<p>Hello, I am going to be a senior in the fall and I am going to be applying to Princeton. I was wondering if anyone felt that there was any advantage to applying early decision vs. regular decision. Thanks for all the help!</p>
<p>although the admissions office will deny it, there's a huge advantage to applying early. your chances are about four times better, and that's with a relatively weaker, and much smaller pool of fellow applicants. see avery et al, "the early admissions game."</p>
<p>Wow! Thanks for the good advice, much appreciated!</p>
<p>From the Daily Princetonian</p>
<p><< ADMISSION
University accepts 10.2 percent for Class of 2010</p>
<p>By Ross Liemer
Princetonian Senior Writer</p>
<p>The University offered admission to 1,792 students out of a record 17,563 applicants to the Class of 2010. The acceptance rate was 10.2 percent, down from 10.9 percent last year.</p>
<p>"We all thought the applicant pool was powerful and deep," Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said in an interview.</p>
<p>Rapelye sent thick envelopes to 1,193 students from a regular decision pool of 15,327 applicants, which included students deferred in the early decision process. The regular decision acceptance rate fell from 8.4 percent last year to 7.8 percent this year.</p>
<p>The University had already selected 599 students from an early decision pool of 2,236 applicants, for an early decision acceptance rate of 26.8 percent, down 2.3 percent from last year's figure.</p>
<p>"The expected size of the class this year will be 1,220," Rapelye said, which means that about half of the students admitted regular decision are expected to choose Princeton. The total expected yield, including those admitted under the binding early decision process, is 68 percent.</p>
<p>Many of Princeton's peer universities reached record low acceptance rates this year, including Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>Yale set an Ivy League record low with an acceptance rate of 8.6 percent, according to The Yale Daily News. At Harvard, 9.3 percent of applicants were admitted, slightly above their record low of 9.2 percent set last year, The Harvard Crimson reported.</p>
<p>While Princeton saw a record number of applicants this year, its double-digit acceptance rate was higher than those of most of its peers and its own record-low rate of 9.9 percent for the Class of 2007.</p>
<p>Rapelye said the waitlist includes several hundred students, who will decide by May whether to remain on the list or opt out. No students were admitted from the waitlist to the Class of 2009, while 99 students were admitted from the waitlist to the Class of 2008.</p>
<p>All 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as 53 countries around the world, are represented in the pool of admitted students. The number of admitted international students increased slightly to 9.7 percent this year, and includes residents of Cyprus, Finland and Zimbabwe, according to a University press release.</p>
<p>Of admitted students, 9.9 percent are children of alumni, a figure unchanged from last year, and 44 percent are minorities, a rise of two percent. Rapelye defined minorities as "students of color, including those who voluntarily checked 'biracial' or 'multiracial.' "</p>
<p>This year, 61 percent of admitted students attend public school, 30 percent attend private school and nine percent attend religious school. Five of the students accepted were home-schooled.</p>
<p>Fifty-two percent of admitted students are men, and 48 percent are women. Rapelye said that about 600 more men than women applied to Princeton this year, in contrast to the rise in the proportion of women applicants observed by other college admission offices.</p>
<p>"We're bucking the trend in higher education," Rapelye said, before noting that, "Our admit rates for men and women were almost identical this year."</p>
<p>The data on admitted students from disadvantaged backgrounds and the number of students receiving offers of financial aid were not immediately available, Rapelye said.</p>
<p>"As for students from families with incomes below the national mean, we have considerably more than we had four years ago," Rapelye said.</p>
<p>Rapelye said data on mean or median SAT scores of admitted students were also unavailable, but expressed confidence in the academic merit of those admitted.</p>
<p>"Within the applicant pool this year ... more than 7,000 had an A to A minus average high school grade, combined with SAT scores of 700 or higher on each of the three sections," she said.</p>
<p>Alumni interviewed a record number of applicants this year, reaching 91 percent of the 17,563 prospective students.</p>
<p>"There is no clearinghouse where this information is kept but this must be some kind of record in higher education," Rapelye said. >></p>
<p>Don't game the system -- apply ED only if you feel that Princeton is your top choice school. Also, though the ED pool is smaller, it may not be weaker, as ED applicants are self-selecting. Additionally, Princeton's ED pool contains a larger proportion of legacy applicants than does the regular pool, and those students are admitted at higher rates than are other students with otherwise similar credentials.</p>
<p>If your junior marks are pretty low, (as in below a 90%), but you know you want to go to Princeton (and have good SATs, ECs, recs etc), should you still try to apply ED?</p>
<p>Are most of the people who aren't accepted ED, deferred? Or are the majority rejected outright?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, though the ED pool is smaller, it may not be weaker, as ED applicants are self-selecting. Additionally, Princeton's ED pool contains a larger proportion of legacy applicants than does the regular pool, and those students are admitted at higher rates than are other students with otherwise similar credentials.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^ That I can understand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that's with a relatively weaker, and much smaller pool of fellow applicants
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Weaker? I'd imagine that given the fact that most that apply early are in the higher socioeconomic classes and have tended to be more aware of the academic/extracurricular opportunities, the early pool's self selection would make it fairly competitive. Add to that all the legacies, and you're talking about some rather formidable competition.</p>
<p>On the whole, I think the factors I just mentioned still don't trump the edge you get as a part of a much smaller applicant pool going for 49% of all spots. So if you're looking at it from a pure probability standpoint, go with ED. That said, be careful; it's probably not as easy as the numbers may make it seem.</p>
<p>again, the admissions office will deny it, but the early pool is in fact weaker than its regular counterpart. although the pool's demographics do skew toward the higher socioeconomic end, there are lots of merely average candidates from college-savvy families and schools, and lots of relatively low-scoring athletes. see avery et al on this point if you don't believe me.</p>
<p>keep in mind that for every strong candidate with the means and the college-savvy to apply ED, there are many more without those who apply RD. and many of the strongest candidates, regardless of their background, have little incentive to do the faustian thing with a single early application, knowing they will likely have many great offers from which to choose as a regular round candidate.</p>
<p>could anyone answer echoes' question?
