The Plague of ‘Early Decision’

Parent Cafe
181

178 ProfDad --

Agree that you can’t take the raw ED number totally at unadjusted face value. Depending on the school’s policies, you may need to back out legacies and athletes to get to the isolated impact of just ED.

My kid thought long/hard about going ED at Brown and we concluded (like you) that the ED boost at Brown was more muted than at some other schools after adjusting for legacies and athletes. But even the raw numbers would tell you that ED is less a thing at Brown – 9% admit rate vs. 20% ED rate with 38% of the class being filled via ED.

Big difference as compared to Penn at 10/24/54. Or Vandy at 12/23/51. Or NW at 13/38/50. Or Duke at 12/27/47.

Glad it worked out for your kid at Brown. Your kid didn’t make the rules, so no problem playing the hand dealt to you as best you can.

I give Duke credit because (while I don’t much like ED) they are TOTALLY up front about how they operate. No weasel wording from Duke about how everyone is so strong and ED is no big deal:

"Myth: The Early Decision process is more competitive than Regular Decision.

Fact: While some schools make this claim, at Duke we appreciate that we are your unquestioned first choice. There’s an advantage in applying early to Duke—last year we admitted 23.5% of our Early Decision candidates and only 8.7% of our Regular Decision candidates. There are students for whom applying Early Decision can make all the difference.

Myth: The reason schools have higher acceptance rates for Early Decision is because athletes and children of alumni apply then.

Fact: Some schools do encourage athletes and alumni children to apply during Early Decision, but our philosophy is to encourage all students who have Duke as a clear first choice to apply Early Decision and gain that benefit.

Myth: I’m better off waiting until I get my first semester grades so that my application looks stronger.

Fact: Some students do benefit from waiting for that first set of grades, but for most applicants there’s more of an advantage in letting us know Duke is your top choice by applying Early Decision. Even if your application is deferred to our Regular Decision pool, the fact that you applied Early Decision remains part of your application."

182

Re: Duke

Duke does consider level of applicant’s interest, according to http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1026 , so applying ED definitely helps in that area.

183

There is some benefit to receiving the fat envelope in December vs. end of March. But yes, the vast majority of benefits from ED accrues to the college. Yeah, so what? It’s their ball and their rules.

184

Even after reading all thirteen pages of this thread, the consensus here is the same as the conclusion reached in the NYT article that this thread is based on. Yup, it’s great for the schools and the upper class. Some here argue that it’s a good thing. I have already discussed the parameters of this process to my son, a junior in high school. If your second choice provides merit scholarships, that’s a win at the expense of your first choice. If neither is there, look to the better state universities for your major (business). We know the game. As a parent, my son is learning what debt is at an early age. My daughter chose a state university and graduating with no debt understanding that if law school is in her future, debt at two levels is ridiculous. ED is a plague and all of this translates to a very high stakes life game.

“The biggest problem by far: It significantly disadvantages students from low-income and middle-income families, who are already underrepresented at such schools. There’s plenty of evidence that applying early improves odds of admission and that the students who do so — largely to gain a competitive edge — come disproportionately from privileged backgrounds with parents and counselors who know how to game the system and can assemble the necessary test scores and references by the November deadline.”

185

^That is the consensus here? I’m not reading that. Pretty divided. The only consensus seems to be that Bruni doesn’t do very thorough research…

186

Agree with HRSM. Do what works for your family, eyes wide open.

187

LF – under the existing system, let’s agree (for discussion purposes) that your kid would get a boost in admit chances from 10% to 20% at the Duke/Penn/Vandy/NW type schools by going ED and limiting your options. And under the existing system you are free to play the game or not.

Let’s also agree that if all the big ED schools decided to get rid of ED and use instead unrestricted REA (like Georgetown) your kid would also have a 20% admit chance. But would get that chance without having to limit options.

Which system would you pick?

Because that’s what would happen – the schools would experience a big decrease in yield without ED and so would have to increase admit rates. And the schools would likely get fewer applications to review or maybe just the same number as current.

188

Long answer, nw: I would tell any kid the ED decision has to work for that student and family, make sense financially and as a commitment. In this regard, nw, it seems I’m more conservative than some here. Less WTH. And I’m less inclined to see it as a raw boost for iffy kids, a wild hare you just “have to” chase.

