<p>They're reporting a 9.6% acceptance rate on the Yale page.</p>
<p>I've not had experience applying (or my kids applying) ED anywhere. I never really gave it much thought. But lately, our guidance office has been recommending that route to students who are "worried" about their scores or grades, i.e. are sitting on the fence/not shoe-ins, at our flagship U. Same with some of the LACs in the southeast, but not others (such as Notre Dame, whose reputation says "don't apply ED unless you're stats are VERY good"). Anyway, it seems that if it's a little easier to get in ED somewhere, then people who have the luxury of knowing they can go there with or without scholarships or aid (well-to-do) are definitely at an advantage. </p>
<p>You hear so much complaining about URMs and athletes getting in, but not ED applicants. Also, colleges don't seem to want to share information about percentile differences among ED and RD applicants.</p>
<p>As far as athletes getting in ED, I'm not sure...I know of baseball players and other spring sporters who haven't known where they were going until much later in the year.</p>
<p>I think at the mainstream Division I schools, athletic admissions is a whole separate game. At tony LACs and the Ivies, however, there is definitely an interplay between ED and athletic recruitment. Most of my children's private-school friends (i.e., not worried about financial aid for the most part) who intended to pursue their sports in college went that route.</p>
<p>Another population that tends to apply ED is legacies.</p>
<p>Penn openly states on its Web site that the legacy preference only applies to ED applicants, and this may be true at other colleges as well.</p>
<p>*Yale *</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20475%5B/url%5D">http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20475</a></p>
<p>Yale College's total acceptance rate rose 0.7 percent to 9.6 percent this year for the class of 2011, while many other Ivies saw record-low acceptance rates.</p>
<p>Yale accepted 1,860 students out of the 19,323 total early and regular decision applicants for the class of 2011, Dean of Admissions Jeff Brenzel said Thursday. The University is aiming to matriculate a class of 1,340 incoming freshmen, he said, up from 1,310 last year. </p>
<p>Yale accepted 1,151 applicants out of the 17,937 who applied regular decision in January, for an admit rate of 6.4 percent. An additional 859 students were offered positions on the waitlist. Out of the 3,594 students who applied early action to Yale in November, 709 were accepted and 2,208 were deferred in December for a 19.7 percent admit rate.</p>
<p>The number of applications Yale College received decreased 9.7 percent from last year, when it admitted 1,878 total students out of 21,101 applications. </p>
<p>Dartmouth</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2007033001010%5B/url%5D">http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2007033001010</a></p>
<p>With over 14,000 applicants to the class of 2011, Dartmouth posted a record low acceptance rate of 15 percent, accepting only 2,165 applicants.
With a two percent increase in applicants over last year and a 20 percent increase in the last five years, the applicant pool for the Class of 2011 is the largest in College history.</p>
<p>In December, 308 students were accepted to the College from an early decision pool of 1,285 applicants, yielding a 24 percent acceptance rate.
One measure of the academic strength of the pool its SAT averages. This year's average math and verbal scores were 726 and 723 respectively, which are comparable to previous years. Furstenberg noted that the new writing section on the SATs are not given as much emphasis during the acceptance process because the College is unsure of how this section reflects intelligence. </p>
<p>Also of note, 37.2 percent of students were valedictorians of their high schools, and a record 94.4 percent were ranked in the top 10 percent of their class, up from 93.1 percent last year.</p>
<p>Brown</p>
<p>According to unverified sources, Brown admitted 13.8% of a record 19,053 applicants. Brown accepted 523 of the 2,307 early decision applicants to the Class of 2011 for a 22.7% acceptance rate</p>
<p>Penn</p>
<p>According to unverified sources, The University of Pennsylvania saw an 11 percent increase in the number of applicants and a drop in its acceptance rate from 17 percent last year to 15 percent this year.</p>
<p>"Past experience suggests that the particular college a student attends is far less important than what the student does to develop his or her strengths and talents over the next four years."</p>
<p>They don't believe that for a minute. If they did, and were convincing, why would anyone apply?</p>
