@samantha827 Re post #16. Unless you are legacy, urm or recruited athllete you should assume that the acceptance rate in regular decision applies to you in early decision.
Also, in this group of schools Colby is the better bet because of a higher acceptance rate for females and overall larger acceptance pool. Conn College is another idea.
If you’re open to larger schools…
Northwestern is another school that seems to really favor ED applicants…they are among the really good non-Ivies that seem to be tired of enrolling students who would really prefer to be at an Ivy, but didn’t get in–they want people who really want to be at Northwestern, and therefore fill a significant % of their freshman class with ED applicants.
You’d have a good shot at Michigan, Boston College, NYU, and Lehigh. Maybe William and Mary?
If all you put on the table is, “2100 on SAT, really good essay, 4.2 GPA, 9 AP classes, a good resume, and being from Central Florida,” you’re missing the “more” they look for, what it really takes. It’s the app and supp that’s key. Not just transcript.
As pointed out in recent threads, Early acceptance figures often include athletes and sometimes legacies and special kids they want to lock in. You can’t just look at percentages and make some guess.
OP needs a good read on what those targets really look for, after stats. Do you know what a “good essay” means?
Re comments on the statistical aspects of early decision (e.g., #22, #24), do posters simply ignore the Harvard/Kennedy study, or presume it to be outdated?
^^^^^ Can anyone give a summary of this study and how old it is? Is this the one Chris Avery et al did?
@merc81 My comment was directed at NESCAC schools because Hamilton was a focus of the discussion. NESCAC schools use ED heavily for athletic recruitment and these students know by July if they are going to get in or not. The application is a formality more or less. Generally, I don’t think it is wise for students to think that admissions standards at any school are lower in ED because there is no evidence of that and it makes for poor strategy and decision making.
If there ever was an advantage I am sure that arbitrage has closed since ED has become so common. That study in 2003 was done at a time when ED was much less common. Any benefit would have diminished at this point for a number of reasons.
The OPs analysis should be focused on whether her skills fit in at schools where 40% of the seats are taken by student athletes, musicians, thespians, legacy students and the like. Gender issues are also important. I think so many high stat academic students fail to understand this with these schools.
Just be aware that study linked is, in part. a secondary comment on studies done by others outside admissions. That comment, eg, about Penn locking in rich kids is not a direct quote from a need blind college.
This: “analysis should be focused on whether her skills fit in at (her targets.) I think so many high stat academic students fail to understand this with these schools.” Right.
@PetulaClark - Has a similar table been created for 2016 admissions data?
I am curious to know what those reasons are. I have read the book referenced in the article, “The Early Admissions Game” and it makes a very strong statistical case which IMHO should require statistics rather than speculation to refute it.
Additionally it goes against the advice I have heard from nearly every guidance counselor and college professional. I’d be concerned it could dissuade young people from taking the advantage, however small it might be.
The best school is one you can embrace and grow both educational and socially. The school doesn’t create a person, the person creates themselves.
@PetulaClark : These quotations from an Atlantic article on the Harvard/Kennedy study (Avery, Fairbanks and Zeckhauser) may serve to summarize the salient aspects of the findings:
“An early student scoring 1200-1290 [out of 1600 on the SAT] was MORE likely to be admitted than a regular student scoring 1300-1390.”
And
“The . . . findings were . . . striking because . . . ‘hooked’ applicants were excluded from the study.”
Though this research was presented in 2001, I’ve not seen a subsequent scholarly publication that would supersede its conclusions.
I am looking at mostly NESCAC schools… Would ED be a smart action to do for them? I am not a recruited athlete… Wash U and Brown are the only bigger schools I would love to go to. I don’t think I have a chance at Brown… Should I even try?
@samantha827 Depends on stats.
@merc81 Thanks!
I suggest the OP read through ED results threads from last year for the schools she is interested in to see how things shock out for people with a comparable profile. She still hasn’t shared much beyond her SAT score and GPA (no ECs or stuff that would indicate what makes her interesting as an applicant). NESCAC/Brown admissions are definitely holistic and they are looking for stuff above and beyond just grades and scores. WUSTL is a little more stats driven. Opinions expressed on chances absent that missing color remain pure speculation.
Bump
How about sharing more info if you wish to bump?
I did in OP
All you’ve given are bare bone stats.
from my post #20:
“or anyone to truly give you feedback, what are your ECs? It’s more than just grades/test scores, especially for LACs which look at apps more holistically. You mention looking at both selective LACs and larger schools, but WHAT exactly are you interested in besides the most prestige? What attributes attract you? What majors are of potential interest? The info you have provided is very vague.”