<p>During Princeton Admissions orientation the admissions officer explained why the ED won't improve anybody's chances</p>
<p>The only readon why ED applicants have a higher rate of admission is because they are far better qualified than RD applicants. Princeton will always try to create a class with all of the tyoes of students it planned to admit and so wheter you apply ED or RD does not determine your chances- what dies is wheter wou fit into the model of a student that the school is looking for.</p>
<p>BTW, ED can get you rejected and not even deferred to RD so I guess it is better to rather take some harder courses the senior year, retake all the SAT I's and II's and simply look better on the RD!</p>
<p>I'm not too sure about that one. Most people on this board would disagree with that. Princeton admits half its class early at a 30% clip for ED and the other half at around 10% or less for RD. Although ED applicants might have slightly higher stats and stronger ECs, the difference between ED and RD strength doesn't make up for the disparity in acceptance rates completely.</p>
<p>It really does not matter. Princeton does not award more spots to ED because they show perhaps a higher interest in this particular school- it is after all the best collegel in the country- who wouldn't be interested.
As the officer said, the ED circle tends to be composed of more organized and disciplined students as a rule who got "their stuff together early" what is a proof of that.
The ED admission percentage is misleading because the pool of the candidates is far stronger than RD.
ALSO- The ED pool tends to be composed of many athletes and as we knowthey tend to be chosen based on their athletic abilities etc. and not on the academics to the extend that other applicants are judged upon them.</p>
<p>You better be kidding. Especially at a binding school like Princeton, <em>of course</em> applying early helps your chances. And <em>of course</em> they're not going to tell you that in an info session (duh). The truth is that the admitted students from the early decision pool are often weaker than those from the regular pool as a whole (no offense to anyone who got in early because, obviously, you are all amazing). Read the early admissions game. :)</p>
<p>filmxoxo17. you said that the ED admittees are ften weaker than RD. What source did you get that information from?
How would it be to the advantage of the admissions officer to tell me the opposite to the truth about ED? What difference does it make to the college?</p>
<p>If everybody would apply ED it wouldn't make any slightest difference to them because they already have a model for the incoming class and they would admit the same people that would be admitted anyways.
To sum it up- If you are "meant" to be admitted to Princeton, you would be in both the ED and RD and if you are not, you wouldn't.
(If I sound defensive, I am not lol.)</p>
<p>many athletes tend to be admitted early because athletes make up a larger percentage of the ED pool than they do of the RD pool and so many of them are admitted straight on from the ED pool</p>
<p>this also accounts for the ed 30% admission rate</p>
<p>Ugh. If you are accepted ED, you are legally bound to attend Princeton. Colleges like to have high yields. Would you rather accept a kid that is guaranteed to attend or one that might choose another school? This fact is very important to schools, so they're more lenient during ED.</p>
<p>not really. the fact that one wants to get in really badly means nothing to the admissions team. it is not as if they are going to be like "ooooooh, how cute. johnnie joe applied ED. he must really-really love our school and so we shall be more leninent and change the model for the class of 2010 just to fit him right' in"
what matters is that the student was organized enough to get their application ready early with the essays recommendations standarized tests and allt he documentation.
the fact that one is more organized (as the officer said) corresponds directly with their academic achievement, the preparation in high school, time management, etc. but it doesn't distinguish him from any applicant from the RD circle</p>
<p>The fact is that colleges don't want to lose applicants to their peer institutions, so if they can 'force' them (yeah I'm sure the kids are kicking and screaming, lol) they can secure a large spot of the class with no worries as to losing out. Princeton gets nearly 50% of their class early, and they have to compensate by lowering their standards for some applicants. (The standards are still high). It is harder to get in regular than early (they are faced with a 6% or so acceptance rate, compared to the sometimes nearly 30% rate of early applicants). I love Princeton, I'm applying there, but I'm not going to let my admiration for a school blind me from the truth. That's just dumb. You ask me where I get my argument: The Early Admissions Game. They spell it out with charts, graphs, everything. There's no refuting it.</p>
<p>The people admitted ED tends to be more talented in non-academic areas such as athletics or the arts. They're the ones with a distinct "hook" whereas there are more RD acceptances that are stronger in academics but lack hooks. </p>
<p>
[quote]
To sum it up- If you are "meant" to be admitted to Princeton, you would be in both the ED and RD and if you are not, you wouldn't.
[/quote]
I'm not quite sure what this means- how does that account for people who are deferred then accepted? </p>
<p>I think there's a definite edge for people who apply ED, even if you are deferred. It's all a yield game and if they see that you were very interested in them and that you're likely to go if admitted, then they look more favorably on you. It's all a matter of "if I accept this person, will they attend?" It has been said that schools reject you if they think you can get into (and attend) a better school.</p>
<p>If the elite colleges which give a huge edge to early applicants (including deferred early applicants) openly admitted the extent of that edge, the result would be counter-productive: the boost in yield flowing from the early admits would be offset by a decline in RD applications from groups who would realize how slim their odds of admission actually are. Early pools are far less diverse, and all schools need the type of diversity only available in the much larger RD pools.</p>
<p>All this talk about the alleged ":strength" of the early pool is so much hokum. In most cases, the stats of early pool applicants are <em>lower</em>.</p>
<p>If this were not so, schools would <em>report</em> actual stats to support the claim. They don't, because it is, for the most part, the truth.</p>
<p>And actually, the alleged "strength" of the early pool is irrelevant anyway. The "Early Admissions Game" demonstrates conclusively that at <em>every level</em> applicants have the same odds of admission applying early as RD applicants with SAT scores 100-150 points higher.</p>