<p>So? I've heard it's the equivalent of a 100 point SAT boost.</p>
<p>100 point SAT boost is alot. I don't think anyone really knows. I'm sure it's different for different schools as well.</p>
<p>It IS different for different schools. In fact, at a few schools your chances are actually WORSE applying ED than they are if you apply RD. At other schools, applying ED or Single Choice Early Action is pretty much a wash with applying RD. So, don't buy into the "100 point SAT boost equivalent" without doing your own research for each individual school --- more importantly, don't rush to apply ED thinking it's the only way you'll get into A college, especially if you need financial aid. The purpose of ED isn't to boost your chances, it's to give you an answer early, and you give up a certain amount of power in the process.</p>
<p>Alot.</p>
<p>Depending on the school, maybe a whole lot.</p>
<p>carolyn what "certain schools" do you mean? I'd assume the most competetive ones right? ivies, amherst, williams, bla bla bla?</p>
<p>lol, i applied early to wharton w/ a 2330 & was rejected. based on what you guys have been saying, it's kinda like they rejected me w/ a 2430. haha. :)</p>
<p>your best bet would be to look up the common data sets at the schools which you are interested in. There is a section in the common data set that will tell you how many people applied ED, and how many were admitted. you can use the ED admit # to figure out what percentage of the freshman class was admitted ED.</p>
<p>Unless you are an recruited athlete, legacy or developmental admit, sibling, etc. as a unhooked applicant, ED really does not increase your chances by much because colleges know that the bulk of the applications are coming the RD round</p>
<p>depends on the school.</p>
<p>the ivies, top 20 schools...early def. helps.</p>
<p>One caveat with the stats in the common data set: the proportion of recruited athletes in the ED pool can vary tremendously with the size of the school and whether or not the school has a football team. A school with 6000 students and an average number of teams but no football team will have a smaller percentage of recruited athletes making up the ED acceptances than a school with 2000 students and an average number of teams including football. The ED acceptance rate can look deceivingly high in the latter case.</p>
<p>i find it strange that it would matter for the ivies and other top schools because they don't really have a problem with yield, they don't really need to worry about competition. Id think it would be a big help at schools just below the ivies that have to worry about losing kids to ivies?</p>
<p>As to recruited athletes and early decision, some data for Haverford (a very small school, only about 1100 students or so total, that takes athletics pretty seriously for its class). </p>
<p>The following derives from the recent New York Times article on athletic recuitrment and ED admissions at Haverford for the Class of 2010: </p>
<p>237 apps
101 admits (overall admit rate of 43%)</p>
<p>Of the 237 ED apps, 71 were from recruited athletes (30% of ED apps)</p>
<p>Of the 71 recruited athletes, 37 were admitted (admit rate of 52%)</p>
<p>Of the total admitted ED, therefore, 37% were recruited athletes (37 of 101)</p>
<p>Consequently, for non-recruited athletes:</p>
<p>166 apps
64 admits (admit rate of 39%)</p>
<p>So, factoring out recurited athletes lowers the ED admit rate by (only) 4%. </p>
<p>Now, obviously, this does not take account of legacies, developments, or other ED apps with special hooks. Those applicants presumably are also admitted at a higher rate, which would again lower the admit rate for applicants without a special hook.</p>
<p>It may up to triple your chances depending on the school...</p>
<p>Ivies compete with each other for yield. They definitely all want their yield rates to be higher.</p>
<p>Some colleges fill up 40% of their freshman classes with ED applicants. They like to do this because it makes it easier for them to control yield and estimate how many applicants they need to accept in order to fill up, but not over fill, the dorms. Another reason that colleges like ED is that they like to accept applicants who show "interest" in the school.</p>
<p>An advantage to the applicant is that the SAT scores for accepted applicants is typically lower. Some of this may be because the SAT tests were taken earlier. The applicant might be a better shot applying RD with higher SAT scores from a later test.</p>
<p>The main disadvantage to the applicant is that they are giving up their ability to compare financial aid packages. An applicant should never apply ED if they have a large FA need. If you have a need of $20K, one college may offer you $20K in grants and $0 in loans. Another college may offer you $10K in grants and $10K in loans. The first package is obviously better. Also, they may not give you enough FA, and you have bound yourself to going there.</p>
<p>The whole ED thing has gotten out of hand. About two years ago, Yale, Stanford and Harvard dropped the whole ED thing and replaced it with SCEA because they felt it was socially irresponsible. It puts too much pressure on high school students and it disproportionally disadvantages candidates who need financial aid (minorities in particular). Currently, people are waiting to see what other schools do.</p>
<p>Also, I know that for some colleges, say, Penn, you loose out on some benefits if you don't apply ED. At Penn, if one of your parents works on campus as staff, you get 75% remission and a bit boost in admissions. I know someone that got in with a 1410 SAT and nothing special (no ultra high GPA, 33 IB diploma, which is low-ish for our IB program, and relatively mediocre EC's) becuase they applied early and had a parent workign for Penn. However, if you opt out of ED, you loose this benefit.</p>
<p>Typically children of employees are treated as legacies.</p>
<p>Penn, a vocal proponent of early apps -- ED acceptance rate = 34%, RD = 18%</p>
<p>Harvard SCEA = 23%, RD = 8%
Yale early = 17%, RD = 8%
JHU ED = 59%, RD 28%
Chicago EA & RD = 40%</p>
<p>Williams ED = 38%, RD = 19%
Amherst ED = 39%, RD = 21%
Swat ED = 45%, RD = 24%
Pomona ED = 31%, RD = 19%</p>
<p>Of course, all the usual caveats: don't apply ED if finaid is NEED. The early round will have legacies and recruited athletes, etc.</p>
<p>i still think the numbers are deceiving. Pretty much everyone applying ED is moderately qualified. With the bigger RD people you get way more kids just applying for the hell of it. Certainly, you will get more qualified peopel with the much larger applicant pool, but the proportio of underqualified goes up way higher i think</p>
<p>exactly, EA is much more self-selective since you can only apply to one school. You also generally have kids that are qualified for it and want to get into a school earlier.</p>
<p>well that may be true for schools on the common app, with no supplements, but I don't know a lot of kids who would want to crank on essay after essay "for the hell of it."</p>