<p>Does anyone know how hard it is to get into Vassar Early Decision ii? What is the acceptance rate?</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a data that shows only EDII acceptance rate. However, if you want to know the acceptance rate of both ED I and II combined, you can see it in Vassar’s common data set. According to it, in 2012, there were 600 ED applicants and 259 were accepted.
I’m pretty sure male students had the higher acceptance rate than female students.</p>
<p>and this applies from my observations to most of the selective LACs, give or take a point here and there - the general admit rate on ED1 is about 45-50% or so; the general rate on ED2 drops, but to about 30-33% or so, and the RD rate is about 15-20% or so, so a usual combined rate of low 20s%. obviously, there is, at the first level of analysis, an advantage to using ED, 1 or 2. however, remember that: especially ED1, a lot of the admits are legacies, athletes, talented artists, etc. - that is, they have a ‘hook’. moreover, their stats may well be at the higher end of the range - even with the occasional dunderhead legacy - so if you lack a ‘hook’ you may in fact be competing with a stronger group. and there’s the usual misunderstood jive about not being able to compare finaid offers, but with most aid at the top LACs being on need alone, this seems an illusory problem, BUT many have offered that their finaid packages from RD from similar schools with allegedly similar methods (i.e., institutional method) differ significantly, so there may be something to this. i saw using the online finaid estimators at target schools that, indeed, even tho they don’t explain it, the estimated aid for exactly the same inputs differed, often by a bit, or the composition, ie loans vs grants (bad), or incl. unsubsidized loans on top of subsidized loans (also bad - if these terms are new to you, you need to brush up, a lot). </p>
<p>still, all in all, when you consider the percentage advantage, especially if you can show some hook (ie, athletes, you’ve talked to the coach, even gotten a campus recruiting visit, etc.), remember that the ED (1 & 2 combined) rates often offer a BIG advantage of 2.5x-treble (ie, Princeton [yes, i know these ain’t LACs, the point’s the same, and it’s the data i have] EA? (not ED?, but if so not a relevant diff in this context) 18.30% vs. 5.44% RD; Brown 18.54% ED to 8.07% RD; Penn 24.85% ED to 9.4% RD, etc. [source: NYT <a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/ivy-league-college-admission-rates-2013/][/url”>7 of 8 Ivy League Schools Report Lower Acceptance Rates - The New York Times][/url</a>]. so, on balance i’m a believer in ED for the top schools (assuming of course you have thoroughly investigated the school, seen enough other schools at same depth to be able to make decision, have been to campus, have ‘hook’, etc., etc., and understand finaid pretty well, both the methods and likely results, often from the anecdotes posted over time here on CC).</p>
<p>also, this is from memory for this last go-round, but re Hamilton, they had about 450 slots to fill in the frosh class. they had about 475 apps for ED1 and admitted about 215, a rate of about 46%; for ED2 they had another 225 or so and admitted about 75, about 33%, so now about 290 slots of 475 have been filled, about 61% of the class (and remember the ‘yield’ here is or should be 100%), so that for the remaining 185 slots they expected to review in RD about 5,000 apps. that’s five thousand for fewer than 200 slots. now how do you think on ED vs. RD? (my numbers may be off a bit, but not by much and not materially)</p>
<p>oh, and re finaid, it sure matters, whether you like ED or RD, if you need aid to really really give your best looks at those few schools which are NEED BLIND in admissions, like vassar and hamilton and others, incl wesleyan (despite the recent hubbub, they are mostly, especially if you apply early). and having followed the wesleyan hubbub, i am informed enough to know there’s ‘need blind’, ahem, which meets need but with loans not grants, etc.etc., and need blind with a square deal (or more square deal anyway). colgate, for instance, is resolutely not need blind, despite the recent success of their fund raising efforts, including for finaid - it’s part of their DNA, they’ll have a hard time evolving into anything like the genuinely openness vassar offers to those who need aid. just look at some stats: the % of aid recipients at colgate maxes out at 40%, which means 60% of students receive no aid at all - good for colgate’s administration and tightfistedness, bad for you. vassar, by contrast, has something like 70% of its students receiving aid (varying amounts, sure, but the point is made). </p>
<p>good luck and good night.</p>
<p>and remember, Hamilton’s RD admit rate is still about 20%. how can that be, with 5,000 apps for ~200 slots? because, unlike ED 1 & 2, which by definition has a 100% yield (that’s the deal in your ‘contract’ - if admitted, you will attend (with a slight insufficiency of finaid out - but methinks if you appealed, they’d be responsive, as any school would, they don’t want to lose that 100% yield, they want you and you want them - i would be surprised if an accomodation could not be made to satisfy all, thus there will be very very few actual declines on account of finaid in ED land)). </p>
<p>that can be because the yield is around 20% or so, so to fill 200 slots they must admit 5x that number, so the 5,000 RDs will produce about 1,000 acceptances, of which about 20% will accept and attend, which is the 200 slots they seek to fill. </p>
<p>still, ED1 at ~48% and ED2 at ~33% is better than RD at 20%. if you genuinely meet the ED mold, go for it!</p>
<p>Thanks for your response!</p>