<p>What are some top universities that favor early decision applicants? Schools where I have a better chance of getting in ED over RD?</p>
<p>This is a bad idea. Use ED only if you have a clear first choice. Your application will be read in comparison to all the other ED applicants - almost all of these will have dreamed of attending Selective U since grade school. Your essays will inevitably suffer in comparison.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t know of any university that have a policy favoring ED applicants. The standard response is that the higher admission rate results from a more competitive applicant pool.</p>
<p>Some schools with EA (non-binding) where applying early (and showing interest) helps your chances are Tulane and U Miami. For Tulane, make sure to do the “optional” essay. </p>
<p>For ED, i know Lehigh has a much higher ED acceptance rate. And I don’t think it’s bc of a more highly competitive pool. I know a guy who was well below their 50th percentile who was accepted ED this year. Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and William & Mary are some others. There are many good schools that use ED to get students who are very enthusiastic about attending and will help their yield rate. </p>
<p>But as someone else pointed out, you need to be certain it’s where you want to be for 4 years, so do your research and visit at least once. The only way to back out of an ED agreement is if the fin aid package is insufficient to enable you to attend.</p>
<p>^ For top schools like Harvard and Stanford, they never worry about the yield rate. There is also no reason for them to accept students with lower than then expected admission stat average early as they have plenty in excess of high quality candidates. For those who got accepted early with lower scores, they may have something interesting in their credential. They know what students they are looking for. For that, Stanford rejects most of the students that are not accepted during SCEA and defers only a very small portion. They know they have enough high good candidates to fill the remaining spots in the ED round anyway.</p>
<p>I think you are approaching this backwards. First determine if you have a clear first-choice school. If you do, then check if they offer ED and, using the common data set, compare their ED acceptance rate to their overall acceptance rate. The New York Times also published 2013 acceptance rates, including ED, for some colleges. Search 2013 College Acceptance Rates.</p>
<p>Mathematically, applying early is a much better prospect than applying RD </p>
<p>Brown for example, is 18.5% ED acceptance rate, vs. 9.2% overall.
Harvard with REA 18.4% vs. 5.8% overall</p>
<p>Clearly the ED and REA skews things a bit, as it’s kids committing to that one school, but even at a school with unrestricted EA like U Chicago</p>
<p>13.38% vs. 8.8% overall</p>
<p>The trick is picking your top school – once you do that – definitely apply there early.</p>
<p>@vinceyoung - statistics can lie. Although the ED acceptance rate is much higher at the schools you cited, the ED pool includes a large number of hooked applicants (recruited athletes, children of large donors, legacies, faculty children, etc.) whose acceptance rate approaches 100%. If you remove these applicants from the ED pool, the acceptance rate drops.</p>
<p>Similarly, the RD pool of applicants includes a large number of “lottery” applicants - students with 3.2 GPA and 27 ACT who figure they have some small chance if they apply. Perhaps they just think it is cool to be able to say that they applied to Stanford (I met one student who actually framed his rejection letter). If you remove these applicants from the RD pool, then the acceptance rate increases.</p>
<p>When you compare these adjusted RD and ED acceptance rates (outliers removed), I would expect them to be roughly equal.</p>
<p>@rmldad from what I have read, ED applicants are by no means stronger and are often weaker. Their “hook” is that they are saying they will absolutely attend. </p>
<p>Looking at this data, you’ll see some at places it makes way more of a difference than others.
[Colleges</a> Where Applying Early Decision Helps - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/right-school/timeline/articles/2009/09/30/colleges-where-applying-early-decision-helps]Colleges”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/right-school/timeline/articles/2009/09/30/colleges-where-applying-early-decision-helps)
<a href=“Early Admissions Statistics 2013 - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com”>Early Admissions Statistics 2013 - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com;
<p>This is also an interesting article that explains it well and includes some statistics.
