<p>There might be an issue of semantics here, but top tier LACs do not admit roughly one half of their class in the RD round. You’d have to look at ED schools such as Penn to see such numbers. Perhaps there is a confusion about enrollment coming from the RD round! See below for a description of Bowdoin. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s look at the last CDS numbers for Bowdoin:</p>
<p>ED Applications: 826
ED Admits: 225</p>
<p>Total Applications: 6552
Total Admits: 1056</p>
<p>Total enrolled 584</p>
<p>Playing a bit with the numbers of the 2011-2012 CDS reveals that Bowdoin admits 16 percent of its students and that the ED admission rate is at 27 percent while the estimated RD admission rate is aroung 14.5 percent. In other words, there is a substantial increase in the chances of gaining admission by tossing your hat in the ED round, and foregoing seeking other choices in the Spring (in case of earning an acceptance.) </p>
<p>So, this confirms the advantages of applying ED. However, let’s look at the statements regarding 50 percent, let alone 65 percent, statements about ED. For starters, Bowdoin only gets 12 percent of its applicant pool from the ED round. In the end, one can expect around 200 to 215 ED admitted students to enroll (considering the typical 90 to 97 ED yields.) This leaves about 370 to 380 students who enrolled from the RD rounds. This means that the quoted percentages are in fact … reversed. Only a bit over ONE-THIRD of enrolled students are ED admits. </p>
<p>While I agree that the numbers about admissions and enrollment should be reviewed carefully, it does pay to look at the numbers correctly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the class of 2014, Pomona admitted 116 ED students and 997 in total ED/RD. The ED admits represent about 25 percent of the enrolled class. The ED benefit is also smaller at Pomona with a “bonus” of only 8 percent. Swarthmore 166 ED out of 974 ED/RD. Haverford 126 out of 860. </p>
<p>Again, it pays to look at the numbers correctly.</p>
<p>Oh yes, for someone who wrote about looking at the numbers correctly, I committed the cardinal sin. The enrolled students for that period is indeed below 500 with 484 and not 584, as I transcribed. Will teach me not to look at a CDS with a iPhone! </p>
<p>Based on the correct enrollment, the yield numbers still indicate around 40 percent ED admits.</p>
Even these numbers don’t clearly show an advantage to applying ED unless you can compare the qualifications of the applicants in the ED and RD pools. (Or, I suppose, the advantage might be even greater than it appears.)</p>
<p>Never forget that for a school like Bowdoin a significant number of the ED admits are recruited athletes, which reduces the ED advantage for unhooked students.</p>
<p>An anecdote that doesn’t really prove anything: 5 students from my S’s HS class were admitted to Bowdoin. (An unusually large number.) Three of them attended, the other two–one of whom was my S–went elsewhere. Of the three who attended, I know that 2 were recruited athletes, and the third might possibly have been also. The two who went elsewhere applied RD, obviously.</p>
<p>Hunt, there are two , or perhaps, three schools of thought here.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The colleges and universities presenting the case as a non-issue based on better statistics yielding better admission results, or a better percentage of admission representing a reward for academic, athletic, or … financial prowess. </p></li>
<li><p>The Avery (and FZ) report that challenged the above claim by showing that the ED students did NOT form a stronger of applicants, but actually a reasonably weaker one.</p></li>
<li><p>And the third one, which I am adopting, that it really does not matter how competitive the groups are, and that what is undeniable is that the percentage of admissions is much higher for anyone who decides to make an early (and perhaps) binding commitment. And, if I may add, that the admission “bonus” is not universal among all schools. For instance, one would be well-served by comparing the ED “bonus” at Pomona (minuscule) to what can be accomplished (extremely high) at all-female schools such as Smith or Wellesley. Of course, there are plenty of anecdotes that could support the notion that schools play games such as NOT reporting athletic or minority (supposed to be a lower stats group) in the early rounds, although students do receive an early commitment. Think Questibridge, if you want!</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And, as a last comment, I also like to add that the ED advantage might be the very best “weapon” at the disposal of the EFC neutral crowd. Neutral meaning it has no bearing to the uber-wealthy or demonstratingly poor enough not to care.</p>
<p>I posted this link from Bowdoin earlier. It does have the correct numbers on their website. The admit rate is 25% early, 16% overall, and 14.7% during regular.</p>
<p>TPG, fwiw, the numbers you are quoting are preliminary numbers, as indicated by the *Data as of July 1, 2012. Those numbers will have to be confirmed in a few weeks after accounting for summer melt and changes in decision. The Common Data Set should have the “as close as possible” official numbers in a few months. </p>
