<p>But why not still apply to Princeton and Northwestern? Why do ED at all? It's certainly not required.</p>
<p>garland, the reason is that the acceptance rate for Northwestern RD is lower than the acceptance rate for ED.</p>
<p>The student who simply applies RD to both has a lower chance of being admitted to Northwestern than the student who applies ED to Northwestern. Thus, by not using ED at all, the student increases his chances of having to attend an even less selective school that he finds less desirable than either Princeton or Northwestern.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, I don't think this is true. I think it is a false reading of the statistics to make that assumption. IMO, kids do not get admitted early who would not get admitted in regular decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree with the idea that ED/SCEA/EA admits are just as qualified as their RD peers, I think that applying early definitely does confer an advantage.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way: During the ED/EA round, of the 1000 applicants an elite may get, 400 may be "acceptable", (i.e. they're just as good as any enrolled kid in the school). But the school can only take 200. So here, it basically becomes a matter of which of the 400 top-quality students to take.</p>
<p>During RD, the same school may get 5000 applicants for another 200 spots. Of these 5000 applicants, maybe 2000 are just as qualified as any enrolled student. Yet of these 2000, only 200 will finally make it through.</p>
<p>It's a rough model that doesn't take into account yield, legacy, recruitment, etc., but though the numbers may differ, the idea remains. In other words, someone who isn't Yale-quality isn't going to get into Yale SCEA. However, given the fact that the number of Yale-quality people exceed the number of spots Yale has to offer, SCEA to Yale does give something of an advantage.</p>
<p>Marian: That's true, but for a stduent who's thinking Princeton, isn't it likely that they won't be in the percent who'll make the ED cut but not the RD cut? Especially if they apply for several reach/match schools besides the stratoreach? </p>
<p>(For instance, my S's second choice was Michigan. A fantastic match, and unlikely he wouldn't have gotten in. But if it had ED, I never would have suggested he use it there, because it wasn't his first choice. It's another variation of loving thy safety--love some matches, some reach matches, some safeties. I guess it's personal choice, but a well-balanced, varied list seems to me much more satisfying than something that feels like throwing in the towel at the start.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ahhhh... but who knows what their definition of creme de la creme is????
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For an unhooked white applicant:</p>
<p>1) Absolute top class rank with the most challenging curriculum. Unassailable transcript.</p>
<p>2) Test scores above 750 across the board</p>
<p>3) Stellar recommendations</p>
<p>4) Something very interesting</p>
<p>Actually, when it comes to gaming the system, it really doesn't matter much whether Yale, Princeton, etc. favor their early applicants.</p>
<p>What matters is whether the second-level, just-below-HYPSM school gives ED applicants an advantage. (And you should note that these schools inevitably use binding ED, not EA. They are not stupid.)</p>
<p>Some of the schools that top applicants consider their second-level backups openly state that they do indeed favor ED applicants.</p>
<p>Here's what Northwestern has to say on the subject on its Web site:
[quote]
Applicants who choose Early Decision send a strong, positive message to Northwestern. Given their high level of interest and overall academic and personal strength, the rate of admission for our Early Decision applicants is higher than our overall admit rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cornell is even more explicit:
[quote]
Because enthusiasm for Cornell is considered a plus, early-decision applicants stand a better chance of gaining admission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's what Duke says:
[quote]
There is a slight advantage in the admissions process to applying Early Decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I couldn't find a similar statement on the Penn Web site, but Penn's admissions dean, Lee Stetson, has been quoted all over the place admitting it. Here's a sample from an article in the Atlantic. Prior to the sentences I've quoted, Stetson had explained that Penn puts the thumb on the scale for legacies ONLY if they apply ED. He goes on to say:
[quote]
It made sense, he added, for Penn to extend the policy to applicants in general: if they are extra serious about Penn, Penn will make an extra effort for them. "We've been very direct about it," Stetson told me. "Everybody likes to be loved, and we're no exception. Everybody likes to see a sign of commitment, and it helps in the selection process."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you see a trend here?</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, given the fact that the number of Yale-quality people exceed the number of spots Yale has to offer
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If they were "Yale quality" (whatever that means), they would get accepted. </p>
<p>All the nonsense about filling the class two or three times over is just to ease the sting of rejection. Obviously, those who are accepted offer something those who are rejected don't.</p>
<p>The only exception to this truism would be "Tufts Syndrome" kids -- something that would only marginally be in play at Yale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If they were "Yale quality" (whatever that means), they would get accepted. </p>
<p>All the nonsense about filling the class two or three times over is just to ease the sting of rejection. Obviously, those who are accepted offer something those who are rejected don't.
[/quote]
This is just patently absurd. The number of students who could succeed at a Harvard, a Yale, a Stanford.... is far larger than the number of students who attend these schools. I know. I attended one of them and married someone who attended another. We were highly qualified. So are legions of my friends who didn't go there, including some who applied, even back in the day, and were not accepted.</p>
<p>Marian,
I absolutely agree with you. Lee Stetson's comments (as well as the comments made at the info sessions we attended at Penn) made it clear that Penn wants to be loved. As I said, I'm quite sure that is why my daughter did not get into Penn.
