<p>wsox: But if every school abolished ED, the "statistical advantage" would disappear (I assume?). I understand the admissions odds, but students and their attitudes do change significantly in that last year of high school, that to make that decision so early on in the process, seems very self-limiting. Applying ED also eliminates the possibility of serious merit scholarships at other universities and/or other awards or recognition (national and otherwise) that might not be apparent at the time the ED apps are due. Again..that's simply my opinion.</p>
<p>Well, for what it's worth, here's what Colubmia says about "statistical advantage" under ED:</p>
<p>"Although a larger percentage of the Early Decision applicant pool is admitted than of the Regular Decision applicant pool, the higher acceptance rate under our Early Decision Program reflects the remarkable strength of a self-selected applicant pool. A candidate to whom we otherwise would not offer admission is not going to be offered admission simply because he or she applied under the Early Decision Program. We strongly urge you to apply under the Early Decision Program if and only if Columbia is your first choice."</p>
<p>What is likely, however, is that the ED pool has a higher percentage of legacies, recruited URMs (like Questbridge applicants), developmental admits, recruited athletes, and a lower percentage of applicants requiring financial aid. All of these would be worth at least 100 points on the SAT.</p>
<p>Columbia parses its words very carefully. Sure, no unqualified candidate is going to be admitted early that wouldn't meet the school's high admission standards. That is begging the question. The school rejects many that are 'qualified.' The school has the advantage of being swamped with more qualified applicants than seats in both rounds.</p>
<p>The Early Admission Game documents the overstatement of the Columbia quote. "The higher acceptance rate under our Early Decision Program reflects the remarkable strength of a self-selected applicant pool." Oh really Columbia? The average SAT score is approximately 9 points higher ED than RD (source: The Early Admission Game), not much for a huge increase in acceptance percent. Also, don't forget many deferred ED people get in the RD round as the school thinks it is the candidate's first choice and is more likely to consider it a plus in the RD round. The school is always trying to hype its yield percent and the ED or SCEA game is one of its best tactics. I agree legacies and athletes help the ED numbers but not a factor a 3 to 5 times increase in acceptance percentage.</p>
<p>Jack- The school has seen 3 SAT1 tests, many SAT2 and AP tests, essays, numerous recommendations and a lengthy application. Do you think a 7th semester's grades will really turn around a candidate. I don't think you can raise the question if early admission were done away with. It is here and unfortunately you have to deal with it. Remember close to 50% of HYP's freshment class are ultimately early applicants. Hard to fight the system. I think the kid looking for financial aid is at a great disadvantge with the ED process. He or she applies and can be accepted not knowing what the deal is. If it is not enough, what does he or she do as they pulled their other applications. The highly selective schools are the most generous but it is a big leap of faith for a kid and his family, in my opinion.</p>
<p>My son's friend was accepted ED by Boston U. She changed her mind, was released from her commitment (both parents are lawyers--don't know if that was a factor) and accepted an offer from ...Tulane. After Katrina, she withdrew from Tulane, briefly planned on attending U. Wisconsin (where she'd been previously accepted as well), but then decided to take courses at Columbia (commuting from home) while quickly submitting an ap to McGill for the spring. And that's where, as I last heard, she's headed! Go figure...</p>
<p>Also, regarding Mini's comment "What is likely, however, is that the ED pool has a higher percentage of legacies, recruited URMs (like Questbridge applicants), developmental admits, recruited athletes, and a lower percentage of applicants requiring financial aid. All of these would be worth at least 100 points on the SAT.": this has been looked
at extensively, controlling for those factors, and there still is a significant advantage in applying ED/EA over RD. Many threads like this on the Harvard forum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I'd like to attend Ivy A, B, C, or D. I'm not a sure thing at any of them. My favorites are Ivy A and B, but I doubt if I have much of a chance there even if I apply early. Instead of 'wasting' my early application on Ivy A or B, I'll apply ED to Ivy D. It's not my first choice, but I think I've got a decent chance if I apply early."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If the kid has a clear grip on reality, what is the harm in the above scenario?</p>
<p>It is a "waste" of an ED application when one uses it on a school where there is very little/no chance of admission. </p>
<p>Remember, to some degree, with RD a kid will be picking 'blind' in April anyhow. There is only so much research one can do and then it is a leap of faith-- you have to choose. If a kid is able and willing to take that leap in November and choose one school to get an advantage, and if the kid is fully prepared to gleefully honor the acceptance if it should come, it is not necessarily wrong.</p>
<p>I know of several kids who were accepted ED and ended up in the end at different schools. I don't know the details but several ended up at high ranked UC's.
