<p>well i dont mean they just do it for no reason, but I know plenty of kids who have absolutely no chance getting in anywhere remotely decent who are are applying regular to ivies cause they don't see why not. I'd just imagine they don't have the best supplemental essays</p>
<p>david:</p>
<p>I sat thru at least 10 presentations from highly selective schools, and not one adrep stated that there is no difference between ED and RD. Nearly every one said that "there might be a slight advantage to ED..." Obviously, with the difficult press on ED, they would state no difference if they could.....at least, IMO.</p>
<p>The only study on the subject, did indicate that ED was worth 100 points in SAT scores, after factoring out legacies, recruited athletes, etc. But, it was based on '98-99 admissions data.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, honestly, I can vouch for it helping, I was just admitted to Tufts under ED I, and my cumm GPA was a 3.4774 (4.02 weighted) when I applied, incredibly low for a school like Tufts, granted I had good EC's (and 30 ACT, not so great), but I would most likely have been waitlisted or rejected had I applied RD.</p>
<p>id say a sat through about 10 presentations at highly selective schools also. other than penn, they basically said there's no difference between the two rounds. Harvard actually said their EA pool is more competetive that RD</p>
<p>
[quote]
I sat thru at least 10 presentations from highly selective schools, and not one adrep stated that there is no difference between ED and RD. Nearly every one said that "there might be a slight advantage to ED..."
[/quote]
[quote]
id say a sat through about 10 presentations at highly selective schools also. other than penn, they basically said there's no difference between the two rounds. Harvard actually said their EA pool is more competetive that RD
[/quote]
In the case of the first quote, adcoms fudge the facts. The best insider book is "Admissions Confidential" by Rachel Toors and she indicated that new adcoms are instructed about what to say and not say. Schools do publish ED and RD SAT stats and the ED scores are lower. They also publish how much of the freshman class they are filling up using ED and it is often around 40%. </p>
<p>In the case of the second quote, Harvard doesn't have ED. Year before last, Yale and Stanford got together and agreed between the two of them to eliminate ED because it was a bad thing for society. Harvard followed them almost immediately. They have SCEA, Single Choice Early Admissions, which is not binding. In the literature, it is discussed that other colleges have not followed the lead because they are afraid of losing their yields. Yale, Stanford and Harvard have such high yields that they were taking less of a risk.</p>
<p>Does applying ED to any of the following school help?</p>
<p>Cornell
Columbia
Northwestern
Boston College
NYU-stern
Rutgers
University of Michigan
Princeton</p>
<p>dufus:</p>
<p>officially (read legally), Stanford and Yale came up with thier SCEA plans indepdently.....as the kids say, yeah, right.</p>
<p>btw; Princeton is one of those schools that claim that the ED pool is much stronger, and, as a result, the acceptance rate is 32% vs. 10% RD. However, the ED SAT scores don't seem to support the much stronger claim, since they appear to be equal to, or lower than RD pool.</p>
<p>Huckit: Michigan has rolling, so definitely apply early, and receive early notification. Cornell ED = 44%, RD = 27%. Columbia: 30%/11%. Northwestern: 50%/28%. BC: 43%/29%.</p>
<p>Just curious, where are you getting all this supposed data comparing SAT scores of ED admits and RD admits?</p>
<p>wesdad:</p>
<p>searched the P-ton press releases, and compared with what they report on USNews...not scientific, but one data point. Of course, it does not compare gpa, strength of schedule (assuming that someone applying ED does not need senior grades), and the all important ECs.</p>
<p>bluebayou --</p>
<p>Right, that's what I figured. </p>
<p>Occassionally press releases from schools do report SAT scores for early admits. For example: median SATs for ED admits for class of 2010 at Princeton are: 720 CR, 730M, 720WR (1450/2170); mean (not same as median) SATs for ED admits for class of 2010 at Dartmouth are: 706CR, 718M, 704WR (1424/2128). </p>
<p>But the US News data (which I think mostly come from the Common Data Set data) include ED and RD in the reported SAT numbers. So how does that produce a comparison of ED and RD SAT scores?</p>
<p>why? why would they give preference to EDers? holy, i applied to Upenn and i would've applied ED if i knew i've got a higher chance. god, this might be my downfall...</p>
<p>I thought Penn only gave preference to legacies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why? why would they give preference to EDers? holy, i applied to Upenn and i would've applied ED if i knew i've got a higher chance. god, this might be my downfall...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>because if they accept you Early Decision, you have to attend.
Schools run like a business you know they need to get as many students as possible to fill up their classes so they can get that tuition money. </p>
<p>meanwhile, if you apply regular decision and they accept you - you might go to harvard instead and then while they gave you a spot in their class - you instead went to another school, so they get no tuition or anything. </p>
<p>It is always better for schools to accept more applicants ED.</p>
<p>mike summed it up quite nicely.</p>
<p>oh damn it, i didn't know that!!</p>
<p>but by have to attend you mean have to? i thought you only put down deposit and that's all. I mean are they gonna sue you if you accepted your ED and went to another school?</p>
<p>"btw; Princeton is one of those schools that claim that the ED pool is much stronger, and, as a result, the acceptance rate is 32% vs. 10% RD. However, the ED SAT scores don't seem to support the much stronger claim, since they appear to be equal to, or lower than RD pool."</p>
<p>I was thinking about this the other day and realized that the term "stronger" is somewhat ambiguous. What I mean by this is that a recruited athlete w/ strong grades and a 2170 SAT is a MUCH STRONGER applicant than an unhooked individual w/ a 2400. The same goes for legacies and URMs to a lesser extent. So while the applicants may not be academically (or even personally) stronger, they are stronger as far as the school is concerned.</p>
<p>However, I still think there is an edge to ED, an edge that is mitigated by the factors I just mentioned. As for EA...maybe, but not much.</p>
<p>very well said</p>
<p>oh and what I should have mentioned - I think I thought it was assumed - is that the ED pool is chock full of athletes and legacies, much moreso than RD.</p>
<p>i would say that the ed edge is still there for unhooked applicant, but is much less than one thinks. For example, if a school admits 30% ed and 15% rd, then maybe an unhooked kid has a 20% chance</p>