She had enough other good choices that she was happy with that she would have been okay with not getting into Penn or Harvard or Yale. If your daughter does not have that, it's tough to gamble.<br>
This year, Cornell did not take many qualified students who did not apply ED. And I still don't get their guaranteed transfer offers to those who were rejected and not waitlisted, but that's a whole different thread for another time.
On the flip side, my daughter also thought she was possibly tossing away her shot at Columbia by not applying ED. She got in there RD and was delighted. In fact, she would have happily attended there had Harvard not worked out.
It's all a crap shoot.
It's a very tough call.</p>
<p>"For an unhooked white applicant:</p>
<p>1) Absolute top class rank with the most challenging curriculum. Unassailable transcript.</p>
<p>2) Test scores above 750 across the board</p>
<p>3) Stellar recommendations</p>
<p>4) Something very interesting"</p>
<p>To them - obviously not to Penn, Yale or even Wash U. Go figure.</p>
<p>Second jmmom. If some of the rejects at H, or P were not just as qualified as the admits, we would not have the common scenario of applicants being admitted at one of the three and rejected at the other two (take your pick which, it does not matter).</p>
<p>"All the nonsense about filling the class two or three times over is just to ease the sting of rejection. Obviously, those who are accepted offer something those who are rejected don't."</p>
<p>4-5% developmental admits. 10-12% legacies. 25-30% varsity athletes (to fill up the teams). 2-4% "important" contacts (ambassadors' kids, President's (of the college or the country) nephew, daughter of the King of Siam. 10% Pell Grant recipients. More than half the class is already filled, and we haven't even started on oboe players, movie actors, published novelists (ah-hem), and making sure there are enough full-paying customers. Oh, and the feeder GCs are placated.</p>
<p>Now we can get down to business. What did you say your SAT score was?</p>
<p>Really, the "Yale quality" comment is absurd. Many, many "Yale quality" kids are not accepted at Yale (and many are, too).</p>
<p>There is probably a stratospheric level of candidate, too -- maybe 500 kids nationwide in any year -- who could get accepted anywhere by asking (except see one of my prior posts, where two such kids were turned down by Princeton). But after those kids are spoken for, it's Pick Five Lotto. Some kids are big winners, others not. I'm sure it relates to some subtle things in their applications, but to an observer who knows the kids, the results are indistinguishable from luck (among a group of sensationally smart kids).</p>
<p>Garland: Take Twinmom's example, Harvard and Penn. Thank goodness her daughter got into choice #1, Harvard. Because he/she didn't get into choice #2,Penn, in RD. In lots of cases it may be clear in RD that someone will get in to school A and not school B. These days there are many instances where it is more difficult to make this determination. Particularly when both schools in question are themselves quite selective.</p>
<p>By the way, re talking with your kids about making choices: My daughter explained it to me when she decided to apply ED to her second choice school and EA to her third-choice school, rather than SCEA to her first-choice school. I thought she had thought it through really well. She is fine with how it worked out (third choice school).</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is just patently absurd. The number of students who could succeed at a Harvard, a Yale, a Stanford.... is far larger than the number of students who attend these schools. I know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That has nothing to do with what I said. Obviously, there are many applicants who could succeed at Yale, but who are not "Yale quality" (whatever that means).</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with whether or not you could succeed at Yale. It has to do with whether or not you have what it takes to get accepted.</p>
<p>I don't think ANY of it is a Lotto, and I think it is insulting to admissions professionals to characterize it as such. And, as noted, for well over half the applicants at H or Y or P, it is not about "subtleties" in the applications at all.</p>
<p>So, ID, why do students get rejected by Yale but accepted by Harvard and vice-versa. Except for the location, there's not that much difference between the two.</p>
<p>Oh, I can answer that. In each year, different athletic needs (and perhaps a few different orchestral ones.) Different legacies and legacy patterns. Different "need" for Pell Grant students. Different contacts with "important" people (the Mayor of Cambridge might not have an inside track in New Haven.) Different relationships with GCs developed over time. Differing departmental needs (the astrophyics or Egyptology department might be desperate for students at one, and flooded at the other.)</p>
<p>Admissions professionals are paid good money to note and balance these needs, which can be very different even in the same school year over year, no less between or among schools. Little is left to chance if they can help it. Since they are not selecting individuals, but building a class, all this talk about "lottos" to them would be so much chatter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, ID, why do students get rejected by Yale but accepted by Harvard and vice-versa. Except for the location, there's not that much difference between the two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's a lot of difference.</p>
<p>One has 50% qualifying for need-based aid. The other only 42% (definitely a "rich kid" school's percentage).</p>
<p>One is only 56% white; the other 62% white. That's a significant difference in diversity.</p>
<p>I'm too lazy to look it up, but I would be curious about the percentages of public school students at the two schools.</p>
<p>These are all specific measurables that provide clues about the admissions priorities, i.e. "Yale quality" or "Harvard quality".</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks it's all about GPAs and SATs is missing the boat.</p>