<p>^ Not sure why you’d say that.Very few people would agree with you.Please tell us where the ED admittance rate is lower than the RD rate.</p>
<p>D2 applied to her #1 choice ED. She was fortunate to get in, which then got her out of the running for RD. I am fairly certain if she had applied RD to many of those schools on her list, she would have been a very strong contender for them. So I am not sure if locking up some of those strong applicants is really that bad for many RDers.</p>
<p>One other point is that going to a college is not an inherent right of everyone, so I don’t know why it would be immoral if some people do not get to go to college, much less to their top choices.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone suggested that going to college is an “inherent right.” My question regarded what other items, expensive or cheap are sold in that way. For example, does a realtor tell you that you can’t bid on a house if you are bidding on any other house? Does a grocer tell you you can’t shop there if you shop anywhere else?</p>
<p>It is certainly significantly easier. As a general rule the admission pcts run about 20 points higher for ED. There are schools, though, that let something like 80% of their ED applicants in. (I’m thinking of Ursinus here.)</p>
<p>Here’s the NY Times piece on this matter.</p>
<p>[Applicants</a> Continue to Flock to Early Admission Programs - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/early-admissions-2013/]Applicants”>Applicants Continue to Flock to Early Admission Programs - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Many hotels, even car rentals, will give you a cheaper rate if you were to “Pay now.” They do not give refund most of the time.</p>
<p>[Admission</a> Statistics: Acceptance Rates - Early vs. Regular In Like Me](<a href=“http://inlikeme.com/admission-statistics-acceptance-rates-early-vs-regular/]Admission”>http://inlikeme.com/admission-statistics-acceptance-rates-early-vs-regular/)
As you can see here most ED rates for TOP schools are not more than 15% higher, and that 15% includes legacies and recruited athletes.</p>
<p>^ What point are you trying to make now??? Fact is ED chances are significantly better than RD. Your embarassinging yourself.</p>
<p>barrk, the link you posted combines ED with EA, which reduces the difference I was talking about. Also, I think the data it uses is older than that in the Times piece. In any case, even where the difference is less than 15%, it might–as it does with Columbia–reflect a rate that is more than double that of regular decision applicants (24% v 10%).</p>
<p>I agree with barrk123. ED acceptances aren’t “significantly” easier.</p>
<p>From [Brown’s</a> UG Admission’s FAQ page](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University):
“Our pool of early applicants tends to include a very high proportion of exceptionally talented students and a higher rate of admission for Early Decision applicants reflects that phenomenon.”</p>
<p>I think this statement is true for most schools that offer ED. Certainly legacy applicants, recruited athletes, and others also factor in. But IMHO this is the reason that ED programs have higher admission percentages … The typical ED applicant is more qualified, therefore they are more likely to be admitted.</p>
<p>There is NO such thing as a typical ED applicant. And, fwiw, the seminal research on the ED advantage pretty much called the schools a bunch of BSers. Well, Avery et al did not call them that but did show that the average ED pools are considerably weaker. </p>
<p>Put it all together and you have SOME students who are indeed more qualified and quite a few more whose qualifications are based on athletic, really high SES, zero EFC, and minority status.</p>
<p>^^^Wow!!! I guess if upto doubling your chances isn’t deemed significant than you’d be right.</p>
<p>
The problem with using the raw numbers is there is no typical ED candidate and any candidate comparing themselves to averages is doing themselves a disservice. ED (and EA) is used by many schools for hooked candidates such as recruited athletes, developmental admits. AA admits, and legacies … and some of these groups (recruited athletes for example) will have extremely high admit rates which drives the overall ED admit rate up. Backing out the hooked applicants tends to make the ED acceptance rates much more similar to the RD acceptance rates for the typical unhooked applicant at most schools.</p>
<p>^ If you want to believe that it’s up to you. Ignoring facts because you don’t like ED is kinda silly.</p>
<p>
This article understates the true difference between ED and RD, by a lot. Columbia’s ED acceptance rate is ~20%, and its overall is around 7.5%… but that doesn’t mean RD is 7.5%. Remember the overall is both ED and RD, so you’re basically double counting the ED acceptance rate if you compare ED vs. overall. The actual RD acceptance rate is closer to 5%, about a quarter of ED.</p>
<p>Typically, most schools’ ED acceptance rate is between 2x and 3x their regular decision acceptance rate. If they really didn’t lower their standards for ED applicants, why even have ED at all? The only reason students promise themselves to one school for ED is because they understand their chances are significantly higher - a fact supported by every piece of data we have.</p>
<p>I agree that ED is immoral. Colleges should not be looking out for themselves (their yield, acceptance rate, etc.) over the interests of the students.</p>
<p>Maybe if the head in the sand ED deniers looked up the meaning of the word significant,they’d admit what’s obvious to most everybody else.</p>
<p>Thanks, invasion. You’ve made my points better than I did. </p>
<p>The suggestion that ED applicants are simply better is absurd. The data I’ve seen indicates that the the average grades and scores of RD applicants are significantly lower and the acceptance rates are significantly higher. Presumably, many of these applicants are (quite sensibly, I suppose) agreeing to remove their other options in return for upping their chances to get into schools into which they would not be seriously considered through the RD process. </p>
<p>So, assuming that all these are facts, the question comes back to–is this arrangement immoral? It obviously benefits the colleges doing it and the applicants who couldn’t get into these schools otherwise. My original thought was that it harms those candidates who can’t prudently apply ED for financial reasons. But Xiggi pointed out that the Common App has been altered so that it’s not really that hard to get out of the “obligation to attend.” If that’s all correct as well, what we should expect to happen is that within a few years, nearly everybody will start applying ED and the result will be that the ED acceptance rates will go down and the grades and scores will go up. That is, it will be as if there were no ED. </p>
<p>The only real change (assuming that schools retain ED under those conditions) will be that nearly everybody’s college app process will be a two-step deal: apply to your fave ED, then, after being rejected, apply every place else. If that’s how it all goes down, it doesn’t seem obviously immoral to me. The downside might be that (again assuming that pct of seats filled by ED candidates continues to rise at each college) there won’t be much chance of getting into any “really good school” once you’ve received your ED rejection. That is, the real action will be during the first cut–when applicants can apply to only one school. After that they’ll be stuck with their “easy pickings” choices. So, the chance of a “lucky” acceptance to a higher rung school will be dramatically reduced.</p>
<p>But I suppose I shouldn’t call a drop in randomness of that kind “immoral.” And I also think that if these predictions were to come to pass, colleges would probably look to eliminate ED anyhow. The main point for them was that applicants couldn’t extricate themselves (which is why so few schools have an EA option).</p>
<p>Here’s UPenn 2017 data ED appl.=4,527 with 1146 accepted(over 25%)// RD applic.=26692 + deferred fighting for approx 1,254 spots.Is that SIGNIFICANT???</p>
<p>Wow I guess the difference between 1 in 4 and and 1 in 26 (without counting any of the deferrals) would have to be considered significant. Thanks for providing such a great example, rebel!</p>