It is likely that FA applications are preprocessed by computer which generates preliminary FA offers for “ordinary” financial situations and flags more “unusual” ones for human review. So it is likely that a significant percentage of applicants (with “ordinary” financial situations) have FA offers ready to go if they are admitted.
Of course, at the most selective private colleges, the applicant and admit pools skew higher SES, which means that “unusual” financial situations become more common.
FA deadlines at these few EA privates are “soft”, meaning their FA applicants can submit their FA applications post those “deadlines”. The only “penalty” is that they would get their FA award letters later than usual. Besides, at one of these schools, Caltech, the FA deadline is after EA decisions have been communicated to the applicants:
https://www.finaid.caltech.edu/Applying/NewDomesticEA
The “deadline” for submission of CSS Profile is in early January, while their EA decisions were typically announced a full month earlier in early December the previous year (they were announced later than usual in the last two years because of the pandemic and the huge increases in applications).
The schools can’t “preprocess” FA applications by computer (or otherwise) if they don’t even have them.
Our GC told my S20 he had 2 days to withdraw his other apps after the ED acceptance. Private HS GC. Two days! I was surprised, but this is exactly why. We did so.
Is the CSS Profile mandatory? I thought it was optional.
CSS is mandatory at the schools that require it in order for the student to receive any institutional financial aid. Check each school’s website to see what FA documents/forms are required.
It is optional for colleges to use. If a college chooses to use it, it is mandatory for students and applicants who want financial aid from that college.
Now I remember… yes the extra $25+16+++ scam
I was mixing up all the personal info the SAT/ACT ask test takers for.
A student at a highly ranked LPS in my area applied REA to Georgetown and ED to Penn (was deferred at both). This is a very competitive school and other students are NOT HAPPY! Some are speculating wether she is going to get away with it… (likely)
I am listening to Valedictorians at the Gate (which is not nearly as good as Who Get’s in and Why IMO). The author, a former Dartmouth Dean of Admissions, just mentioned taking calls with anonymous tips on cheaters. I had no idea that was a thing.
Odd to take a risk like that with these two schools. There is no admissions advantage to REA at Georgetown, while there appears to be a lift with Penn. So in addition to acting unethically, the applicant did nothing at a strategic level to improve her odds.
One of D19’s classmates applied REA to Gtown and ED to NU. The student posted in the AP lit group chat that she did this (d19 was in this class/group chat) and her peers came down on her hard. The rule breaker reported her classmates for bullying and it turned in to a big to-do.
Meanwhile, someone notified both schools…and both schools demanded the girl pull the apps. No one knows if it was a student or the HS GC who reported her. To this day the mom is still incensed about the whole thing, thinks her D did nothing wrong.
Yep. When I was researching differences between RD and REA/ED admit rates at a bunch of schools a few years back, Georgetown and MIT stood out as the two for which applying early didn’t offer any advantage except for a second read for deferred apps. If memory serves, Georgetown’s RD admit rate was actually a smidge higher than their REA rate – like 14.3% to 13.9% or thereabouts.
[Though less germane to this thread, MIT’s was like 6.8% REA/6.2% RD – and on the other end were schools like Middlebury (37/13), Yale (17/5), Northwestern (24/8), etc.]
I think some of the ED numbers can be distorted for schools with small enrollments like Middlebury, which field a lot of athletic teams and have the recruited athletes to match. Under those circumstances, I imagine the advantage for unhooked students is diminished somewhat. But Georgetown is the rare school that prefers to defer all but the “best of the best” of its early applicant pool. So what that student got for her risk and dishonesty was no special consideration at all.
MIT does not have REA; they have standard, unrestricted Early Action (EA). I know because my S attends a boarding school right now in which the counselors are very involved in the application process and they had no problem with him applying ED to Dartmouth and EA to MIT (deferred by both, unfortunately). From MIT’s website:
“Early Action is an option for all applicants, domestic and international. Our Early Action isn’t single-choice, binding, or anything like that. If you choose to apply to MIT during Early Action, we do not place any limits on where else you may apply, nor do we require you to attend if admitted (though we sure hope you do!).”
If you assume Middlebury admits 200 recruited athletes per cycle and every single one applies ED, it’s still a pretty big bump for everyone else, 30% ED vs. 22% RD. Not quite the difference you might see at more selective schools but still meaningful.
NESCAC schools like middlebury don’t have nearly 200 recruited athlete slots. The max fully supported slots are 14 football, and 2 for every other sport…so 65-75 per year. Give or take, special circumstances can happen such as rebuilding, coach trades, etc. There can also be soft support slots, but those aren’t as common, and often are in the RD round.
With that said, there is generally a boost in ED relative to RD, even for unhooked students.
OK, didn’t mean to overstate. I’ve modified my comment.
2 for every other sport? are you sure. that sounds too low
Yes, that is accurate and based on multiple references over the years, including the Bowdoin Orient’s 3 part athletic series on athletic recruiting, a Bates article, multiple posts on the now defunct ephblog, and Amherst’s Athletic study from 5 or so years ago.
As I said above things can also vary from year to year, from school to school, and program to program. It’s not uncommon that a team like say, women’s golf gets only one fully supported recruit, which leaves one to can be allocated to another team. Some star coaches and programs, like Paul Assaiante of Trinity Men’s squash, may have relatively more power than a new coach at a less successful program.
Sources:
However, with a small enrollment but a full set of sports teams, wouldn’t NESCAC schools have incentive to consider athletic ECs as privileged over other ECs, due to a desire to have a good pool of potential walk on athletes?
Do you mean 2 that are on scholarship? Because I believe there are many more athletes that are given an acceptance advantage, but are full pay.