Actually, the college probably has a pretty good idea of the percentage chance a given applicant will attend if admitted (based on the characteristics of the applicant – e.g. academically stronger admits are less likely to matriculate due to having more other attractive options, level of FA and scholarships can affect chance of matriculation, and expressed level of interest can be used for this purpose even if not used to determine admission). It also knows that the percentage chance for an RD applicant is lower than if a similar applicant applied ED, since the latter’s chance of attending is close to 100%. While it cannot be sure for any given individual applicant, it uses these assumptions and calculations to determine how many and which applicants it can admit to fill its class (and also combine it with FA information to estimate tuition yield).
They can do data analytics for a proposed admission class to check both yield (expected number of matriculants) and tuition yield (expected net tuition of expected matriculants). If it does not meet requirements, they then adjust (typically adding some lower/no FA admits and reducing some higher FA admits). There was an article about admissions at Trinity that described the process.
Depends on the high school and depends on the college. I totally get where the OP is coming from. At our high school, we have a LONG history of ED being the only way to get into certain colleges and those schools seem to take 1-3 kids. Many times they are legacies or athletes. Also, for some schools, namely Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern, they take very very few in RD.
We had 108 kids apply to NU and eight got in and they were all ED.
50 kids applied to Duke and six got in. Five were ED.
48 kids applied to Vandy. They took three ED (and denied a bunch too). And they only admitted one (ONE!) in RD but waitlisted something like 20 kids including our S19 and all of his friends who are now at top schools like Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Bowdoin, and more. Of the kids who took the waitlist spot, Vandy took ALL of them. Vandy loves playing the yield card.
Also, colleges read all ED first. They don’t read the RD apps even if they were sent in early. So, there’s no comparing ED and RD kids unless they defer a student ED - then they read that app again with the RD pool.
@momofsenior1 , there was an article that touched on this subject in the NYT. https://nyti.ms/2A2boUF, the one @ucbalumnus was referring to above on Trinity. There is in fact a separate industry that tries to model the ideal balance given a school’s desired class profile wants and financial constraints:
"if you pick any two freshmen at the same college, they are very likely to be paying completely different tuition rates. Those rates are based not on the true value of the service the college is offering or even on the ability of the student’s family to pay. Instead, they are based on a complex calculation, using sophisticated predictive algorithms, of what the student is worth to the college and what the college is worth to the student.
The consultants many colleges hire to perform those calculations — known in the trade as “financial-aid optimization” — are the hidden geniuses of enrollment management, the quants with advanced math degrees who spend hours behind closed doors, parsing student decision-making patterns, carefully adjusting their econometric models, calculating for admissions directors precisely how many dollars they would need to cut from their list price to persuade each specific Chloe or Josh to choose their college. Outside the ranks of enrollment management, the work done by the companies that employ these back-room prodigies is almost entirely unknown. But collectively, they play as big a role as anyone in shaping American college admissions today."
Sorry to sashay further, for a moment. I found that NU video and it’s Shapiro, president, though his background is economics. And he refers to a Harvard prof’s study of several top colleges. And is talking to a group of hs kids, not in some pro forum. There’s a lot of lit by economists, generally looking at limited and after-the-fact admissions numbers. It’s a “what do these details seem to show us?” Not, “here’s how we review.”
For any tippy top, it’s not just stats, there’s a lot more to match, to show evidence of drives, a level of thinking and action, and fit. These economists, are not saying, definitively, that Early (or other factors) are an absolute boost. They can’t.
Maybe more 1480s get in Early, maybe at the level of the 1540 applicants. But that is far, far from the full picture. It says zip about your shot, your full app.
Ucb, I’d mostly agree. When you apply ED, you are saying, take me and I’ll come. But with RD, the elephants in the room are Harvard, Stanford, and others. Given a choice between H and NU, they know the kid may choose H. It’s a consideration in decisions. Not Tufts Syndrome or some strict yield obsession. More a wild card. Sometimes, they have to go back and try to assess a kid’s true interest. What shows them you’re likely to have NU as your first choice? ED sends that message. But there’s still more to an admit than the date you apply by.
I’m not that knowledgeable but wouldn’t their admittance be based on major? We have done no ED so I’m just curious.
@Nicki20 - It depends on the school. Some admit by colleges/majors, and others do not.
