<p>IAMTBH, ED is obviously a smaller self-selecting pool. The acceptance rate increases because there are simply fewer students applying. Applying ED is not suddenly going to make you Columbia material. The bar is not lowered. If you’re not qualified for Columbia, or any top school, you’re not qualified regardless of when you apply. People largely apply ED because it is their top choice.</p>
<p>Furthermore, look at the admissions stats of the two schools. Columbia’s SATs are actually higher than Stanford’s for last year’s enrolled class. No student, ED or otherwise, is applying to Columbia because they do not stand a “reasonable chance” of getting into another top school.</p>
<p>Enough with the smugness. It’s unnecessary and distasteful. </p>
<p>Of course, it is. The benefits of an ED admissions boost comes with the opportunity cost of a binding commitment. Why else would rational students freely and willingly agree to restrict their choice (of enrollment, if accepted) to one school only?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is well known that Stanford is less numbers-oriented and more holistic than the ivies. With a 7% acceptance rate and a 70% yield rate, you don’t think Stanford could admit and enroll higher SAT scores if it so desired? Furthermore, SAT scores are only tangentially related to prestige, selectivity, desirability, etc. For example, 4 out of 5 Stanford-Columbia cross-admits choose Stanford:</p>
<p>“Why else would rational students freely and willingly agree to restrict their choice (of enrollment, if accepted) to one school only?”</p>
<p>Umm…because it is their first choice? You just made my argument for me. Thanks.</p>
<p>Also, the Times data is five years old. Secondly, that is only for students who apply to both schools. There are many Columbia admits who don’t apply to Stanford. This is not at all surprising because Stanford and Columbia are on opposite coasts and offer completely different experiences…</p>
<p>And no, SAT scores are not the only metric. I’m merely pointing out your ridiculous assertion that people apply to Columbia ED merely because they don’t have a “reasonable chance” of being admitted to a school like Stanford. This is simply not true.</p>
<p>Yes. If you have a reasonable chance of acceptance to Columbia, you have a reasonable chance of acceptance to Stanford or any other top school. Ergo, if you apply ED at Columbia, the probability it is your first choice is high. </p>
<p>It’s the students applying to their schools that determine if it’s a REAL first choice. Not you. </p>
<p>Glad we are on the same page… (shaking head).</p>
<p>Not necessarily. (The converse is true.) Columbia’s Early Decision policy makes it appear much more selective than it really is. ED is an admissions tactic by which the school artificially inflates (deflates) its yield (admit) rate: </p>
<p>“An early decision program is the most dramatic means by which a college can
manipulate its matriculation rate. Every early decision admittee has a 100 percent probability of matriculating, so mechanically the more students whom a college admits under its early decision program, the higher is its matriculation rate.”</p>
<p>Admissions rate and matriculation rate are not the same thing. Matriculation rate has little to do with the difficulty of being accepted in the first place. It is simply a measure of the percentage of students who enroll out of the percentage of students who are admitted. That does not measure the chance of acceptance and only has a marginal impact on the admissions rate.</p>
<p>Furthermore, a pure admissions rate is not the only measure of selectivity. One must consider other factors such as SAT scores and % of students in the top 10% 25% of class etc. Just because University of Chicago has a (relatively) high acceptance rate does not mean it is an “easy” school to get into.</p>
<p>They are inter-related. With a guaranteed 100% matriculation rate via Early Decision, a school will not need to admit as many (regular decision) applicants to fill its class, which results in an artificially deflated admissions rate. With the help of an Early Decision program, both yield and acceptance rates are easily manipulable. They’re two sides of the same coin.</p>
<p>See second portion of previous post. Selectivity by admissions % doesn’t automatically equate to student quality, nor does it provide a full picture of selectivity. CalTech and U Chicago for example. Stanford will always have a very low admissions rating. On top of being an amazing school, there are fewer schools of its caliber on the west coast.</p>
<p>To not lose track of the argument, admitted and enrolled Columbia students are in line with Stanford students and other top schools. Suggesting that Columbia ED is for applicants who do not have a reasonable chance at other schools is simply not accurate because these students have a reasonable chance at all top schools. Columbia offers a unique environment and is the first choice for many students. Just as Stanford offers a great environment and is the first choice for many. Stanford is not simply for students who don’t think they can get into Harvard for instance.</p>
<p>Stanford! Columbia’s social life isn’t that great. NYC is just a big distraction. I’ve now been there for two weekends and I have yet to understand why its fun. It doesn’t feel like college at all.</p>
<p>I love both schools, but they offer completely different experiences. No one experience is any more “real” than the other.</p>
<p>If you want a more “traditional” (meaning college/small town) experience, go to Stanford. If you enjoy the amenities of a city (and New York is not just any city) and will use them to supplement your education, go to Columbia. I don’t think the city distracts from the campus life at all. It adds to it. New York will very much be a part of your experience if you go to Columbia, and most students embrace that.</p>