<p>Could someone explain the difference between Single Choice Early Action, and Early Decision? Is it just that the SCEA is non-binding? I'm wondering what the advantage to applying SCEA is and why a couple of schools have chosen to go to that format of admissions over ED.</p>
<p>I believe the 25%-75% ranges (like the 1370 cited above for Harvard) obtained by adding the 25%-75% for math and verbal are misleading. They are based on the assumption that the same students are in the lowest 25% for both math and verbal and the same goes for the highest 25%, while it is likely that some with very high math and very low verbal scores and vice versa are admitted. The range for math and verbal combined is actually tighter than those numbers. It would be interesting to see the actual 25-75% figures for various colleges.</p>
<p>Elaborating on Interesteddad's points-- </p>
<p>If your kid is in the middle 50% of SATs and say in the 2nd decile of their HS class, they would not be academically UN-qualified at many schools, but they would not be auto-admits either. ED or EA may allow for a more careful consideration of their app including ECs, essays, recs, mitigating circumstances, etc-- because the deluge of apps has not yet hit. If there are special circumstances or qualities that the adcom should consider, ED may make this easier and more likely. I think maybe a school "wants to like" a kid that genuinely loves the school and therefore might dig a little deeper for reasons to admit them.</p>
<p>I know my alma mater very much values the enthusiasm and interest of an applicant-- whether ED or RD. They want kids who know the school well and really, really want to be there. </p>
<p>ED is the only way for an adcom to discern who those kids are, especially at a good LAC that might be a safety for some ultra-impressive kids. A school full of people who are crushed that they aren't at HYP is not the same as a school full of similarly-qualified kids who are overjoyed to be there.</p>
<p>As for finances, I have a question. Let's say you are not a "development admit" but you don't need financial aid. Is this a really a boost? What is the level of wealth that = development admit? How about demographic oddities in parents' professions, etc-- do these count in admissions? (Is dad = senator better than dad = financier, if both dads have the same wealth?)</p>
<p>I ask because I was curious why there is a "parent's profession" on the app.</p>
<p>Mini wrote" Can't say I'd do it any differently, though perhaps substantially raising the tuition for full-fare customers who apply ED would be a good idea, so that they could spend my alumni contributions on needier ones."</p>
<p>Even though we have the "privilege" of paying full tuition we are not wealthy, we are not elite, we don't have any spare millions lying around to guarantee admission. We are hardworking middle class Americans who believe it is our responsibility to educate our child. Since a State university is not an option for us, we really have no choice but to tighten our belts, dip into our retirement funds and basically bite the tuition bullet. The suggestion that we should pay more than full tuition puts me into orbit. There's a big difference between entitlement and responsibility.</p>
<p>The fact that we checked that no aid requested box may have helped my son's admission or then again it may not have. (We actually received an e-mail from the FinAid office after he was admitted asking about our needs, which leads me to believe that the Adcom didn't have the information.) I don't think anyone will ever know what it was that pushed his/her child over the top.
There may be ED statistics on legacies -- with the assumption that all legacies come from wealthy families -- and statistics on development admits, but I've never seen statistics on us average Schmo's, who are not Kennedy's but manage (again because we have no choice) to come up with 40 grand a year. I am resentful of implication that not qualifying for financial assistance is a kind of stigma, i.e., not poor enough to have merit.</p>
<p>I'd also like to know how any one can know that an individual's financial package would be better for RD than it would be for ED. It's true that an applicant can't negotiate school to school if s/he's committed to ED; however, this is different from faulting the college for not coming up with an adequate package. For example, where does this statement come from:
"Williams . . . is well known for raising its packages in April in keeping with the "competition" - students all of a sudden are found to be poorer than they would have been in December, without any change in family circumstances." Well known by whom? And the student applying ED is not the same student, not the same circumstances as the student who applied ED. This is not a game of duplicate bridge! I don't think there's any way to prove that the college is greedy with ED funds and generous at RD time. It just doesn't sit with ED packages that have been given to kids we know. Considering the size of their endowment I just can buy that they would shave a few thousand off an ED finaid package just because the kid was hooked. </p>
<p>The 100 point SAT advantage has taken on an apocryphal mantra, but it's only one piece of the ED admit puzzle.
