One of the very few schools we do have some data on is Harvard, one of the most elite and exclusive schools. From its recent trial data, it’s clear that applying early (SCEA in its case) offers a clear advantage, even if the student isn’t hooked. BTW, Harvard is one of the schools that claims applying SCEA or RD makes no difference. One can choose to believe what one wants to believe.
Ironic choice given SCEA at Harvard is non binding so equivalent to EA which you are railing against as unfair.
In Harvard’s case they assume a 90%+ yield so offer acceptance to the absolute best candidates via the only early means through which you can apply to Harvard. Non binding.
1 Like
I don’t rail against EA. I actually much prefer EA, if it’s a genuine option, to ED, as I’ve said earlier.
You are however suggesting schools are being deceptive. You used Harvard as an example in suggesting they don’t disclose and explain the statistical realities of SCEA yet here they do exactly that…
That’s exactly what I said Harvard claims. However, the trial data showed otherwise.
You indicated…
They actually address it head on by explaining that the criteria is the same but acceptance rate is higher because the SCEA round attracts a stronger talent pool. Please read the entire paragraph they publish.
Yes, I did. Many times. Remember the saying that you should look at what they do, not what they say? Anyway, the data from the trial clearly showed that unhooked applicants enjoyed an admission advantage when they applied SCEA, all else being equal.
1 Like
Any what they do and what they say is one and the same. So not sure why you are using Harvard as the poster child for deception.
It’s not about acceptance rates, which can be explained away by a stronger and/or hooked early applicant pool. It’s about similarly rated unhooked applicants in both SCEA and RD pools.
You now say it’s not about acceptance rates but you had said…
I am moving on. I asked for one hard example of the deceptive behavior you are describing and you pointed to Harvard accepting a higher percentage of applicants SCEA vs RD. I provided Harvard’s disclosure and explanation for it. Hardly a secret or deceptive but attached to the application link.
I can’t keep responding without engaging in debate and the goal posts keep moving. Enjoy the last word on me.
2 Likes
I don’t want to discuss Harvard either. The reason it came up is because you seem to claim that an unhooked early applicant enjoys no advantage at a super elite school.
That’s never my point. I’m not sure how I gave you that idea. It’s never about higher acceptance rate in one round or another.
So vote with your feet. Don’t apply then. Nobody is forcing people to apply to these schools. It’s only a few schools anyways, so why does it matter??? Consumer behavior often forces change—that’s a free market. If apps fall off a cliff, then…
1 Like
If it were up to me, we would avoid schools that use EA and ED at the same time, but S24 is interested in specific programs and some of those programs are to be found in schools like Tulane, Miami etc. So we will likely apply EA, but we will hedge our bets by applying more widely.
3 Likes
I’m not asking for you to state a cause of action. Rather, I am just trying to figure out how you think these colleges have wronged their applicant pool.
Here is how CWRU describes the differences between EA, ED, and RD.
Here’s the reality: A large portion of our applicant pool is “admissible”—in other words, they represent the accomplishments, motivation and preparation we value. But we can only make so many offers of admission as we build our incoming class. There simply isn’t room on our campus for everyone we would like to admit. During the Early Action and Regular Decision processes, less than half of those “admissible” students make their way to being admitted. A much higher proportion of “admissible” Early Decision I and II applicants are offered admission - typically over 80%. Is Early Decision right for you? (A letter from the Dean) | Features | Case Western Reserve University
So it seems CWRU is telling potential applicants that that applicants will not “be treated in the same way,” and that not choosing ED will “materially and negatively impact the students’ applications (certainly relative to their ED option).”
This isn’t about legal minutia. CWRU seems to being saying the opposite of what you claim. That’s what is confusing.
4 Likes
Interesting. I pulled up the link -which says nothing about EA’s acceptance stats - just ED. If an impressionable kid like my S sees those high admission stats for ED 1 and 2 (and even here, I’d want to see a year over year breakdown between the two ED rounds), he’s going to think EA is only a little less generous than ED. (Like, 50 or 60%).
I get it that many disagree with this viewpoint (that EA/ED combined creates an unhealthy dynamic). Happy to move on and wish the OP and her son good luck with CWRU.
1 Like
But that’s his assumption, not the school’s representation…
4 Likes
That’s a huge mistake. These are not interchangeable or comparable.
3 Likes
We all know ED/ED2 acceptance rate is much higher than that of RD, so saying ED/ED2 admit rate is higher than the combined admit rate of EA and RD doesn’t tell you anything. Besides, CWRU has flip-flopped a number of times on issues related to admissions and financial aid so I wouldn’t count on some vague statement. For example, just google whether CWRU is need-blind or need-aware and you’ll find it’s been similarly vague and keep changing its policies.
Glad we have moved from “purposely mislead (or worse)” to publicly disclosed but vague. I could agree in some cases but still don’t see damages.
1 Like
You and I should just agree to disagree. You choose to put your faith in some carefully crafted, purposely vague and evasive statements, rather than evidences (yes, they’re anecdotal in the absence of data that only colleges themselves have). I’m more than inclined to believe such evidences based on what I observed in person and online.