I want to know too :)</p>
<p>If you are a pretty strong candidate, the most likely scenario if you are not accepted is that you will be deferred. However, if the Admissions council sees that you are not a strong/competitive candidate, or much less so that other applications they have reviewed, they may decide that later they still will probably not have a space for you so they will decide to reject you outright. Also if you have awful teacher recommendations or are lacking certain requirements they may reject you, but of course its a case-by-case matter. </p>
<p>As for the Early Decision pool being weaker than the Regular Decision pool, I would have to think that is not the case. Although there may be a higher percentage of 'superstar' candidates in the regular pool who know they will get in most wherever they apply, the percentage is small compared to the increased size of the regular pool. There will be just as many strong candidates in the ED pool who just want to secure themselves by applying early, and not having to deal with a larger pool. However, it is true that more legacies (and siblings of students) will apply early. Also, I dont think many athletes will be applying ED to Princeton because they may be recruited at multiple places, and ED at Princeton is binding.</p>
<br>
<p>As for the Early Decision pool being weaker than the Regular Decision pool, I would have to think that is not the case.</p>
<br>
<p>still don't believe me, huh? look, three authors, two of them from harvard's KSG and one from wharton, already proved this to be the case in their scholarly study of early admissions programs. one featured review on amazon summarizes their findings well:</p>
<p>"Their research is unequivocal; applying Early Action (EA) is the equivalent of a 100-point boost in SAT score. While applying Early Decision (ED) is the equivalent of a 150 + point boost in SAT score. Most of the selective schools that use these programs refute this evidence. They argue that the pool of students who apply early is much stronger, and that is why the acceptance rates are higher. But, the authors' research strongly rebuts this. To the contrary, they found there is very little difference between the early applicants and the regular ones. They actually found that EA applicants were slightly stronger. But, that ED was slightly weaker."</p>
<br>
<p>Also, I dont think many athletes will be applying ED to Princeton because they may be recruited at multiple places, and ED at Princeton is binding.</p>
<br>
<p>actually, most recruited athletes do. it's the nature of recruiting today. see, for example, the following article, wherein the athletics department announces the women's soccer team's class of 2010 - on april 6th, several weeks before the RD decision deadline.</p>
<p>"Six women's soccer student-athletes have been admitted through Princeton's early-decision process and will comprise the program's Class of 2010, head coach Julie Shackford announced Thursday."</p>
<p>Convincing as you are, I still don't completely buy what you have put on the table. Unfortunately, the authors of those books did not sift through the application information of hundreds of ED and RD applicants, so what they have proposed is really just a very intricate inference, not definitive proof. Yes, colleges have ulterior motives in the way they try to get students to apply, but one cannot definitively say the ED pool is weaker than the RD pool.
