@EllieMom I’m so sorry for your loss.
“Without the ED boost you may not get into a school that meets all of your need.”
Are you saying an EA or SCEA (HYPS, MIT, Cal Tech) school does not meet full need as an ED school does, or it’s easier getting into an ED school vs say MIT or Stanford? The latter of course is true but I don’t think FA packages are different between EA and ED schools.
@theloniusmonk What I’m saying is that if you look at the list of schools that meet need, most of those only offer ED and RD so applying ED and getting a boost is very important to those who need that money. The school my child will be attending will end up being far less than any other school they would have gotten into even with its 70k sticker price and I can assure you he would not have gotten in if he applied RD.
Some kids just aren’t ready to ED. Our S19 liked a lot of schools in the fall of senior year. I’m glad he didn’t apply anywhere ED and has had the chance to choose. Did he give up the chance to be admitted to some schools? I believe so. Yes. He was waitlisted at Vanderbilt where kids with lesser grades and scores from his school got in ED. Our school has a history of Vanderbilt taking most of the ED kids (even without hooks) and only taking 1-2 RD. I think he would have gotten in ED. But he didn’t love it enough. Plus, he’s changed so much between Sept of senior year and May. He had a pretty successful RD run so I guess it’s easy for me to say that I’m cool with him passing on the ED option.
I do, however, have a little bit different view of ED than I had a year ago. If one can tell it’s a bump for unhooked kids from your high school history and a student is ready to make the call, I say go for it if you think the finances can work. I used to be more irritated with ED. It puts all of the power in the colleges’ court and that makes me angry.I wanted S19 to get to choose come April. But I’m feeling over it. I think S19’s search just wore me out. If D21 wants to go ED somewhere and she’s sure, then we will support that decision.
“Do the math, chief. A few point bump in a school with a 7% admission rate is huge. For example, a 3 point bump for the totally unhooked is 3/7= 42% increased chance of admission.”
And if I spend $2 on lottery tickets rather than $1 my chances have gone up 100%. They are still pretty slim though. If you were reverse the question and ask what the decrease in the chance to be rejected it would be much lower. I’m no statistics expert but I believe it would be between 3 and 10%.
ED is a different animal at different schools, though. Just looking at the comparisons between ED and RD acceptance rate you can tell which schools are relying on ED to protect yield. Those schools have ED acceptances that can be three or four times higher than their RD acceptances. If a kid who has stats in the upper half of the class is focused on a “meets need” school without a lot of merit options to begin with, such as Northwestern (24% vs. 7%) or Hopkins (30% vs. 10%) or Tufts (36% vs. 12%), I would definitely say take the chance for ED. It turns a lottery acceptance into a real card game.
@EllieMom You are exactly right. If I ran the NPC calculator and found the result affordable at one or more of those schools, I would push hard for my kids to ED. Its a very useful tool for kids in that situation.
@EllieMom Exacrly my point!
Right I think that’s what the OP implied, it favors the wealthy or at least the upper middle class and above, so it excludes a certain part of the population, this combined with it limiting choice makes it a textbook case of being unfair.
@theloniusmonk Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that it favors the wealthy and low SES?
@theloniusmonk “it excludes a certain part of the population, this combined with it limiting choice makes it a textbook case of being unfair.”
So should we get rid of Questbridge?
No it doesn’t really, there are many studies, the Jack Kent Cook one being the most comprehensive that show it favors the wealthy, here’s a good summary, imo, from the Teachers College Research on early admissions:
“those who enroll through early deadlines tend to be white, with higher family incomes and parents with greater levels of education.” The study added that “early decision in particular works as a sort of class-based affirmative action that gives wealthier applicants a ‘plus’ factor: a higher likelihood of being admitted than if they applied under the regular-decision deadline.”
I have not seen anyone in higher ed or college admissions say (at least on record) that early admissions favors low SES.
For need-blind/meets-need schools that offer little or no merit, though, I don’t see ED as exclusionary or unfair. It’s quite possible to get a sense of what the net-price will be before applying. And, if the school isn’t affordable during the ED round, it won’t be in the RD round either. In that case, I would not recommend a student apply at all, regardless of whether it’s ED or RD.
For such schools, in particular, I see ED as a classic win-win situation. It provides the school with a way to spread out the admissions work, to protect yield, and to reduce the chance of under- or over-enrolling during RD. It provides the student with a greater likelihood of being accepted into the school of their choice and streamlines the admissions process considerably.
@theloniusmonk But the observation that more rich white kids with educated parents apply during ED rounds describes the applicant pool rather than the relative advantage provided by ED for those students vs. those who don’t fit that profile. To me, it suggests that students who apply ED may do so because they have strong first-choice preferences and are more likely to have been advised of the relative advantages of applying early.