There are no magic wands. Just to focus on increased admit percents (and use a kid’s stats as a basis) misses the rest of what it takes. Plenty of good kids succeed in hs, but not with the the app/supp. They can’t give a good Why Us, don’t hit the mark in any writing, may have a lackluster interview or generic LoRs. Those kids get no boost in ED. And they may not have any real shot in RD, either.

Now, suppose I “met” an extraordinary kid via CC (and I have.) Say he has the stats and rigor, the right balance of ECs, energy- but most of all, comprehension, an ability to listen, process, and refine thinking per this task and do a bang-up self presentation via the app/supp. And, he’s clear why he wants X, what it offers him, what he offers it, the real match. (Yes, I’ve worked with kids like that, via CC. They’re exciting.)

Yes, I might encourage him to go ED. Because he’s ready, he’s viable, he would, imo, deserve an early lock. And I tell those kids, it’s still up to the college. And that deferral is not a loss, it’s a second chance.

See the difference in perspective? I do see apps (not an adcom) and know stats, club titles, etc, rarely predict a good match, a good app package, a kid who propels himself toward the goal. No advantage in Early for the iffy.

189

At pressure-cooker schools, particularly the prep schools, ED is driven by fear and insecurity. Seniors have to decide on their ED school by early October. Then they go through senior year and by April they are different people. Those who ignored or were deferred ED have many choices to make come April 1, and they’re able to make that choice with their heads and hearts in a far better place. So to those who were deferred, congratulations. You’ve been given a gift even if it doesn’t feel like that just yet.

190

@northwesty “Let’s also agree that if all the big ED schools decided to get rid of ED and use instead unrestricted REA (like Georgetown) your kid would also have a 20% admit chance. But would get that chance without having to limit options.”

I do not think that is an accurate assumption. I would prefer unrestricted EA all things being equal, but then the early pool would be larger and even more competitive – essentially like applying early to MIT.

191

LF – I give up. We all know and mostly agree on how the current system works. We all know that all are free to play the ED game or not eyes wide open.

But that isn’t the same as discussing whether the current system is necessary or good.

I asked if you’d prefer a system where your kid (with whatever tangibles and intangibles your kid brings) could get (i) a 20% chance at one school and a 10% chance at every other peer school applied to or (ii) a 20% chance at all the peer schools.

Everyone would pick (ii) obviously. And (ii) is what you’d get if you got rid of ED.

Cheers.

192

“I do not think that is an accurate assumption. I would prefer unrestricted EA all things being equal, but then the early pool would be larger and even more competitive – essentially like applying early to MIT.”

But the overall pool would be LESS competitive and your kid would be free to consider more options.

MIT is like 9% EA accept rate and 8% overall accept rate. Kids eventually get into MIT (or not) regardless of when they apply. There’s no strategic advantage to applying early.

Now Duke isn’t close to MIT in terms of selectivity and yield. Duke only gets its numbers close to MIT by HEAVY reliance on binding ED to distort its numbers.

Suppose Duke flipped over to unrestricted EA and RD like Georgetown and ND do. No difference in admission standards between early and regular. The only difference is that if you apply early you find something out early.

Duke wouldn’t have a 9% overall accept rate any more (which includes a 24% ED accept rate). It probably would have an overall accept rate more like Gtown (17%) or ND (18%). If the EA accept rate was higher, it would be do to a stronger EA pool rather than to the use of differing standards at the early/regular round.

A more likely middle ground reform would be for the big ED schools to limit how much of their class they take ED. The distortion and game theory effects get quite high when 50+% of the seats get filled via ED; at 25-30% of the class, not so much.

193

@northwesty , this may be a false dichotomy. I do not believe it is mathematically possible for the RD rate to ever equal the ED rate because removing ED would increase the number of RD applicants by a very large number.

For example, Penn’s 1,332 ED admits would be applying to 10-15 other schools also, resulting in an extra 15-20,000 applications in the overall applicant pool – and that is just from one Uni.

The idea that slicing the pie in a different geometry makes more pie is just not really provable. I agree ED benefits the schools more than the student and it is grossly unfair to those needing financial aid. But to those that are decided, like @lookingforward 's student above, it is a valuable vehicle.