Additionally, how can applying a certain way be the equivalent of a 100 or 150 point boost in SAT score? This seems arbitrary and inconsistent, since applicants in the ED pool are only competing against applicants that are also in the ED pool. That means the whatever boost in SAT score would do nothing. You also must understand the motives of the authors of the books you are referencing in order to put the whole debate in perspective, as no author can provide definitive proof here, no matter what prestigious school from which they came.</p>
<br>
<p>Unfortunately, the authors of those books did not sift through the application information of hundreds of ED and RD applicants, so what they have proposed is really just a very intricate inference, not definitive proof.</p>
<br>
<p>actually, they did, at least in the aggregate. according to the description, the book was "based on the careful examination of more than 500,000 college applications to fourteen elite colleges." you should read the book - it's interesting and quite eye-opening.</p>
<p>um i would actually say ed is MORE difficult than rd (shock!)</p>
<p>pretty much all of princeton's athletic recruits are taken in the early round- a good reason why princeton's numbers seem "weaker" in that round. The athletes and the cream of the crop (perfect sats + saving the world) are taken in this round- everyone else is deferred.</p>
<br>
<p>pretty much all of princeton's athletic recruits are taken in the early round- a good reason why princeton's numbers seem "weaker" in that round.</p>
<br>
<p>a fair point, but it doesn't change the fact that admission is substantially easier to attain in the early round. what the avery group's findings show, specifically, is that the average applicant's odds for admission in the regular round are only as good as his chances in the early round once he's added 100-150 points to his SAT score. thus, a good but not great applicant with a 1400 SAT score would have the same odds of admission ED that his otherwise identical counterpart but with a 1500-1550 SAT score would have RD. he, therefore (like all applicants, really), would be far better served applying ED if he wants to maximize his chances for admission. the fact that this is so, and that the admissions office denies it, is an outrage. and yet, there's no plan to drop ED.</p>
<p>edit: i believe, if memory serves, that the group actually controlled for the possibly corrupting "athletic" factor by confining its examination to "unhooked" applicants. i can't confirm, however, without a copy of the book in front of me. i'll try to do so.</p>
<p>meanwhile, from the new yorker's book review of sorts:</p>
<p>"Colleges argue that the early-admissions pool is stronger than the regular pool, and that this accounts for the higher acceptance rate, but the authors of 'The Early Admissions Game' dispute that claim. They find that Early Decision applicants at Princeton are admitted at close to three times the rate of regular applicants (fifty-five per cent versus nineteen per cent), but have lower average S.A.T. scores. In general, they conclude that Early Action applicants are slightly stronger on average than regular applicants, but that Early Decision applicants are weaker."</p>
<p>and finally, here's the first chapter of the book, available online:</p>
<p>Thanks for the recommendation f.scottie. However, you still did not make your rebuttal to the second part of my last reply. How can they say ED or EA is the equivalent of 100/150 point boost in SAT score. This doesnt make sense. Even if the author did delve through 500,000 applications to 14 elite colleges, you (or the author) still don't explain why the ED pool is weaker. </p>
<p>"every strong candidate with the means and the college-savvy to apply ED, there are many more without those who apply RD. and many of the strongest candidates, regardless of their background, have little incentive to do the faustian thing with a single early application, knowing they will likely have many great offers from which to choose as a regular round candidate"</p>
<p>I would think that the exact opposite is the case, as most students are pretty unsure of the competition that they will face in the applicant pool. Except for self-selecting superstar students (which appear in both pools), I would think the stronger candidates would apply ED because they have innately better odds, and there is more security in the so-called 'Faustian bargain'. Even if they are not accepted, they will still do quite nicely in the RD pools to which they also apply. According to your statement, you say that college savvy strong candidates with the means will apply ED. This is also inconsistent because strong candidates without the means would get a good financial aid package at any top college because FA is such a competitive aspect now, so it really is not a factor. </p>
<p>Enlighten me on why you think why being a strong candidate will affect whether an applicant will apply ED/EA or RD.</p>
<br>
<p>How can they say ED or EA is the equivalent of 100/150 point boost in SAT score.</p>
<br>
<p>by comparing acceptance rates between ED and RD applicants who have the same SAT scores and ostensibly "equal" other factors. there are many, many tables with such data in the book.</p>
<p>as for the rest, well, every applicant has good reason to apply early, in light of the huge boost it confers. however, most applicants, including a disproportionate number of applicants from non-feeder high schools, don't know about this boost and/or can't, in any event, afford to commit to a school without knowing their aid amount. even with princeton's early estimator out there, and its reputation for backing up its estimations, the leap is hard for many less well-off families to make (assuming they know about it).</p>
<p>"Their research is unequivocal; applying Early Action (EA) is the equivalent of a 100-point boost in SAT score. While applying Early Decision (ED) is the equivalent of a 150 + point boost in SAT score."</p>
<p>SAT score is much less important in Ivy-league admissions that most would think. I think applicants who apply early will also have very good GPAs and extracurriculars to support their cases, even though SAT scores in general may be on average lower. An applicant with a less-than-stellar GPA and ECs would not attempt to apply early.</p>
<p>GPA and other factors don't explain away the disparity. in fact, the authors controlled for those factors. and they found that for the average princeton applicant, applying ED boosts his chances to that enjoyed by an otherwise identical candidate in the RD round but with a 150-point better SAT score. they might have found, for example (fabricating the numbers here), that applicants with a 3.9/1400 enjoyed a 30% acceptance rate ED, but only a 5% acceptance rate RD, and that the acceptance rate for 3.9ers reached 30% in the RD round only when SAT score was increased to 1550. that is a huge, huge difference, and one unfair to RD'ers.</p>
<p>Unfortunately I don't think admission can be boiled down as you describe, and I highly doubt any GPA/SAT score combo has a 30% admission rate regardless. How can it be not fair? It costs the same to apply ED as it does to apply RD, and the financial aid you get will be virtually the same however a candidate is admitted. The more you tell me about these authors findings the more skeptical I get, but I will take you up on your offer and look at the books you are referencing. As you can probably tell, I am a highly skeptical person, especially of things that sound like conspiracy theories.</p>