^That depends. If a college admits by school or department (e.g. College of Business, Comp Sci Department), the selected school or major will be a major factor. For the highly selective schools that do not admit by sub college or department, the indicated major is less important because they understand kids change their minds/interests, although I am sure they are trying to create a balance of academic interests and talent in each class (STEM, non STEM, writers, artists, musicians, socially/politically active, entrepreneurs, etc…)
Part of it is major, whether or not you apply specifically to some dept (eg, when there’s a separate College of Engineering or business school.) Because it’s an “institutional need” to balance the numbers in various depts. But remember that many depts that could have an easier admit (based on fewer applicants) are smaller, to begin with, have a smaller number of seats.
And absolutely, if you’re borerline for some competitive dept or program, they can wait to see what the RD pool offers.
I think many familes get confused. And when you find a video like Shapiro’s, on the surface, it seems to offer some clarity. But any time you’re talking highly competitive and holistic, you need to start with your own match. All points, all bullets. After that, it’s in their hands.
@lookingforward where is that Shapiro video? I’m an NU alum. I’d like to see it. I also know more specifics about how legacy works at NU from friends who are on the board. Legacy is considered differently at different schools but, if you’re competing against legacies and your school tends to only get a few kids admitted to any school, the non-legacies are definitely at a disadvantage. Last year, we had a legacy get into an Ivy that usually takes 0-1 kids from our school. The student had good enough grades and scores but no where near what the other applicants did and he was the only one who got in. Triple legacy and parents involved in alumni groups etc. No other student had a chance and boy were those kids upset.
Try googling “Morty Shapiro on early decision.” I don’t seem able to copy the address.
It’s from 2014. Lol, the chance is now 1 in 10, not 1 in 3. Things change fast in the admissions world, so it’s tough to rely on a 5 year old piece.
I think he stops short on what he’s saying. It feels like he’s selling ED to a group of kids in plush Evanston. A little smoke and mirrors. The reality behind lots of sound bites is your individual shot depends on your individual app and what you offer that they want.
Do you know in fact that this school gives merit scholarships? If you are chasing merit or want to compare financial packages, applying ED is not a good idea.
Many studies have reviewed preference for early action or early decision; and all I am aware of concluded that there is a notable preference for early applicants at many colleges (not all colleges). The most detailed analysis I am aware is from the Harvard lawsuit dataset. What separates it from other studies is that they have access to far more detail about the individual applicants, including the ratings readers assigned to applicants in many different subcategories. They can compare admissions decisions for applicants who received comparable ratings, had comparable stats, had comparable hook status, same planned concentration, from the same region, etc.
The baseline admit rates for SCEA vs ED were as follows. Both hooked ALDC and unhooked non-ALDC had a substantially higher admit rate when applying early than when applying early. The admit rate was 4-5x higher among non-ALDC kids who applied early than RD. However, this does not tell us whether the higher admit rate more relates to being generally stronger applicants or applying early.
Harvard Class of 2018 Admit Rates
Early Action: Non-ALDC = 15.9%, ALDC = 63.7%
Regular Decision: Non-ALDC = 3.1%, ALDC = 18.3%
Harvard Class of 2019 Admit Rates
Early Action: Non-ALDC = 12.4%, ALDC = 61.9%
Regular Decision: Non-ALDC = 2.9%, ALDC = 16.1%
The regression analysis that controlled for reader ratings of applicants, stats, planned concentration, … found that applying early offered an average of ~3.5x increased chance of admission compared to other applicants with similar controls, including ones for strength of applicant. So the bulk of the 4-5x increased admit rate among applicants applying early appears to relate to applying early itself rather than differences in strength of application.
As others have noted, a 3.5x increased chance of admission does not mean an unqualified applicant will automatically be admitted. You’d have to be in the region that some might consider borderline for this degree of boost to have a good chance of changing the admission decision. Comparing to other hooks, the relative strength was as follows. The applying early benefit was substantial enough that the author groups applying early with ALDC hooks, separating them from the “baseline” unhooked group.
