<p>But if someone doesn't get in regular decision, does that mean he wouldn't have gotten in early? So if you apply RD and get rejected, then I don't think you would have gotten in ED anyway...</p>
<p>One is not conclusive of the other. ED pool is different; applying ED shows high level of interest in the school, etc etc that make your application look differently in the eyes of the admissions officers. plus, if you get deferred ED, there's a chance you get in RD, especially if they liked your application but just didn't have the room.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Typically, the ED pool is filled with students who will not need to bargain for increased financial aid and who are deadset on attending. That doesn't mean that those same students are the top tier.
[/quote]
Obviously, there are those types of students, but the majority of students who apply ED to brown, an ivy league school, are going to be more competitive than regular decision, even if the ED acceptance rate is higher.</p>
<p>what knowledge are you basing this off of?</p>
<p>people who apply ED are those who are sure on what school they want to go to. that doesn't make them the most competitive. in fact one could argue the "more competitive" would hold out for regular decision, partly because some ivies don't offer ED anymore, and partly because they want to see where they can get into.</p>
<p>hmmm.... I can see there is considerable reluctance on this thread to believe hard data :) which is posted on items 8, 13, and 18. </p>
<p>I think tokenadult had it right on another thread when he commented that this forum is a test of one's critical reading skills! (and analytical skills...)</p>
<p>So you people are saying that ED is easier to get to than RD and that people who get rejected RD might have been accepted in ED?</p>
<p>Ailey, I think the issue is that ten-year old data in a changing admissions environment may not be particularly significant. Given the large gap between the numbers in post 13 and those on Brown's website: <a href="http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html</a>
it's not unreasonable to conclude that the admissions terrain has changed so much since the study you cite that it is no longer relevant. It may well be that there was a pro-ED bias some years ago as colleges maneuvered to snatch the top students, but that given the current flood of overqualified applicants there's no longer an incentive to do so.</p>
<p>Very well said, Kluge.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it is "easier" to get in ED, for the reasons I already gave. But I don't think it is as dramatically easier as the statistics given by Ailey. I just don't trust those statistics.</p>
<p>Are there people who would have been accepted ED who are rejected RD? Who knows? It's hard to have a controlled study for that, but I'm sure it's possible. On an individual basis, is it possible that Brown accepts ED the kid who plays the harp and will study Egyptology, and rejects the harp-playing Egyptologist who applies RD -- sure, that's possible, because who needs two harp-playing Egyptologists when they want a trombone playing neuroscientist?</p>
<p>In general, it will be easier to get accepted when the committee first sits down in December and has 1485 seats to fill, then on the last day in March when there is just one spot left.</p>
<p>The bottomline is that you shouldn't apply ED unless you really want to go there and, even more important, financial aid is not an issue. If you need to compare packages, don't apply early. If you need your senior year grades to improve your application, don't apply early.</p>
<p>^any proof from any publications/books to back up your claims?</p>
<p>Think of this logically. If fit the billing of the type of person they are looking for in that particular year, but all of the spaces allocated to people of your strengths and appeals were filled up in ED, then you won't get accepted. But if you had applied ED, you might have been. Get what we are saying?</p>
<p>I think daveb puts it well, to see why 'standard strong' students get in ED but not RD into most top colleges. Once a college has admitted, say, 40 students ED who have SAT scores over 1400 and were editors in chief and were captains of 2 sports and were in the top 10% of their competitive school, the next 40 who look like that don't add much, which is why equivalent RD students tend to be denied. And so on down the line for other well-qualified students with typical strong but not dazzling profiles.</p>
<p>^Do you know someone like that who got into Brown ED? I really can't accept that based on speculation...</p>
<p>All the books I've read, they say that there isn't no statistical advantange applying ED over RD</p>
<p>Bobmallet1, I have never seen any book (and i have read many) that claims there is "no statistical advantage". (which books are you reading - perhaps you should consider the source of the advice.) The statistical advantage is clearly there, since ED admit rates including for the class of 2011, are higher at almost all top schools.</p>
<p>The debate is over why that is - admissions offices claim it's because the ED pool is stronger, but the only comprehehnsive study ever done that was quantitative showed that was not the case (the one I cited). </p>
<p>Since one datapoint doesn't make a trend, even though we all know 'standard strong' students who got in ED, it wouldn't prove anything. Only large-scale studies that control for different variables can do that.</p>
<p>There's been plenty of information on this thread, and lots of good points of view to explain the numbers - at this point, you need to form your own conclusion, and act on it, if you are a student whose top choice is Brown.</p>
<p>bobmallet, you are extremely naive. There is absolutely no doubt that applying ED gives a boost, and a fair number of selective schools are pretty open about it.</p>
<p>See my post here: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4697562%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4697562</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
First, they are old -- the book came out in 2003, so they are at least 5 years old.
[/quote]
Two things skew Brown data, actually. The first is that Brown used to have EA until it switched to ED, so historical comparisons can be tricky. The second is that Brown only recently became fully need-blind; I don't doubt that this encouraged more people to apply ED.</p>
<p>Given that there is probably a fairly large contingent of applicants to Ivy League schools who are applying on a "whatthehell" or "myparentsaremakingmedothis" basis, and who have little or no hope of admission, and that most of those applications will be found in the RD pile, one would expect that the percentage of admittees in RD would be lower than in ED; the only question is about the size of this contingent.</p>
<p>I would think it would be extremely difficult to separate out an identifiable difference in probability of admission for the same "standard strong" student in the two pools given the other variables. It's true that applying ED sends a message of interest and sincerity (or possibly desperation) to the college, one would think that the contents of the application probably would do the same for a truly interested RD applicant.</p>
<p>If the school says it uses the same standards in ED and RD I'd be inclined to believe them; they are probably at least trying to adhere to that standard. The have no incentive to lie.</p>
<p>I forgot to mention a third thing that skews the ED admit rate- legacies. </p>
<p>2009 Applicants
ED applied: 2046
ED accepted: 565
% accepted: 27.6%
RD applied: 14865
RD accepted: 2555
% accepted: 17.2%</p>
<p>2009 Legacies
ED applied: 186 (9.09% of all ED applicants)
ED accepted: 85 (15.0% of all ED admits)
% accepted: 45.7%
RD applied: 323 (2.17% of all RD applicants)
RD accepted: 96 (3.76% of all RD admits)
% accepted: 29.7%</p>
<p>2010 Applicants
ED applied: 2378
ED accepted: 537
% accepted: 22.6%
RD applied: 15938
RD accepted: 2532
% accepted: 15.9%</p>
<p>2010 Legacies
ED applied: 197 (8.28% of all ED applicants)
ED accepted: 78 (14.5% of all ED admits)
% accepted: 39.6%
RD applied: 385 (2.42% of all RD applicants)
RD accepted: 117 (4.62% of all RD admits)
% accepted: 30.4%</p>
<p>As you can see, legacies are overrepresented in admits and make up a hefty portion (15%) of ED admits.</p>
<p>bob, I don't understand why you keep insisting on denying what we tell you? it's not like we are proposing that evolution is false here.</p>
<p>and warbler, I have heard (though don't take hearsay for fact) that a substantial portion of the ED acceptances at Brown go to legacies and athletes.</p>
<p>what about EA VS RD?</p>
<p>Brown doesn't have EA. Only a few schools do. EA is non-binding, so does not have the same benefits as ED as it doesn't show the admissions committee that you are clearly dedicated to their school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what about EA VS RD?
[/quote]
Up until a few years ago, Brown did have EA. It was getting swamped with applications and switched to ED.</p>