<p>Princeton's ED acceptance rate is around 30%. RD acceptance rate around 9%. You don't have to be a math genius to figure out which program is more beneficial to you if Princeton is your clear first choice.</p>
<p>well yes of course but the question was whether it was worth it to run the risk of getting screwed financially</p>
<p>Bear in mind, also, that a substantial fraction of so-called RD admits are, in fact, early applicants who were deferred.</p>
<p>Last year, for example, Yale admitted 670 applicants via SCEA, but then admitted another 249 SCEA applicants in the RD round.</p>
<p>cncm: you don't have to be a math genious to understand that plain simply these numbers say nothing about your chance of being admited!! It's roughly the same if you apply with the same application file at ED and RD. The ED pool is more qualified and willing to attend. That's irrefutable :p</p>
<p>think about it this way, mathematically :D : if at school A 60% students get over 1598 :D at SAT, and at your school only 30% do, that doesn't mean that if you're going to go to school A you'll get a better score... you're the same person...</p>
<p>or as my math teacher sometimes says: "the dice have no memory..."</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that Princeton ED pool is more qualified than its RD pool. No offense to any ED applicants. Just browse through the old CC threads and you'll see the stats of the ED acceptees...some of them would never have made it RD. Plus, many very qualified students would want to apply to more colleges, like Harvard and Yale, and thus wouldn't apply to Princeton ED, but rather RD. </p>
<p>As for financial aid...I don't think you have much to worry about. Princeton is one of the most generous universities in terms of financial aid. And if you don't get the aid package you want the first time around, you can always appeal. If Princeton is definitely your first choice, then I say go for it ED.</p>
<p>your arguments have no basis: a very qualified applicant won't come and ask "omg omg will i get accepted"... or at least not all of them! :D no offense, but CC isn't such a good indicative of the students out there... it's still small</p>
<p>I'm not saying that ED has more qualified students that RD, and i agree that many v qualified students will wait for RD to apply to more uni's. instead i'm saying that significantly less unqualified students, no-chancers, apply via ED, because it's just not worth it, whereas during RD even a sure-reject might apply, thinking: "heck, why not?!" esp if he/she has a fee-waiver...</p>
<p>ED is concentrated with well-qualified applicants who know they want to go to Princeton and very, very, very few of them apply there because it's totally out of their league. RD has a whole bunch of "what the hell applications." It is simply true: I have seen my school records and other school records with a similar phenomenon. I know Byerly is going to pull out the "Early Admissions Game" book but I have read that and I strongly disagree with their findings: you can't believe everything you read, you must look at it askance, and certainly they had an axe to grind: they wanted to prove their point. Colleges have no motive for accepting underqualified people early if they want a strong class in the end. I'm not saying Early Decision doesn't give you a boost--it certainly does. But to say that it's as dramatic as 29% vs. 6.5% would suggest is ludicrous. You have to look at the pool from which Princeton is selecting.</p>
<p>amen!? :D ulysses, you cristalize my thoughts exactly :D ... much better than i do</p>
<p>What Ulysses says is totally beside the point.</p>
<p>The fact is, FOR ANY GIVEN CANDIDATE , he or she is far better off applying early, and, indeed, has the same odds of admission as an RD cadidate with an SAT score 100-150 points HIGHER!</p>
<p>What is there about this fact that is so hard to comprehend?</p>
<p>I take issue with the advantage of having an SAT 100-150 points higher. That is such a ballsy and misleading claim. It's comparing apples to oranges. That is the finding of the authors of the book "The Early Admissions Game." The authors of that study saw that, say, applicants with a 1550 SAT got in at 29% and 1450 SAT at 7%. Then they see that applicants applying ED got in at 29% and RD at 7%. So they make the sensationalist claim that applying ED is the functional equivalent of having an SAT 100 points higher. It's bad statistics. And, it's simply untrue. Their data is dated and as I mentioned, they have an axe to grind. They sought to prove this in the first place. </p>
<p>Byerly, if a person can put together a better application by January 1 than he would have on November 1, then he is much much better off than applying ED.</p>
<p>it's incomplete...</p>
<p>Edit: answer to byerly</p>
<p>Not only is it incomplete, it's highly highly misleading. It's that type of claim that draws in more people to apply early when they have no business applying (hey i have a 1500, but i'm applying early, so it's like i have a 1600!)</p>
<p>By all means, apply early somewhere if you're ready. But it's not like the early decision acceptees have lower standards for acceptance, and therefore you can rest easy. RD standards for admission = ED standards</p>
<p>Very sadly, you have, like many applicants who are the victims of poor advising, had the wool pulled over your eyes on this topic.</p>
<p>At top public high schools and elite prep schools across the country, a large majority of applicants apply early, because it has been explained to them that doing so will enhance their chances of getting into a good school.</p>
<p>Ulysses: The Early Admission Game had access to all of the Ivy's admission records and isolated for things like legacies, athletes, etc. Read the book and its statistical significance will impress you. Why would the Ivy's open their records to people with an agenda? To the contrary, they would open their books only to credible social scientists. Futher, the RD admit rate is not 9%, it is lower. Many deferred ED applicants (the majority of the ED applicants are deferred) are accepted in the RD round. ED people have an advantage there as the school knows the applicant's first choice is his ED school. Yield is helped taking kids likely to attend. Schools don't release the true acceptance of at the RD round (RD round applicants plus ED deferrals) as it would be even more depressing for RD only applicants. Finally, making a 1500 kid have the same probability as a 1600 is not outrageous as it seems. 1600s don't have as high an acceptance as you might think. Moreover, the claim is they have the same probability of admission only. The meaningful conclusion is applying early is a significant advantage and there is no credible evidence to contradict.</p>
<p>Finally, read Reclaiming the Game documenting the advantages athletes have at highly selective schools. It may not be popular but the college admission process is not necessarily intuitively appealing.</p>
<p>I have read the book as I said, and Byerly, that is extremely condescending, especially considering I go to a top private (Deerfield Academy).</p>
<p>As I said, I'm not implying that a person has no advantage applying early. There certainly is an element of favoritism to early applicants. What I am saying is that the early pool is extremely extremely competitive and though the numbers may seem to imply a huge advantage, it is not really as exaggerated as it seems. 29% ED (even more if you count deferred/accepted) vs. ~6.5% RD (I never said there was a 9% RD acceptance rate ^^). </p>
<p>In the early pool (especially at a school like Princeton) you have:</p>
<p>1-Legacies. Tons of legacies are admitted early, since it is their first choice.
