<p>I've heard a lot of people say that colleges (or Dartmouth especially) consider mostly only athletes and legacies for ED. Is that true? Before joining CC I was under the impression that they choose students during ED that are a really great fit for the school and/or someone with really unqiue stats. I hope the rumors about athletes and legacies isn't true! Does anyone know?</p>
<p>It's not true.</p>
<p>Very much Not true.</p>
<p>What I do know however is that a lot of legacies do apply ED. AND Their acceptance rate is generally higher than non-legacy (I read 30% somewhere). And coaches at Ivies prefer that their recruits apply ED because otherwise there is nothing binding them to the school and vice versa. The Ivy league does not do national letters of intent despite being DI schools. And while they may admit a lot of these students during ED, it is certainly not all of them. </p>
<p>While I have read various figures, it seems that MOST schools (not just the Ivy League) will take about 25% of the incoming class from ED applicants, sometimes close to 30%. And no, there are not 25% legacy and athletes (which would be what.. close to 300 students?) I was a journalism major so one of you 800 SAT Math people can probably do the whole calculation of teams x recruits plus Legacies @ 30% admit rates... but you get the idea.</p>
<p>A great piece of advice about getting into D or any Ivy... you're in great company if you get in and you're in great company if you don't.</p>
<p>Many, many ED applicants are indeed athletes and legacies but others get in too. Last year 5 kids from my son's HS class applied ED. 3 legacies, an athlete and DS (class val at feeder school) and another boy in top 5. The athletes, one of the legacies and DS were accepted. One of the other legacies was later accepted RD.</p>
<p>It is clear that Dartmouth tells legacies to apply ED or lose the boost. How many do is not published info. It's also clear almost all recruited athletes come in ED. </p>
<p>My thinking is they defer lots of good candidates who aren't in one of their institutional needs categories or isn't a very top student.</p>
<p>Some facts true about most top colleges:</p>
<p>-40% of class is athletes, legacies and URMs
-75% of legacies are rejected
-legacies are accepted at twice the rate of non legacies</p>
<p>Not everyone was a legacy / athlete.</p>
<p>Sneamia.. </p>
<p>Read the thread for better or worse. Now pretty much assuming a couple of things that slightly contradict one another.</p>
<p>1) if you are on CC, you are pretty much killing yourself with grades and stats.
2) ED have hugely high scores, athletes, legacy
3) lots of kids get in who aren't perfect SAT, Legacy or Recruited and would think this board was a complete waste of their all too valuable time.
4) All this speculation doesn't really help except to pass the time as the news will come either way
5) All these perfect scores and grades are a little dubious. My son's HS has had only three or four 4.0 students (doesn't weight or rank) in the past 20 years!</p>
<p>Modadunn, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but if I get the gist of it, you're implying that people are lying on the decision thread. First of all, if you look through the accepts, you will see that it is not perfect SATs or legacies or athletes who got in. Second, your son's high school is not everyone's high school. Therefore saying that his school only had a few 4.0 students in the past 20 years means relatively little. Third, can you walk me through the though processes of someone who comes on here, finds the decision thread, and posts a fake accept/reject?</p>
<p>I am not implying lying nor did I ever suggest anyone comes on here to lie. You seem to be reading between the lines. I made observations. 1. There are a lot of high stats on this board, which might indicate a lot of high achievers are on here regardless. And 3. surely lots of kids who don't fall into the athlete, legacy, high scores camps simply don't post on CC for whatever reason and therefore aren't part of the sample or the margin of error for accepts, rejects or deferred. 2.) I think it's pretty much proven from last year's thread that higher test scores, legacy and athletes were the rule in ED over the exception. and 5) my son's HS not having 4.0 students only means there is no grade inflation. I just find all the perfect GPA's a little bizarre, which cold be a thread in itself. All simple observations (#2 might be concluding or deducing) but I certainly never implyed people would lie. What would be the point? Who would that serve?</p>
<p>Then I misunderstood your post, I'm sorry.</p>
<p>I posted the decision thread to show that there are people who get in who are not legacies. Is this not true? I did not argue against the fact that the majority of early applicants are hooked. I am not and have not said anything about sample sizes or analyzing the demographics of the decision thread in any way, because I am well aware that CC is skewed.</p>
<p>Also, you said that kids who aren't hooked would think this board is a waste of time, which I fully disagree with. This board is really catered to those unhoooked applicants, not to the legacies, athletes, and sure-shots.</p>
<p>You said you "certainly never implyed people would lie." However, you said in your earlier post that "All these perfect scores and grades are a little dubious." Feeling that something is dubious implies you feel there is the possibility that it is a lie.</p>
<p>At any rate, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.</p>
<p>Not really trying to say anything. just observing. Good point about the use of the word dubious... but I guess I do find it suspect but didn't mean to imply lying. I guess if you're getting all 5's on your AP's and 800's on your SATII's then it makes sense you'd get A's in the class. Still.. I just don't recall anyone and I mean anyone being this perfect when I was in school and I went to an East Coast boarding school where lots of kids got into Ivy's etc. Granted it was a LONG time ago, but this "perfection" wasn't nearly as prevalent even as recently as 2003 (when daughter applied). So.. not really trying to make argument. Just observing.</p>
<p>And we all agree they have to make a community of kids.. it can't be all athletes, legacys or perfect scores. Of course, there are those kids that are probably all three rolled up into one!</p>
<p>And if I was trying to make any point at all it was probably more along the lines that it doesn't really matter at this point because we're all more or less twiddling our thumbs to see what they decide and it matters nil what any of us think. It just kills time I suppose.</p>
<p>However, that '12 thread? I thought the whole deferred statistic was HUGE which makes me think deferring is as a good as a denial for the most part and best to really move on and be surprised if you end up getting in. It USED to be a deferral meant pretty good odds, but if the 12 thread is indicative, that would not be the case at Dartmouth.</p>
<p>About athletes. Hockey player wanted recruited by Ivies. Awesome player. Turned down by Dartmouth, going to Harvard instead. Girl. Boy lax player: turned away by Dartmouth, going to Yale. So... not sure what that means if anything because they all have different roles on the ice/field that need filling, but still.. thought it was interesting.</p>
<p>When I first started reading CC I also couldn't believe the GPA's. Lot's of grade inflation going on out there.</p>
<p>What we need to remember is that at a school like Dartmouth, we are looking at the top 2% of kids in terms of stats. I was shocked to learn that 40% were either number 1 or 2 in their class, but that put it into perspective for me.</p>
<p>I don't think there are a lot of recruited athletes or legacies on this forum, those kids are not as worried about getting in. So what we see is the kids who need to bring up the stats for the groups that get a boost, the super high stats kids.</p>