<p>I heard something interesting today. I was told that the reason that acceptance rates are usually higher with ED was because the majority of people who apply ED are the people with the best applications (the CCers of the world ;]) who are 100% dedicated to going to that school. To me, it makes sense, if application is amazing of course your chance of admission is going to be better. So my question is, would applying ED be a bad idea for someone who only has average stats for a school because they will be compared to the cream of the crop more than they would during RD? I, for instance, want to go to Brown desperately. My stats aren't amazing (they're certainly good), especially for Brown. Would I have a better shot in RD than I would in ED?</p>
<p>Don’t lock yourself ED into Brown. Brown is for the etherial hipsters (modern hippies) or to fill some “ivy” hankering. With the multitude of ivy peers that offer superior education and opportunities why apply to a school only kept alive by propaganda from feeder east coast boarding schools and loony liberal baby-boomers that need “Ivy” kids to brag about at democratic fundraisers? You are better off at a legit top tier school.</p>
<p>There was a study published by a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School that purported that the advantage of ED over RD in terms of lowered application standards is negligible.</p>
<p>It is even possible that when you take out recruited athletes and URMs from the ED pool, the standards applied may be identical or even perhaps slightly tougher than RD. However, there is an advantage in admission rates. So, for example if you are one of the very qualified but not special applicants (of which there are thousands to all of these schools), then it becomes a crapshoot for this very qualified applicant pool. So would you rather have odds at 12/100 ED or 7/100 RD?</p>
<p>I think you’ve read a misinterpretation of the study. Christopher Avery, of Harvard’s Kennedy school, concluded in a widely reported study that early decision was worth about 100 points on the SAT. use Google and you can easily find references to this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my, this is an unintelligent post…</p>
<p>Generally you have a slightly better shot applying ED than RD, because although there are many qualified ED applicants, there also less super-qualified (HYP-type) applicants in the ED round. If Brown is definitely your top choice and you don’t need to worry about financial aid, then sure, why not apply ED? I would however advise you to keep an open mind as you look at other colleges, and not to set your heart on just one. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are correct. I read of the study in an article in Duke’s college paper (or perhaps another school paper) that described the results as showing only small variations in the standards applied. If the study does conclude 100 points, then their admissions department considered that a a small difference. Anyway, now that i located the cover sheet and found the work is from 10 years ago, I have no idea why anyone would reference this study. Clearly the admissions landscape has changed dramatically in the last 10 years, so this study is unlikely to be illuminating today.</p>
<p>
Do URMs have a better shot at ED? I am one so that’d be great.</p>