Hi guys,
I was just wondering whether REA actually helps in terms of admission? I’ve heard varying things. Some say it doesn’t really matter, since the applicant level is generally higher. Others say that it shows commitment and demonstrated interest to apply to a school REA. The admission percentage is nearly double for REA, yet Stanford is extremely selective either way, so I dunno which of the two is true.
Thanks
My only impression is based on several rounds of alumni interviews and knowledge of results. I do not think it helps. REA is higher because of the applicant pool, but mostly due athletes and other special recruits. They get non scholarship athletes in by REA. Not at all like Vandy, Nwestern ED.
Really? Man,that sucks…
@PleaseStan - I can’t speak about Stanford, but when I posted a similar question to the Harvard forum, I was told that about 200 out of 900 EA admits are for athletes and other such hooked recruits ie - 700 “other” admits. Harvard had about 6200 EA applications last year. 700 out of 6200 = 11.3% acceptance. Even if the “other” admits in EA was only 500 out of 6200, it is still 8.1% acceptance, which is higher than the total acceptance, which was around 5%. So, IMHO, EA acceptance is better. However, the candidate pool for EA will be of much higher standing than total.
I don’t understand the references to “athletes” and nonscholarship athletes and recruits and so on during REA. I know “signing day” was last week for recruited athletes (CIF sports I am assuming) but are you talking about other athletes who are not officially recruited or are just athletic applicants or what? This is so confusing…
Typically all recruited athletes apply EA. Recruited athletes include athletes a varsity coach wants on his/her team. This includes athletes offered an athletic scholarship and athletes not offered a scholarship.
Any student considering himself/herself an “athlete” not recruited by a varsity coach really is just another applicant with no particular benefit from having played a sport in high school.
Some students may try out on their own for a varsity team after being admitted. They didn’t get any benefit in the admissions process from having played a sport in high school.
There’s still gotta be at least a little benefit right? Since you’re clearly indicating that Stanford is your first choice?
Stanford is most everyone’s first choice so I doubt there is a benefit. However I will report back on my DD, who is a superb athlete in a non-CIF sport with no method of recruitment. We shall see if REA helped her or not…
Being an athlete in a non-NCAA sport helps significantly if you are world class. For example, if you went to the Olympics. Or you are the world junior champion. Otherwise, don’t count on any benefit. If a kid is a “recruited walk-on” to an NCAA sport, the coach will notify admissions. It helps to some degree, but many recruited walk-ons are rejected.
I think even at the very top schools, early whatever gives you a slight boost. At other schools, early whatever can give you a very substantial boost, especially if it is binding. All schools, including Stanford, are concerned with their yield. I think essentially every student should apply early somewhere.
If Stanford was really everyone’s top choice, then there would obviously be more than the 7000 or so early applicants Stanford typically gets. Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, etc. are other top choices for many, so admission to Stanford doesn’t guarantee that the offer will be accepted.