Is it beneficial to apply ED/EA to schools if your stats are lower than the schools average?

Applying to College
1

<p>i want to apply to columbia university ed. obviously as an ivy league school, it is very competitive, and i am no valedictorian, legacy, or super athlete, etc, just a student who really wants to attend the school. some people say that applying ED will increase my chances, but others say that the ED pool is more competitive. Which is true?</p>

2

<p>bump</p>

3

<p>If you look at the Columbia University website you will get the answer to your question (third to bottom question).
<a href=“https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/ask/faq/topic/398”>https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/ask/faq/topic/398&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In general it is best to look for answers from the school first. A little research (or googling) can often go a long way.</p>

4

<p>ED acceptance rates are higher because the applicant pools are more competitive. </p>

5

<p>The general rule for QUALIFIED applicants is that at competitive schools, ED provides an advantage, but not a huge one in most cases. They do not lower their standards in the ED round, but you are somewhat more likely to get accepted if you are quality material. That’s going to mean you need to fall in their 25-75% range at least, unless you have special circumstances, which you said you don’t. The mistake is thinking you can get in with less than competitive stats in the ED rounds - that just doesn’t happen very often, if at all.</p>

<p>Is the pool more competitive? Who know, it might be, but your increased odds more than compensate. Given the low percentages admitted in the RD round, there is no way that waiting for the flood of RD applications and supposedly less competition is a good idea. The numbers are against you and it’s just a bad idea.</p>

<p>I would actually look at the problem in reverse to find your answer - if you are qualified, when are you more likely to be rejected, ED or RD? The schools always report they rejects tons of otherwise qualified kids, and I suspect that that happens much more in the RD round, when they simply have run out of slots Schools are awfully tempted to grab every highly qualified kids they can find in the ED rounds and lock them in. In the RD round, they’re going to need even better candidates to apply and also decide to attend, a multi-step process that doesn’t have a guaranteed outcome. Schools, like people, tend to prefer sure things.</p>

6

<p>@MrMom62

Actually, Columbia explicitly stated that it was because early applicant pools are more competitive.</p>

<p>

</p>

7

<p>That’s admin speak for justifying letting in athletes, legacies, and developmentals. Among ordinary applicants, your odds are still better ED.</p>

8

<p>Where’s the evidence that the odds are better for ED applicants, even without hooks?
The Common Data Set does not break down GPA or SAT averages for ED v. RD. It only breaks out the ED acceptance rate (in section C21).</p>

<p>

[quote]
“Does applying early increase my (son/daughter’s) chances for admission to that school?” This is a common question that many students (and parents) ask me. Yes and no, depending on the school. Even top colleges and their admission deans disagree often with each other on this issue.</p>

<p>Some schools believe that committed students admitted ED are the foundation on which to build the freshman class. Another set of schools thinks that applying early would make no difference in admission chances. Other top-tier schools may see the early pool as the most competitive. <a href=“Advice On Applying to Top U.S. Colleges Via Early Decision or Early Action”>/quote</a></p>

9

<p>@MrMom62 Or, it’s just Columbia saying that you can’t use gimmicks to get in ;-)</p>

10

<p>Let’s just say that I’ve seen some less that stellar academic stats get in ED to some pretty selective schools. Their definition of “remarkable strength” is considerably different than mine and seems to have a greenish hue.</p>