This argument falls apart in light of the fact that Stanford seems to be able to tell that 1/2 of its ED applicants are not going to get in under any circumstances. Are you saying no other colleges have an inkling of what their applicants have looked like for the past several years, and that even with a generous gray zone they can’t identify applicants they are not going to take?
Look again. There are published stats at places like Collegiate Compass that compute RD admit numbers with and without the EA/ED deferrals added in. When the deferrals are added in, the RD numbers drop. Its a matter of mathematics, not opinion, that the only way this can happen is if the deferred students have a lower acceptance rate than the RD applicants who did not apply EA/ED.
Think about it some more, I’m sure you’ll be able to come up with an understanding of why telling kids they’re out of the running after applying ED is worse for the college than not telling them ;-)</p>
<p>Beginning to think this is just an unknowable … Counselor hasn’t called them yet (wants to give it a little time). </p>
<p>Would just like to know if submitting supplementary materials is OK or a waste of time - i.e. will it just annoy them; will they even look at it? </p>
<p>Not counting on anything by any means, but am willing to do some more effort if would mean anything. </p>
<p>With each day, the disappointment drops dramatically — </p>
<p>Just found on Amherst admissions website … buried in a bottom paragraph:</p>
<p>“Most ED applicants are either admitted or deferred for reconsideration with the Regular Decision pool.”</p>
<p>This tells me that Mikemac has got it correct … Schools like Amherst can say they have a high number of applicants (increase the RD numbers), tease us with deferred status to give hope and encourage us to apply ED, get the ED application fee, and still be super selective. </p>
<p>Colleges have an excellent idea who they will see in the RD round. They may not know if they will get another applicant from the Cook Islands, but they know the usual suspects will be there in spades at schools like Amherst.</p>
<p>It’s in the institutions best interest to defer rather than reject for many reasons. Many early applicants are connected- they are legacies, donor kids, staff kids, kids from feeder schools, etc. A soft rejection is the preferred way to keep relationships with these families and schools as good as they can be despite the ultimate rejection.</p>
<ul>
<li>It’s in the institutions best interest to defer rather than reject for many reasons. Many early applicants are connected- they are legacies, donor kids, staff kids, kids from feeder schools, etc. A soft rejection is the preferred way to keep relationships with these families and schools as good as they can be despite the ultimate rejection. - </li>
</ul>
<p>Yep … agree</p>
<p>I am not a legacy, from a feeder school, rich, donor etc. Not that I think that matters. </p>
<p>I’m coming to see that it’s in their interest to have the aura of being super selective, and then tease us (who have a very low chance) with the deferral to make it seem like working hard gives you chance.</p>
<p>I also think it makes them look good to have high application numbers, despite “inconvenience.” </p>
<p>Like I said … becoming a cynic '-) But that’s OK</p>
<p>amfreborg, when my D was waitlisted at Columbia, which was a reach for her (white girl from VT, good stats, great music EC, strong leadership, but no special connection to Columbia), she was actually thrilled as she she was not outright rejected. She sent in updated grades, accomplishments and a personal letter, all the things that would help Columbia realize she was serious. That year Columbia took zero people off the waitlist, so she never got in, and now she is florishing with a nice scholarship at a great music school. </p>
<p>Being deferred is similar because you may never get in even after the hope and extra information you send in for RD. Some students do get accepted after being deferred, so there is hope until there is not, and you are doing the right thing by looking at other schools. Since you weren’t outright denied, you likely have what it takes to get into several other amazing schools. A few of the adult responses you got may have appeared cold, but keep in mind that we see hundreds of situations similar to your across a year. The cold hard facts are what they are, no one is being mean or having a bad day, so don’t take the feedback on this forum as a stab. Direct, honest feedback is your friend. :)</p>
<p>Keep your chin up. I can already see by your later comments that you are moving forward and I have high hopes for you.</p>
<p>According to this, in 2010 there were less than 400 perfect scores in the whole country. Hard for me to believe that there were enough of these applying ED to Amherst to make a difference. </p>
<p>You posted these scores in a previous post:
.</p>
<p>If Amherst is really going to reject you because your scores are “only” in the 99th percentile instead of the 99+ percentile, it’s a lot less holistic process than I would have thought. I’d say to heck with 'em. I sure wouldn’t drive myself crazy going for less than a 1% improvement in my percentiles.</p>
<p>i was a second tier recruited athlete (coach only had two real spots to give away) and had same SAT1 scores and 50 points more on SAT IIs. Coach had admissions do an early read and said admissions wanted at least 720s across the board.</p>
<p>But…if you have none of the typical hooks, I would not look at the deferral as a rejection. Get your scores up a bit and imo RD is a new ballgame. Have hope.</p>
<p>SAT retake is Jan 28 … results will be sent at soonest than mid/late Feb. Is that too late to make any difference with the RD admissions committee?</p>
<p>Thx for your encouragement … at this point though I’m hoping my RD choices apps with William & Mary and Johns Hopkins hold more promise and less worry. </p>
<p>Going to try the SAT again though – at this point “what the heck”? ;-)</p>