<p>but...100 - 200 acceptances out of 3000+ deferred...how is that 'advantageous'?</p>
<p>"And this is what sophisticated guidance counselors at top prep and public high schools tell (or ought to tell) kids and their parents: Look, your odds of admission to ANY elite are low, no matter how smart and talented you are, so you might as well settle on a few you like, then just pick one of them and APPLY EARLY. "</p>
<p>so true, so true!</p>
<p>Applying early does increase your chances, given that you did very well and are talented.</p>
<p>My mother, who is my college counselor, came to the same conclusion, after doing a lot of research. She made me apply ED, after I had a clear first choice and money was not an issue for us.</p>
<p>Byerly, I do enjoy your analyses.</p>
<p>EA deferreds at Harvard are, as I have said, admitted at a rate similar, if not identical, to the rate for those who are applying for the first time RD. So at Harvard, it certainly does not hurt your chances to be in the EA-deferred sub-pool.</p>
<p>On the other hand, such evidence as we have indicates that at certain other addresses, people in the EA/ED deferred pool are admitted at a higher rate - in some cases a substantially higher rate - than the RD applicants.</p>
<p>It is sometimes argued that "well, it is different at Harvard since virtually all EA applicants who are not admitted are deferred, while some other schools reject far more early applicants, leaving themselves with a relatively stronger group of deferreds, who naturally are admitted at a higher rate than RD applicants."</p>
<p>I think this point falls flat, and here is why:</p>
<p>(1) It assumes that at those "other schools" they have left themselves with a stronger EA/ED deferred pool by rejecting altogether early applicants who are predictably stronger than the anticipated RD applicants. Schools doing this would be hurting themselves, and - if such a practice became known - would be discouraging people from applying early, which no school wants to do.</p>
<p>(2) Rather - while statistics to demonstrate this are hard to come by - I suspect that the deferral rate primarily reflects the relative strength of the applicant pool at each school relative to the anticipated strength of the RD pool.</p>
<p>In the end, I think that the best way to measure the advantage of applying early is to aggregate the initial early admits with those admitted later from the EA/ED deferred pool. When you do this, you will see the true value, at each school, of applying early.</p>
<p>Byerly:</p>
<p>Could you explain the following combo?</p>
<p>Is it possible for a student to apply SCEA to Harvard and EA to MIT or Chicago without any problems? </p>
<p>Do you have to explain in your applications to elite school that you have applied (maybe accepted) by rolling admissions? </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>
Interestingly I made the same conclusion, and applied EA because money was also of no concern to us. I guess I was hoping that Byerly would somehow keep my hopes up as a deferred EA.</p>
<p>You can apply EA to both MIT and Chicago (and also concurrently to other "open EA" schools such as Caltech, Georgetown, etc.,) but you cannot, at the same time, under rules these schools have established, apply to either Harvard, Yale or Stanford "restricted" EA, or to Princeton or Brown ED.</p>
<p>When you submit the applications, you agree to the rules under which they are accepted, and run the risk that your app will be summarily rejected if they discover that you have applied early elsewhere.</p>
<p>Remember that (under rules that may change before next fall) that you CAN concurrently apply to as many open EA schools as you wish, and also to ONE ED school (except, as mentioned, Princeton or Brown.)</p>
<p>Confusing? Yes.</p>
<p>It is possible that other schools - possibly including Princeton, may switch to "restricted" EA for next year.</p>
<p>thank you very much :)</p>
<p>In reference to the post titled "More on the edge given EA and ED applicants ", I was wondering if Rice was one of those schools that admitted the deferred pool at a higher rate. Rice has an ED and an ID deferred pool. Do you happen to know if they defer a lot of people and what percentage are accepted later?</p>
<p><<what i'm="" saying="" is="" that="" people="" in="" the="" rd="" pool="" with="" equivalent="" stats="" etc.="" are="" admitted="" at="" a="" lower="" rate.="">></what></p>
<p>Yet you have no proof of that assertion, unless you have access to the stats/profile of every applicant. You ignore so many relevant factors that your conclusion is just not based on reality.</p>
<p>I don't know why the admissions process at these top schools makes you feel so helpless that you endlessly seek to quantify it, but really - I doubt there is a single person on this forum who doesn't know where you stand on the issue. Isn't there any other subject that interests you?</p>
<p>ctnjpamom, the Early Admissions Game proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. You are entitled to maintain your unreasonable doubt. You are also entitled to believe in the Tooth Person.</p>
<p>AMEN, brother!</p>
<p>It proves nothing except the poster's ability to ignore any information that does not support his preconceived conclusion. </p>
<p>Oh, and I believe it is educationally irresponsible and patently unfair to a student to encourage him to apply ED/EA to a school that isn't his clear first choice. Just because all the other kids are doing it......</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, and I believe it is educationally irresponsible and patently unfair to a student to encourage him to apply ED/EA to a school that isn't his clear first choice. Just because all the other kids are doing it......