LACs take a holistic approach to admissions. ED gives them a guaranteed acceptance 1/3 of their class, which is a big plus for them. I agree strongly with the comments of Interesteddad and SBMom that LACs with 1500-2000 students must carefully select kids that will work and play well together. The demonstrated commitment of an ED application is a good starting place. The boost is psychological and yes, it is intangible. ED helps the college, it helps the student, it helps the family. It is not the same as buying your way into college.</p>
<p>I couldn't've put it better, Momrath. I too feel lucky that I can come up with the tuition for my kids' schools, but in doing so, I have lived (happily) an extremely frugal lifestyle (my D has often commented on the private schools, bigger houses, newer cars, etc. of the families of people she knows who got aid.) After my S was accepted ED, we were invited to apply for financial aid. I'm sure cynics can interpret that differently, but I choose to take it at face value.</p>
<p>I also agree with ID's take on the ED advantage. My S knew exactly where he wanted to go, and his enormous enthusiasm for the school has to bring something that is different from someone who's not so sure. Also, his application didn't have any hooks, but given enough time and attention, it yielded the profile of a pretty cool kid who most likely would have not gotten any attention in the 5% RD round.</p>
<p>I think there's another ED intangible advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet, and that's the stressed admissions officer factor referred to in the Gatekeepers. AOs are just naturally going to give a more attentive and probably more sympathetic -- read to the small number of applications they review in November than they are to the far larger number they must evaluate at the end of a grueling admissions season in March.</p>
<p>A big problem in looking at any set of statistic regardless of how accurate they may be is that they are retroactive. Any policy change for the current year is not going to be reflected in those numbers. And right now Early Decision has been under a lot of scrutiny and fire because as Mini points out, it favors a higher socio economic pool. Getting it together to apply early, is something that informed students tend to do. </p>
<p>I will tell you that in my opinion, getting your application reviewed early with all of the materials needed right there in your file, is an advantage. I see a striking difference in the acceptance rates of top students without hooks, without remarkable resumes who apply by October 1st vs those who zap the app on 12/31 and send the attachment after winter break. And this is without regard to EA/ED policies. If you are the 1000th premed from NJ who plays violin and piano, you are not going to impress the adcom as much as you will with your stellar stats and your wonderful music resume when yours is one of the first apps reviewed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can't say I'd do it any differently, though perhaps substantially raising the tuition for full-fare customers who apply ED would be a good idea, so that they could spend my alumni contributions on needier ones.
[/quote]
My parents' upper-middle class income may or may not qualify me for financial aid - we're borderline. But, as momrath said, I resent the insinuation that because we're better off than many applicants, my parents should deserve to pay more. If I end up with no financial aid, they'll be scrimping to come up with forty grand each of the next four years while the "poor" financial aid kids get a free ride.</p>
<p>Just a thought from a student perspective. As an ED applicant, I've enjoyed reading all the opinions and hypotheses on this thread.</p>
<p>Which is why it might be worthwhile applying RD rather than ED, and seeing whether there are any better offers out there.</p>
<p>Sorry, but no tears here for anyone who can afford $168k over four years. Rather, I would offer congratulations (sincerely!) to folks who feel it is a priority to do it, and think that it is money well-spent. I also congratulate them (if they are going to a place like Williams), on their son or daughter's $92k scholarship (spread over four years), the difference between what it costs and what they pay. You are ALL scholarship students - the only question is to what degree. You all received GREAT financial aid (from folks like me who contribute to the alumni fund). And, if after raising tuition, financially it would be stretch, well that's exactly what the college's financial aid is for! (if you had a need, you wouldn't end up spending even one penny more, so it's a red herring. If you didn't have a need, then you'd pay, and I think that's great, as my contribution would go toward those whose need is greater.)</p>
<p>As to whether you are "upper-middle class" - you can call yourself what you like. Top 5% does it for me.</p>