Harvard Regression Analysis: Comparing Strength of Hooks
Athlete: +7.85 (2500x increase in odds of admission)
Dean’s Special Interest List: +2.32 (10x increase in odds of admission)
Legacy: +1.84 (6x increase in odds of admission)
Children of Faculty/Staff: +1.70 (5x increase in odds of admission)
Applies Early: +1.28 (3.5x increase in odds of admission)
Academic Rating Increases from 3 to 2: +0.84 (2x increase in odds of admission… associated with increase from “respectable” to “excellent” grades combined with 100-200 point increase on SAT)
Other studies with less information about the individual applicants that look at other colleges besides Harvard find similar conclusions. For example, the study at https://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf reviewed early decision at a list of “elite” colleges. It concludes that after controlling for SAT score, demographics, quality of ECs, and other factors, '“An early action application is associated with a 17 to 20 percentage point increase in admission probability, and an early decision application with a 31 to 37 percentage point increase.” An older study of hundreds of thousands applicants to “elite” colleges estimated an average increase in chance of admission by 25% after controlling for applicants with similar hook factors, SAT score, high school GPA, and others. However, the benefit was highly variable, with zero benefit at certain schools and substantial benefit at others…
This type of anecdotal example is too little information to draw conclusions about relative strength of ED boost. For example, you mentioned that many times the admits are legacies or athletes, so it would be good to separate legacy/athlete vs unhooked… Assuming unhooked kids are admitted, you might review how many top stat unhooked kids applied ED vs RD and their relative admit rates.
In the national pools, these colleges do certainly admit kids in the RD round. At nearly all ED colleges, the vast majority admits come from the RD pool rather than the ED pool. Specific numbers you for the colleges you mentioned are below, as listed in the most recent CDS, assuming near 100% yield for ED. Note that the relative admit rate difference does not consider the higher rate of hooked kids applying ED than RD. The actual degree of boost for ED is probably significantly less than suggested by the relative difference in admit rates.
Northwestern ED – 1077 admitted with 27% admit rate
Northwester RD – 2345 admitted with 6% admit rate
Overall Admit Rate = 8%
Duke ED – 879 admitted with 22% admit rate
Duke RD – 2310 admitted with 7% admit rate
Overall Admit Rate = 9%
Vanderbilt ED – 852 admitted with 21% admit rate
Vanderbilt RD – 2446 admitted with 8% admit rate
Overall Admit Rate = 10%
I agree with your “conclusion”, but when data are presented as these, they just reinforce our (likely erroneous) belief of the “huge” ED boost, almost a 3-4fold! It would be great if we had the data to show of the 879 Duke ED admit, 600 are with hooks.
Unfortunately, this level of detail is not available for the colleges listed above (Duke, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt). However, it is available in the Harvard lawsuit dataset. I added the overall admit rate to the numbers from my earlier post as listed below. When Harvard early action applicants had an an overall 6-7x greater admit rate than RD applicants, the analysis found a ~3.5x expected higher admit rate for SCEA applicannts over RD applicants with similar full controls, including similar hooks and strength of applicants. The remaining ~1.9x related to other differences between the applicant pools.
The analysis and differences in admit rates suggests ~3.5x increased SCEA admit rate over RD for direct SCEA boost, ~1.5x increased SCEA admit rate for differences in rate of hooks between SCEA and RD pools, and ~1.3x increased admit rate for other differences in applicant pools, including differences in strength of applicant pools. I’m sure Northwestern, Duke, and Vanderbilt have their own system that differs from Harvard and also have different applicant pools, but I’d be surprised if a 4x difference in admit rate is entirely due to differences in rate of hooks and/or applicant pool differences.
Harvard Class of 2018 Admit Rates
Early Action: Non-ALDC = 15.9%, ALDC = 63.7%, Overall = 24.5%
Regular Decision: Non-ALDC = 3.1%, ALDC = 18.3%, Overall = 3.5%
Harvard Class of 2019 Admit Rates
Early Action: Non-ALDC = 12.4%, ALDC = 61.9%, Overall = 19.8%
Regular Decision: Non-ALDC = 2.9%, ALDC = 16.1%, Overall = 3.2%
JUst remember, if you are not competitive, can’t pull together a compelling app, or you hit one of numerous typical potholes…no advantage.
We have to separate the analytical aspects from the practical: what it really takes, as an individual, to impress. Your app is the vehicle.
Hi! So, if a school does NOT require first quarter grades for EA applicants, is it a good sign if the AO from said school reaches out to the GC asking for first quarter grades?
Maybe. Maybe not.
We’re so close to decisions that everyone needs to breathe now.