<p>Hi all,
We were just wondering how early decision at Dartmouth works. IS it a direct accept/reject process? Or can they waitlist you? Is the higher 26% acceptance rate skewed by recruits? Thanks.</p>
<p>Under ED, you will receive one of three answers: accept, reject or defer.</p>
<p>If rejected, you can’t apply in Regular round. If accepted, you must withdraw all other apps. Congrats.</p>
<p>If defered, your app gets lumped into the next round, Regular Decision.</p>
<p>After RD in April, you’ll be accepted/rejected/waitlisted.</p>
<p>and YES the 26% accept rate is skewed by recruits.</p>
<p>Do you think that applying early decision does help increase the chances of a regular, non-recruit applicant?</p>
<p>From what I’ve read early decision increase the odds of admittance for any qualified candidate. In her book, “Acing the College Application”, consultant Michelle Hernandez makes a strong case: </p>
<p>First, schools actually do mean it when they say they believe an ED candidate sends a clear message that their school is the candidate’s clear top choice.</p>
<p>Second, she claims that ED pools are typically weaker than RD pools because many ED applicants are recruited athletes, URMs, high net worth people who aren’t concerned about financial aid, legacies, and development cases (i.e., the children of very rich people being cultivated as potential large sum donors). This group in the aggregate typically has a weaker academic profile (GPAs, SAT scores, etc.) than does the RD pool.</p>
<p>Third, schools like ED because the yield of admitted students is close to 100%. This helps the school improve the stat most associated with a schools desirability.</p>
<p>Of course the big trade off of applying ED is you don’t get to weigh financial aid offers from other schools. You’ll have to research Dartmouth’s policies and weigh your personal situation.</p>
<p>Thank you very much, that was very informative. My only question then lies in regards to athletes with weaker scores, etc. Wouldn’t the fact that they ARE recruits who are highly desired lessen the chances of an otherwise qualified candidate? How much does having a sport recruit actually improve your likelihood of admittance?</p>
<p>That’s an excellent question. I suppose the ideal answer would be to be a strong academic applicant that happens to excel at a sport. But, of course, in the real world that’s not always the case.</p>
<p>I suppose it goes back to the whole “holistic” approach to admissions that selective schools cite as how they decide who gets in and who doesn’t. I’m one of those people who think “holisitic” is just a euphemism for “totally subjective.”</p>
<p>Books I’ve read suggest trying to empathize with the school. They don’t recruit individuals, they recruit a community so they need a bit of everything. Plus most schools have to balance that against practical matters such as finances and pleasing important constituencies such as alumni, politicians, and big donors.</p>
<p>If a school only admitted “brainiacs” their libraries and labs but would be full, but what about their orchestra, theatre, art studios, and yes, hockey rinks? </p>
<p>For me it helps to consider talent as broad and not just solely academic. That and the pragmatic fact that life isn’t always fair.</p>
<p>bump
pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp</p>