<p>At any rate, at these levels (except perhaps for H.), the schools actually become "less selective" as they reject more candidates. There is a greater chance that they are accepting candidates who would be happier elsewhere (but rejected there), less likely to end up with those candidates who can make best use of what that individual institution has to offer. </p>
<p>But, as the Harvard rejection letter says, it is "far less important" anyway. ;)</p>
<p>I don't believe ED pools are stronger - I bet a lot of kids with a little lower stats apply ED because they know a greater percentage are accepted.</p>
<p>Swarthmore</p>
<p>5244 applications
890 accepted (17%)</p>
<p>The 890 includes 152 accepted EDI and EDII.</p>
<p>Diversity breakdown of accepted students:</p>
<p>41% US white/unknown
22% US Asian American
15% US Latino/a
15% US African American
6% International</p>
<p>52% female
48% male</p>
<p>900 students offered a spot on the waitlist</p>
<p>"The number of applications represents an eight percent increase over last year and a forty percent increase over three years ago."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The question I have with all this ED vs. RD stuff is, what is the "profile" of each of these groups?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is not a one-size-fits-all answer to that. For example, the relative EA/RD profiles at Harvard are very different than the relative ED/RD profiles at Swarthmore or Williams.</p>
<p>At Swarthmore, the "stats" of the enrolled ED and enrolled RD students are essentially the same. On the other hand, Swarthmore places great emphasis on the "Why Swarthmore?" essay in the admissions process. In terms of researching the school and expressing enthusiasm for the unique differentiating qualities of the school, the ED applicants are probably the school's "best" applicants. The SAT scores are largely irrelevant.</p>
<p>Not to mention that the ED applicants are perhaps slightly more likely to pay full fare (although not as much as people think).</p>
<p>to followup asap's point: at Dartmouth, 50% of ED acceptees are legacy and recruited athletes -- ~33% recruited athletes, ~17% legacies. Mean SAT scores of the ED acceptees were 20 points lower than in RD (but still 700+); possibly due to recruits?. </p>
<p>90% of ED acceptees from top gpa decile vs 94% of RD. 38% of ED'ers receive finaid vs 57% of RD'ers. But that number too is a function of legacies and athletic recruits who tend to be less disadvantaged, particularly in some sports.</p>
<p>bluebayou:</p>
<p>The proper comparison is not ED acceptees to RD acceptees. It's ED acceptees to RD enrollees.</p>
<p>The accepted pool is almost always slightly stronger statwise than the enrolled pool. The reasons are obvious. The best students in the accepted pool have the most attractive options and are the least likely to enroll.</p>
<p>Admissions offices evaluate the ED applicants against the standard of what they know they will end up with on May 1st, not what they start out with on April 1.</p>
<p>Here's an example that shows the differences between applied, accepted and enrolled -- in this case, at Amherst College:</p>
<p>For example, the mid 50% on math SATs is:</p>
<p>650 - 750 (applied)
670 - 780 (accepted)
660 - 770 (enrolled)</p>
<p>Assuming Amherst follows the trends of similar schools, the ED enrolled students likely mirror the stats of the overall enrolled class. As you can see, even the entire group of applicants is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguisable from the enrolled students as far as test scores. </p>
<p>That's why the adcoms at these schools can say, with a straight face, that "it's not the SAT scores". It's true. They have SAT scores out the wazoo.</p>
<p>i-dad:</p>
<p>Thanks for posting Amherst's numbers. I haven't seen all that many colleges who are so forthcoming!</p>
<p>You're welcome. Amherst's website is kind of lacking in some info, but in this case, their class profile is fantastic. The same comparisons are available for class rank, etc.</p>
<p>The narrow spread in test scores between applicants, acceptees, and enrollees really highlights why people perceive admissions as a "crapshoot". It's not about that stuff (once you are above the threshold for a particular school).</p>
<p>Another piece of the puzzle is revealed by the ethnic breakdown of acceptees at Swarthmore. That school is a little extreme, but still representative. Only 41% of the acceptances went to white US students, just 365 kids. Out of an applicant pool of 5200 high socio-economic students with those kinds of test scores, it's a pretty safe guess that the percentage of white applicants is probably a heck of a lot higher than 41%.</p>
<p>Just shows you how many wealthy (top 3%, but within their own cohort, top 1%) URMs with good SAT scores there are out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just shows you how many wealthy (top 3%, but within their own cohort, top 1%) URMs with good SAT scores there are out there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, as Martha Stewart would say, "that's a good thing."</p>