For those tippy-top need-blind/meets-need/no merit schools, there is no reason not to apply to a first-choice school ED if you’re planning to apply there during RD. I do agree, though, that for schools that do not meet need and those that are not need blind in terms admissions, ED provides a “thumb on the scale” for full-pay applicants.
I am just glad that every smart kids still have a fair shot at the best of the best colleges, HYPSM, etc, which don’t do ED. Personally I will never pay $70.000 for an undergraduate degree at those private schools through ED or otherwise while I can get a good education at my state school for a fraction of that amount.
"To me, it suggests that students who apply ED may do so because they have strong first-choice preferences and are more likely to have been advised of the relative advantages of applying early.:
Advised - interesting you used that word, one of the main reasons it’s unfair is that this advice is not uniformly available, especially in lower income school districts, whether it’s inner cities or rural suburbs. A lot of these kids don’t know they need to take the standardized jr year, work on the app in the summer, get the recs early, have the parents run the NPC, among other things.
“It provides the student with a greater likelihood of being accepted into the school of their choice and streamlines the admissions process considerably.”
This streamline admission process is also available to EA or SCEA without being locked in. If Stanford is my first choice and I get in via SCEA, I’m also done but maybe I wake up one day and decide to submit the MIT application RD (I hear they’ve opened up a new data science lab). I can still do that with SCEA, can’t with ED.
The UChicago newspaper (obviously independent of the administration) said this about UC which has three (!) early rounds:
“If the admissions office truly cares about welcoming “students from all backgrounds,” then it needs to take steps to ensure that the poorest applicant has the same chance of being accepted to UChicago as the richest. ED has no place in an application system that seeks to evaluate candidates on their merit.”
And the DOJ is investigating this practice because it could violate anti-competitive laws, i.e. the college sharing information with other colleges.
“Katharine Fretwell, dean of admission and financial aid at Amherst College … says her school and about 30 other colleges share lists of students admitted through early decision. And Fretwell says she’d likely also share the names of students who were admitted via early decision, but who are not attending for financial aid and other reasons.”
@theloniusmonk But you continue to ignore what those are saying here who have been able to take advantage of excellent financial aid that is offered by some of the schools that only offer ED and RD. Being accepted to a school like this is a big deal for those who will have their COA reduced to close to nothing. A lot of these kids simply peukdnnot get in RD. The pool is too competitive. ED doesn’t just benefit the wealthy, you just aren’t willing to hear the facts.
Someone always has an argument, UChicago has 20% of its students on full ride Odyssey scholarships, are you looking for 50%? I mean should everything be free, personally I’d like that but then there is reality. BTW there is no public university that even comes close to 20%, but, hey, as long as that don’t have ED then they must be doing a better job with the poorest students.
For everyone here extolling the “bump” in admissions- just be advised that the so called ED bump is NOT going to turn a kid who is in the reject pile to an accept. Merely applying ED to “prove” to the school that you will attend if accepted thereby improving their yield, and showing them the love so they don’t think they are your safety school, etc. is NOT going to raise the dead.
I see this fallacy so often. Why would a college commit- early- to a kid with a marginal application? They do not. And it’s not that hard to see (if your school tracks, and if there’s a robust pool from your HS at your favorite college) what the outcome is likely to be.
I remember a kid in my neighborhood who was dying to go to Brandeis. I don’t remember the particulars- but some special program. Guidance counselor said “not happening”. Alumnus who interviewed him tactfully suggested a couple of other colleges where “kids who love Brandeis also love these schools”. Naviance said no way.
Kid applied early because the parents looked at the ED bump and concluded that he had “a much better chance” ED. No, that is misinterpreting the statistics. The fact that ED admit rates are higher than RD rates does NOT mean that any particular kid has a 'better chance". The kid’s chances are pretty much the same. A kid with something Brandeis wants? (cello player from Wyoming, the year the cello player in the college orchestra is graduating AND the kid from Wyoming is also graduating). But that kid’s application has no effect on YOUR application- which in the case of my young neighbor, whose chances were close to zero from the git-go, meant an early rejection.
The fact that the OVERALL admit rate might be higher or lower, isn’t material to any particular kid-- who will get admitted or rejected based on a bunch of factors. But giving the adcom’s an early look at a marginal application doesn’t make the kid any less marginal.
My neighbor ended up at Baruch by the way- which he loved. Brandeis who?
“The fact that the OVERALL admit rate might be higher or lower, isn’t material to any particular kid-- who will get admitted or rejected based on a bunch of factors. But giving the adcom’s an early look at a marginal application doesn’t make the kid any less marginal.”
I agree that ED is not going to get an unqualified or marginally qualified applicant accepted. ED works best for a well qualified applicant who is applying to a school that, due to the sheer number of applications, is forced to reject well qualified applicants every cycle. By applying ED, that applicant reduces his/her chances of being one of the well qualified candidates who gets rejected.