<p>Also, dividing 223 by 887 does not give you the admission rate. To calculate both admission rates and yield, one needs the number of admitted students. Since ED schools report yield in the 90-97 range, you could have anywhere from 223 to 250 ED admits.</p>
<p>From the numbers you presented (which will be very close to the official numbers) one can see how 223 ED enrolled over 497 ED/RD compare.</p>
<p>xiggi - those are purely admit numbers and applicant numbers as presented by the school. why would they change at all? </p>
<p>yield, summer melt, all that is not relevant to how many applied and how many were admitted?</p>
<p>I agree the enrolled would have changed from July 1st.</p>
<p>EDIT - I take back what I said. I now see enrolled as the 223 and not admitted. It is a silly number to say but I agree it might be an extra 5-10% based on yield for ED.</p>
<p>xiggi–I take your point–a school might have reasons to take more from the ED pool that are independent of the strength of the respective pools. A cynical reason might be that they want to inflate yield. A less cynical reason might be that they really do care about expressed interest.</p>
<p>All true, and it pays to know that schools are keenly aware of the need to protect their yield. As everything in education, the costs are increasing, and the cost to attract new successful applicants is surely not getting lower with forced presence in all kinds of media. Simply stated, once a school makes a decision, it really pains them to see them picking a different choice. This is why the enrollment crutches such as binding admissions, scholarships, and the extensive use of a waiting lists are powerful tools.</p>
<p>While it seems that there is a mental barrier that maintains the ED enrollment at around 50 percent, it might very well move up to a much higher number, and if not, you might see a larger use of the waiting lists in the Spring. No matter what, the pressures on the regular decision applicants at selective schools are getting more evident, although plenty are … self-inflicted.</p>
<p>That’s Actually something I’ve been wondering about…I do have high scores in the English portions, would they balance out the math and make my scores worth reporting?</p>
<p>Time is obviously running out, but you might want to identify the reason why you are not increasing your math score. Although your prediction of a 7 on the “economics” IB speaks louder about the IB than about you, something makes little sense. The type of math you are facing on the SAT has to be considered a walk in the park for anyone aspiring to study economics, especially at a top LAC such as Bowdoin. </p>
<p>Based on the information shared above, I believe you might have been approaching the SAT math sections without a strong foundation or method. Have you identified your weaknesses? Do you guess a lot? Do you keep an eye on the timer? What are the questions that you do not seem to answer or approach correctly? </p>
<p>I would strongly advise you to invest as much time as possible in preparing for your next SAT session. Nothing will change in your academic preparation at school. Your SAT score, however, can mean a mountain of change. I would go as far as suggesting to look beyond the next test date and sign up for an additional one.</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice (:
Math has always been my weakest subject due to a combination of bad teachers and a general dislike for it in freshman/sophomore years. I do really well with the in math in economics because it’s a direct application of theory, so it’s connected to an idea beyond numbers, which I find easier to understand, while math alone tends to be just numbers for the sake of numbers. My main issue on the SAT is that I go on complicated solving methods and confuse myself when the actual solution is really simple to find, but I’ve been trying to work on that.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I wasn’t sure what you meant by “your prediction of a 7 on the “economics” IB speaks louder about the IB than about you”…could you clarify? I’ll definitely try to strengthen my foundation/method for the SAT though.</p>
<p>Deblerg, since time is short, try this. Go through your official test book and look at the problem for a few seconds and then look at the answer. With the assurance of knowing the answer, identify a method that yields the answer quickly. Be on the prowl for reasons to eliminate obvious bad choices as this will cut down the lengthy calculations. Actually, try the test without a calculator. Too many just try to plug numbers in it and stumble on the answer. Resist that urge.</p>
<p>Fwiw, there is very little pure math on the SAT, and most of the test is based on logic and reasoning. if something does not make immediate sense, skip the question and come back later. Do not guess blindly.</p>
<p>Lastly, check the SAT forum for posted solutions and tips. Do not hesitate to post questions about what puzzles you. The answers will open new avenues in solving the problems.</p>
<p>Going through the book will take some time, but it will pay dividends.</p>
<p>University of Vermont. Not an LAC, but has some similar qualities to those on your list. My D’s list was similar and UVM was her safety and I think she would have been very happy there.</p>