2-Athletes.
3-Many superstar academics who apply to Princeton knowing that is their first choice.
4-Applicants from top privates and publics, who, as Byerly said, had the strong advising in the first place to apply early (hence would tend to be better applicants)
5-More wealthy applicants who aren't so concerned about finances.
6-Applicants who had their acts together early and wrote and revised essays early. Basically the earlybirds--the organized, srong, motivated ones.
7-Many strong, motivated, talented international students. </p>
<p>In the regular pool, by contrast, you have:</p>
<p>1-A slew of applicants who were deferred/rejected at other early schools and are not as strong.
2-A slew of applicants, say many from local New Jersey schools, who had heard of Princeton and decided at the last minute to apply just for the heck of it.
3-Less prepared and motivated applicants from whom Princeton is not their first choice and thus produce applications with less verve and gusto.
4-Fewer high-powered legacy and development cases.
5-Simply a larger contingent of applicants who never had a chance in the first place. Many of them, as Byerly himself said, came from the poorer schools with worse advising. Thus, they tend to be weaker applicants (your own words are coming to bite you on the ass byerly!)
6-The deferred pool. </p>
<p>Does the 29%+ vs. 6.5% acceptance rate difference seem to make more sense now? </p>
<p>Schools like Princeton advise students at the information sessions that the early pool is much more qualified and that the students they take early are the same they would take regular. Sure, they might be stretching it a little, but I'm inclined to believe them. After all, they're after the best academic and extracurricular bets, not the students who are most likely to attend--they don't really have to worry about that as much (they are HYP after all).
I'm guessing at schools that have lower yields and lose many students to HYP like Dartmouth and Duke the ED boost might be more potent than at HYP. The stats of the Early Admissions Game boast about all early schools, not Harvard, Yale, and Princeton--the uber schools. It seems plain that the early decision boost would be much greater at, say, Wesleyan than at Harvard.</p>
<p>I am surprised to here that you go to Deerfield; one would have assumed that the college counselors at Deerfield would convey more urgently the importance of applying early -SOMEPLACE.</p>
<p>Your ptrevious post is pretty much irrelevant since you continually fail to acknowledge that the data in "The Early Admissions Game" is corrected tpo account for legacy status, recruited athlete status, etc.</p>
<p>Let me try again: do you understanfd that the comparison is betwee SIMILARLY STITUATED AND SIMILARLY QUALIFIED candidates - applying ED and RD respectively? I think this point seems to elude you.</p>
<p>And, on another point (speaking of "condescending") I doubt that you have a better understanding of statistics than the authors of "The Early Admissions Game," particularly since you have already acknowledged that math is not your strong point. </p>
<p>Byerly, you are the condescending one here. Though I may not be a math genius, I have studied statistics and am frankly not an idiot. If anything, I'm a very good analyzer and a very good reader. I understand the "Early Admissions Game" authors' motives better: how could they sell a good, interesting book if they didn't somehow use statistics to "prove" that applying early is this huge help?</p>
<p>Remember what they say-there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Bringing up my SAT math score betrays poor skills in debate and discourse; it is largely irrelevant.</p>
<p>Ah, now we have it. You think the authors of the book were lying. OK.</p>
<p>Byerly, you really are slow aren't you! This is hilarious. I did not say they were lying. I said that they have an axe to grind: the authors of that book want to sell books! They aren't on any great social mission, they are authors who want to sell books. So they can use statistics to manipulate people and make sensationalist claims like "applying early is the functional equivalent to having an SAT 100 points higher" (much as I used statistics to make the sensationalist claim that gays should avoid princeton, and people readily believed me!). </p>
<p>You should respond to what I wrote in my longer post.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I've concluded this "discussion" has run its course.</p>