<p>By this table, we are somewhat significantly above the limit of the top 5%, but certainly not walking on carpets made of $100 bills. Even being so highly ranked, $160,000 will not be a breeze for my family. I don't want to start a flame thread, but I don't think one can justify policies that discriminate against wealth, when, like my parents, many worked hard to rise to it (it was not handed to them on a trust-fund platter). </p>
<p>It is not right to encourage financial hardship on one class more than another, when each class deserves high education the same amount. All should need to scrimp *equally hard<a href="notice,%20not%20an%20equal%20amount%20of%20$%20-%20just%20proportionate%20to%20their%20incomes">/i</a> for four years. To me, asking a little less than one-third of my parents post-tax income to pay for college each year isn't fair when I would surmise that for some students, this fraction is much less.</p>
<p>I don't mean to negate the value of your points, mini - your concerns are legitimate. I just disagree.</p>
<br>
<p>AOs are just naturally going to give a more attentive and probably more sympathetic -- read to the small number of applications they review in November than they are to the far larger number they must evaluate at the end of a grueling admissions season in March.</p>
<br>
<p>great topic. I definitely agree that early applicants probably get more attention. I'm not so sure about getting more sympathetic reading ... I'd bet that one varies by school. In almost any sport based on judging it is a big DISadvantage to be early in the competition because the judges want to make sure they don't waste a high score ... I can imagine some schools using an ED process where they only take the the obvious admits in the ED round (academics, athletes, oboe players, URMs, etc).</p>
<p>"By this table, we are somewhat significantly above the limit of the top 5%, but certainly not walking on carpets made of $100 bills. Even being so highly ranked, $160,000 will not be a breeze for my family. I don't want to start a flame thread, but I don't think one can justify policies that discriminate against wealth, when, like my parents, many worked hard to rise to it (it was not handed to them on a trust-fund platter)."</p>
<p>Right, and I think you should receive MORE financial aid, not less, if you need it. This is in addition to the 23k a year you already get if your kid goes to a top LAC. The question is never what percentage of income one spends (the colleges don't figure it that way), but rather what discretionary income is available for college expenses, and specifically, a discretionary consumer choice like an elite college. In other words, if your income is $150k and you can't afford more than $168k over four years, you should be receiving MORE financial need. And if you can afford it (and by that I mean discretionary income is available to make a voluntary consumer choice like an elite college), you should be willing and even happy to pay more. (And I think you will - colleges are raising tuition at a very rapid rate to accomplish just that.)</p>
<p>Please keep in mind that the median family income in the U.S. (the middle of the middle class), was $42.1k in 2001, about the cost of a year at....</p>
<p>Graci-- you're assuming that people head home after a hard week at work, deposit their paycheck and then sit down to write a tuition check from that. Fact is that for almost everyone, financing their kids college tuition is a delicate balancing act where you pay some from current income, some out of savings, borrow some ( a house is an asset; a life insurance policy is an asset) and have your kids shoulder some of the burden with either loans (the expectation of their future earnings being the asset here) , work, or outside scholarships. It is probably not fair for you to ask your parents to write a check for one third of their post-tax income, but please don't assume that this is how everyone else is paying for it.</p>
<p>As I constantly tell my brother who keeps bitching about how he'll pay for college next year, "you've had 17 years to worry about this....a little late in the game to start thinking about it now that he's a senior!" He disagrees.... would rather complain now as a precursor to complaining when he's 65 that his Social security check is inadequate to finance his retirement lifestyle...</p>
<p>I have to say that the boards on this forum that drive me the craziest are the "poor me" boards- where people feel free to denigrate others for the perceived/variable advantages that the "others" have in college admissions- elite college admissions. There are the boards of kids who, somewhat tongue in cheek, ask "why couldn't I have been born an URM?" There are the thinly veiled boards where people debate the validity of AA. There are the threads on this board where people who are able to pay full freight are asked to feel badly because they can, usually as a result of hard work, savings and foresight and with only some concern for the bottom line, allow their kids the variable statistical advantage of applying ED. </p>
