or anything approaching it, even though it may originally have been their dream school. If you look at the read numbers, you will see that the near-100% yield attendant to ED acceptances does in fact bring down the average acceptance rate, due to yield factors. Even Harvard’s 80% RD yield rate is lower that any school’s ED yield rate. That’s all I have to say about this subject - I’m done.</p>
<p>Okay, but I was talking about what happens to those who would have gotten in ED but must apply RD instead, not those who don’t get in ED. I should also have said “it’s still their dream school, and the school still wants this cream of the crop.” All done! :)</p>
<p>But wait… does anyone know what percentage of deferred ED applicants eventually get in during the RD round? Is it really low? I would think it would be somewhat high so as to boost the yield number - assuming that it is still many ED applicants’ dream school. Doesn’t applying ED increase your chances of getting in RD?</p>
<p>Well, while schools are concerned with yield, I don’t think they’re obessed with it. So, no, I don’t think deferred ED applicants are at any particular advantage in RD.</p>