[/quote]
Don't blame the messenger. EA/ED is the problem. If all the top schools abandoned it, we and they would be better off. May I suggest that you focus your righteous indignation on the schools that use EA/ED (which is all of the top ones).</p>
<p><<don't blame="" the="" messenger.="" ea="" ed="" is="" problem.="" if="" all="" top="" schools="" abandoned="" it,="" we="" and="" they="" would="" be="" better="" off.="" may="" i="" suggest="" that="" you="" focus="" your="" righteous="" indignation="" on="" use="" (which="" of="" ones).="">></don't></p>
<p>Top schools are already abandoning it. To me, it's sort of like puppy mills and pet stores. Support the end result and you support the process.</p>
<p>Top schools are already abandoning it. </p>
<p>Kinda...A few went to SCEA, which is almost as bad.</p>
<p>I agree. Under all the circumstances (primarily the huge disparity between the early admit rate and the RD admit rate) so-called "resticted EA" is the functional equivalent of "binding ED" - a distinction without a difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Under all the circumstances (primarily the huge disparity between the early admit rate and the RD admit rate) so-called "resticted EA" is the functional equivalent of "binding ED" - a distinction without a difference.
[/quote]
Actually there is a huge difference: ED is binding, EA is not. I can apply EA to Yale, and in the end choose Princeton or Harvard or Columbia or any other school, but if I am accepted ED to Princeton, that's the only college I can attend.</p>
<p>I agree with you Byerly though that in terms of the admissions rate, ED and EA seem to have similar statistical advantages. The difference is whether or not the school will be guaranteed your attendance.</p>
<p>Ooooh, Byerly's out-a preachin again! Assuming <<people in="" the="" rd="" pool="" with="" equivalent="" stats="" etc.="" are="" admitted="" at="" a="" lower="" rate.="">>, then LET'S TRY TO ANSWER WHY. </people></p>
<p>And also, Byerly, what's up with H&Y getting all the flak? I believe the problem is even more serious with ED Ivys like Princeton. Just below 30% rate for ED compared to sub 9% for RD?? Byerly could make it look much worse with the correct stats and counting up the deferreds...I know it. And do I even have to mention the engineers...ugh...pathetic?</p>
<p>Just one more thing though, Byerly...real nice to let it all out when all the deadlines have passed and all the people that have waited 'till RD have applied and are feeling sh@fted now. Not that I'm one of them...but I imagine there are a few unfortunate souls out there...</p>
<p>Oh, you talked about top counselors. My counselor said "large advantage to applying ED, small advantage to applying SCEA, no advantage for MIT-style EA." I agree. I'm more pis*ed off at the larger advantage for ED, since my 1st choice wasn't an ED, but an SCEA.</p>
<p>Thanks for reading my little rant,
Sleeet.</p>
<p>The advantage of applying early is equally huge at virtually every Ivy and other elite - whether EA, "restricted EA", or ED.</p>
<p>If you want to get into an elite - ANY elite - then apply early to your favorite, or to any school where you would be willing to go and where you think you have a decent shot, and you will, on average, be tripling your odds of admission.</p>
<p>Any counselor who gives you contrary advice should be sued for educational malpractice. A shockingly high fraction of high school guidance counselors are poorly informed about these matters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A shockingly high fraction of high school guidance counselors are poorly informed about these matters.
[/quote]
At my school, they know about it but downplay it. They say at my school, "kids get in where we think they will" RD and ED. Believe me, my school is not Choate, but they are fairly knowledgeable. I think they are quite wrong, BTW, but I think they do it to stop the feeding frenzy and keep things less hyper. They feel in the long run, it's better for the kids. But they let me borrow their copy of the Early Admissions game, and since I can read, I kind of figured it out pretty easily. It's kind of like they are hiding the forbidden fruit on the Tree of Knowledge. We all know how well that worked out the last time.</p>