194

“For example, Penn’s 1,332 ED admits would be applying to 10-15 other schools also, resulting in an extra 15-20,000 applications in the overall applicant pool – and that is just from one Uni.”

PM – you’d have to run the experiment to see how it would all work. But my guess is that overall apps would stay the same or perhaps decline.

Unclear if Penn’s hypothetical EA applicants overall would be doing more or less apps as compared to the present group of ED applicants.

My guess is that kids would do what my EA kid did. You submit 3-4 EA apps, see what the early returns are, then decide what to do for RD. Since there’s no strategic advantage between early/late beyond getting early feedback, there’s no incentive to pile into EA. If the kid gets into Duke and NW EA, they might not do any more RD apps. If they get a bunch of deny/defers, then maybe they do some additional safety apps.

But the vast majority of kids today don’t get in at the ED stage. So that group (80% of the kids) today does a LOT of apps given the extremely low RD chances they face. If their overall and RD chances were increased presumably the largest group of kids would be doing fewer RD apps then they do now.

Big difference in the overall admit rates at the big ED schools as compared to the EA schools. Duke 10%, Penn 9%, NW 11%, Vandy 11%. USC 17%, Gtown 16.5%, ND 18%. But all pretty comparable schools. The artificial scarcity of seats at the RD stage drives a large number of additional apps I think.

195

The acceptance rate is a deceiving concept for sure. But without it applicants still know which school they desire the most (or to rank them) imo.

196

Yes, they make the rules (within the law), but that doesn’t mean we can’t complain about it / propose that there are better systems.

For example, they could raise the application fees to $1,000. That would benefit the schools from a cash-flow perspective, both on apps and the likelihood of getting full-pay students. But I think most people would object to such a system.

197

My intuition suggests @Postmodern’s right - by eliminating ED everywhere, you’ll end up with more apps in the system, and therefore admit rates might not go up. If you tried to cap ED admits as a percent of the class, you’d hamstring the schools because it would make it hard for them to assess how many RD admits to hand out - so they wouldn’t agree to it. The situation’s drifted to these schools admitting >50% of their classes ED because that’s how they minimize the uncertainty around yield while making themselves appear more selective, as noted upthread by others.

It’s not entirely their fault, either; I would estimate that apps to each of HYPSM have probably more than tripled, on average, in the last 30 years, while available slots have risen at a far slower rate. It must have been a lot easier in the early '80s for the top-tier ED schools to estimate how much room to leave for kids denied by the tippy-tops. The situation is also an unintended consequence of the USNWR era, in which yield and selectivity became far more visible and important everywhere, so schools responded by trying to reduce uncertainty around both. It’s unfortunately turned into an arms race now.

Imo, you’ll only materially reduce apps systemwide if you get rid of the Common App and make everyone be like Georgetown, where they know that the only applicants are the ones who cared enough to write a completely distinct app. It would be even better if students had to hand-write their applications, or be quizzed on school-specific trivia that they’d had to take the trouble to learn (a related sentiment, I think, is why Haverford strongly encourages an on-campus interview). I’m only half-kidding - back in the pre-Common App-and-computer era, having to produce apps on a typewriter was a significant deterrent to over-applying.

198

What if the student in question knows that the school in question is his first choice, but has a family financial situation that makes its NPC less certain, and/or could be swayed by a large merit scholarship offer from his second choice school?

199

How do you make that conclusion? Thousands of kids who prior applied to only one college, now applying to the average number (5-15?)

More apps + fixed number of slots = lower rates

200

Who wants a less competitive pool? More inadequate kids hoping lightning will strike? If you mean solely from the kid’s perspective, then he can drop down a tier, to where he really shines.

For both of mine, some x% chance didn’t factor in. We went on careful match. Not some ‘oooh, my stats fit, I have a couple of club titles, some (silly) passion, etc.’ Our driving question was, why would this college like D1/2 for their class? What really matters, beyond stats, that can drive her to the final round?

That’s not guessing. Nor just looking at CDS stats. It’s digging. I don’t think you’re looking at this through the full prism, nw.

Again, why should they eliminate ED? Because you think it affects your kid’s shot, regardless of his true fit?

And ucb, earlier in that post, I said it has to make financial sense.