<p>The statement that “certain segments of the early-decision applicant pool often have lower grade-point averages and SAT scores than the regular applicants,” is immediately followed by explaining that those “certain segments” include many recruited athletes and such. This only supports the point that they are not comparable to the RD applicant pool.</p>
<p>The statement that applying ED “can often double or even triple your child’s chances,” is NOT by an admissions officer, and is then directly contradicted by the statement, "They won’t admit a candidate who is not in the ballpark. But they will enlarge the sweet spot. Is it a 20 percent variability? Absolutely. 30 percent? Maybe.”</p>
<p>So you have reinforced my point. I don’t claim there is no advantage; there clearly is an ED advantage, and for some applicants it can be the difference between admission and rejection. But you simply CANNOT directly compare the two rates as if the exact same applicants were differing only by when they submitted their applications. </p>
<p>I think the variability quote is saying that the is ball park is slightly bigger (“they enlarge the sweet spot”) for ED applicants, so their chances of getting accepted increase.
And the claim that “It’s much easier to be admitted during Early even though most schools tell you it’s just as competitive, it’s simply not true. That’s standard administrative rhetoric, but it is much more difficult to be admitted during regular.” in the earlier article is directly from an admissions officer.
Both of these quotes show that there is a pretty substantial benefit to getting accepted ED, which wasn’t your point.</p>
<p>Oh, and the Dartmouth article specifically addresses athletic recruits separately, so the admissions officer is saying it’s “much easier” for NON-athletes to get admitted ED.</p>
<p>But no one in admissions ever makes the claim that you can directly compare the numbers. Because they know that, even not considering athletes, the ED pool is just not the same as the RD pool.
Find the average test scores and grades of non athletes in the ED pool and the RD pool and you’ll have a better idea of the actual ED advantage. </p>
<p>I agree with FCCDAD. ED is where athletes and legacy applicants are given the edge – for them, I’d say the pressure is even greater to apply ED. It would be really interesting to compare stats and admit rates of the other students in the ED pile – i’d bet the difference wouldn’t be that great from the RD round, yes, probably slightly more forgiving but not by the order of magnitude suggested.</p>
<p>Bowdoin is one of the schools where legacy is an important factor in admissions (as opposed to Smith, where it is merely considered). Depending on the year, legacy applicants are admitted at 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 times the rate of other applicants (according to the school newspaper). As SDonCC says, these are going to be primarily ED students; along with recruited athletes, they make the ED advantage much smaller than it seems.</p>
<p>But in any case, I agree with the others that if you’re not sure a school is your first choice, you shouldn’t apply ED.</p>
<p>If the OP enjoyed her month-long summer program at Smith, there’s an excellent chance she will love going to college there.</p>