[Applying</a> Early Decision to College: Best Admission Strategy There Is - The Daily Beast](<a href=“Applying Early Decision to College: Best Admission Strategy There Is”>Applying Early Decision to College: Best Admission Strategy There Is)</p>
<p>@Emily918 - The three articles you reference are not persuasive in my mind. A quote from the Daily Beast article:</p>
<p>“Certain segments of the early-decision applicant pool often have lower grade-point averages and SAT scores than the regular applicants. This is particularly true among college athletes.”</p>
<p>The ED applicants are “weaker” based solely on objective academic stats and two anecdotal references. However, the analysis does not include the real hooks (i.e. institutional needs) that I mentioned in my previous post. </p>
<p>Using the statistics from your NY Times reference, Yale had a 14.7% ED acceptance rate (4520 apply, 649 accepted). However, if we remove 300 applicants from this ED pool the rate drops to 8.2% (4220 apply, 349 accepted). These 300 applicants are the recruited athletes, million dollar donors, faculty children who are effectively guaranteed admission (~100% acceptance).</p>
<p>The 8.2% acceptance rate is still slightly higher than Yale’s RD rate. However, the RD rate rises when the “first pass rejects” are removed from the pool. There is no data on how many applicants are clearly not qualified, but I would guess that it would be enough to allow the RD rate to rise to somewhere around 8.2%.</p>
<p>Your articles make it clear that at a tiny number of specific schools, ED does indeed make a significant difference. If you want to attend Bucknell (or half a dozen other small LAC) and are a marginal applicant, by all means apply ED. Otherwise, the difference is neglible.</p>
<p>I just don’t know whether I should apply ED to a super reach school (Brown) or to a reach school (WUSTL). My stats are definitely low for Brown so I was hoping that applying ED would help. But because WUSTL, which is my second choice, is also a reach, I don’t know if I should apply there if applying ED to Brown doesn’t help.</p>
<p>My advice remains to apply ED to your clear first choice, in this case Brown.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that applying ED to either Brown or WUSTL will make any appreciable difference to your admission chances. For whatever it is worth, neither school appears on either of Emily918’s lists of schools where ED helps.</p>
<p>@rmldad I respect and understand your point, but I would just like to point out that it is all speculation.</p>
<p>@Emily918 - I agree that speculation is a part of my responses, as well as other posters. I have tried in my posts not to conflate facts with opinions. You certainly have reasoned supporting material for your positions and I respect your conclusions.</p>
<p>I don’t believe our opinions are terribly different - ED might be an advantage at some colleges. We simply differ in how many schools are included in “some”, with my estimate being lower than yours.</p>
<p>Many applicants are simply desperate to gain some advantage in an unpredictable admissions process. Too many of these applicants seize on the ED route as one variable under their control - and consequently assign a disproportionate value to it.</p>
<p>One final point that I would make however, is that I have heard adcoms from many schools explicitly state that they do not evaluate applicants using different standards in the ED round compared to the RD round. But, I have never heard an adcom state that ED applicants have an advantage over RD applicants.</p>
<p>Your chances for ED over RD improve when your stats are well within the range of accepted candidates to that school. My opinion is that since your stats are in the low range for Brown that you will be wasting the ED advantage if you apply to Brown. Also I’m unclear as to why you see yourself as being within better range at WUSTL than at Brown. The stats for accepted students at the two colleges are about the same. You haven’t shared your stats with us so I’m going on you say so.</p>
<p>If there is a good possibility that you’ll have a stellar senior year then Brown (and WUSTL) may fall within range (at least mid-point) of accepted students at those colleges and you may get accepted in a RD application. Keep in my mind that at both schools many candidates with impressive stats, in fact higher than midpoint of accepted students, do not get in.</p>
<p>I don’t know if your chances will improve applying ED. One thing you need to understand, financial aid will be nil for ED pool unless you have a very large need (based on EFC) and super bright.</p>
<p>My suggestion is, if your scores/GPA are at or above the admission stat, EA/ED would have a slightly better chance at top schools. The EA/ED pools are students that are better prepared and ready for the application early on. While many of the RD applicants are still struggling with retakes. Even eventually they reach the same scores, it is reasonable to give the preference to the EA/ED applicants. Those who have below average stat. It would be smarter to improve the score first instead of submitting early and get rejected right early. For ED, you give it a try anyway even if your score is below average. The higher acceptance rate is mainly due to the smaller pool of applicants that most have hooks, spectacular EC, athletic recruitment, and/or excellent academic achievements.</p>