<p>America is still a meritocracy. Unlike the country where I live, there are scholarships based on merit alone to good-great colleges which will take a hard working, talented kid anywhere they want to go. This is not true virtually anywhere else in the world, it certainly isn't true where I live. Parents earning $125/month scramble- if they want their child to have a tertiary education (after already paying for secondary education) to try to make that possible...and believe me, the schools aren't anything like Goucher(for example)-a wonderful school with wonderful merit aid. I see hard working, bright, talented people every day without a hope of every achieving what a Goucher or U. Mass grad might in their lifetimes... The opportunities presented by the 2900+ U.S. colleges that aren't HYPSMAWS are beyond the scope of possibility for virtually the rest of the world...Poor Who???</p>
<p>The next thing we'll see will be a lawsuit from families of kids who cannot "afford to apply ED" but who are not "URM" claiming that they are discriminated against in elite college admissions...Because lawsuits have become the final solution for Americans who want to blame for the harshest reality of all-- sometimes life isn"t "fair." Now, if you really want to see "unfair" you can drive down any street in the city I live in....</p>
<p>Sorry, but once you have been gone for a while, you really do start to see things a bit differently. I care very much about my children, I hope they have a wonderful education and a wonderful life- and I will not engage in bashing others for the variables of their lives that are different than mine or that present "inequities" when it comes to college admissions. It's a big world out here.</p>
<p>Flame away.</p>
<p>I think Mini's point, while based on what the LAC say, is at best a half truth. Mort S, Pres of Williams, states that they spent about 50% more than tuition and fees for each LAC student. True but on the revenue side they receive restricted funds offsetting much of this "cost." Someone wants to have the "I M Bigego Chair in Humanitarian Studies" gives the school a million or so (revenues) and the cost (higher salary for the teacher) pops up in Mort's cost number. And it goes on with the so and so Athletic complex, dining hall, entrance way, symposium and such. What I am saying is the LAC would NOT have spent the money (over tuition) unless they had the revenue lined up beforehand (called an endowment). Hard to argue that that donor is supporting middle class kids. I don't think a middle class parent ponying up $160K for 4 years should have a guilt trip. Someone who goes to Safeco field in Seattle receives the same kind of subsidy, a 'naming' opportunity for the donor and his own needs. Finally, I think most LACs have a 50% participation rate from the alumni so I think a college that has been around for over a 100 years will get back the shortfall over the long haul. Frankly spending the restricted endowment monies has been a good investment for the college. Finally, someone anonymously gave $50 mil. to Middlebury recently. Now that is philanthropy, not a naming opportunity.</p>
<p>Very interesting points have been brought up. I think there's a point at which jacking up tuition, just because there are certain families who could or would pay even more, would exacerbate the very problem mini identifies. The ultra trich would be even more "advantaged" if nearly everyone else had "need." </p>
<p>If tuitions were jacked up astronomically I suspect I would rather choose a different college for my kids than apply for aid to afford a $65K bill. I think there are probably many families who would rather just pick a school they can afford, if it came to that. </p>
<p>I agree with robyrm. We have a great country with many offerings for higher education, from Community colleges, to well-priced state schools, on up to elite private colleges. And everyone has some perceived advantage-- either wealth (you have savvy advisors, can apply ED) poverty (your scores & tests are all more impressive & you can get aid), or middle class (where you get some degree of both these benefits) or URM, or 1st generation... Heck, I know an great applicant whose family is very wealthy who will probably get a boost being "hispanic"... </p>
<p>There is no amount of social engineering that will make the playing field completely level and make college admission completely fair in every case. In the bigger picture, it is pretty fair and in the bigger picture, qualified kids in this country can get a great education and make sure their kids have it a little bit better than they did.</p>