We know of one girl who was accepted ED to Reed and withdrew all apps except for Brown. She ended up with a letter from Brown saying they would not consider her app since she was committed elsewhere. I don't know how they got the information.
The truth of the matter is that it is an ethics matter. If you take advantage of Early Decision you should follow through. Because it is the right thing to do.</p>
<p>"Also, regarding Mini's comment "What is likely, however, is that the ED pool has a higher percentage of legacies, recruited URMs (like Questbridge applicants), developmental admits, recruited athletes, and a lower percentage of applicants requiring financial aid. All of these would be worth at least 100 points on the SAT.": this has been looked
at extensively, controlling for those factors, and there still is a significant advantage in applying ED/EA over RD."</p>
<p>So, let's not beat around the bush: what you are saying is that Columbia lies. Yale (in the person of President Levin), too. Don't know about Harvard.</p>
<p>The reality is that you CAN'T control for it. Does a legacy who does not apply ED really WANT to attend? What would it mean to be a developmental admit in the RD round? If an athlete was specifically recruited, and still decided not to apply in the ED round, would you give them a leg up in the RD round knowing s/he was likely to turn you down? There is no such thing as a Questbridge applicant in RD. Etc., etc. </p>
<p>But I'm also open to the idea that both Columbia and Yale are lying about this, as they all do about being "need-blind". ;)</p>
<p>I can only respond quickly to your first comment/question, and I would say, yes, all these schools are not being truthful. When you compare the numbers (looking at EA plus EA deferred admits compared to RD admits), the percentages are like 24% acceptance rates vs. 5%. (see numbers provided by Byerly on Harvard's thread..his mantra is apply EA if you want any kind of a shot)</p>
<p>And regarding your (confusing, to me) comment that you can't control for these other factors, I will look for the links and hopefully, clarify.</p>
<p>Im way too lazy to look it up, but as I recall, last year at the college my D applied to, if you controlled for athletes, legacy, recruited URMs etc. there was no statistical advantage in applying ed at all...</p>
<p>Ed acceptance was something around 30%, rd was 15%, but well over half of all ed admits fell into the above mentioned special categories completely leveling the playing field for regular ed applicants.</p>
<p>I also think this phenomenon varies according to the size of the school. An LAC, for instances Williams, has to fill its athletic requirements the same as the University of Pennsylvania, or Cornel which have far larger student bodies in total. Most athletes will be taken ed, if the school uses it. Thus, at a smaller school ed numbers may be inflating expectations.</p>
<p>wsox: I'm unclear what you mean when you say, "the school has seen 3 SAT1 tests . . ." ? And to answer your question, " . . . do you think a 7th semester's grades will turn around an applicant," no, I do not. I also think that if applying ED is the equivalent of 100 extra points on an SAT (did I get that right?), that this is not that great of an advantage, either (really). My point about ED really has nothing to do with 7th semester grades or standardized test scores. I simply believe that applying RD allows a student more options--obviously--but also, so much can- and does- occur AFTER those ED applications are due, often including a student's perspective. And I would also guess, though I have no statistical tables or proof, that any kid who gets in ED at a "highly selective" school, probably has an equally good shot as an RD applicant at the same school. I really believe that. As someone pointed out, the ED applicants are usually a highly qualified group (whether that's in academics, legacy status, athletics, whatever). I also agree with you that ED applicants are at a serious disadvantage, in terms of aid--merit or otherwise.</p>
<p>Doneman: To clarify - if I'm an adrep, to me a legacy who chooses to apply RD rather than ED is signifying to me that continuing the legacy is not a high priority. In other words, a different candidate, even if the stats are exactly the same. A developmental admit is one whose family has given or will give a very large amount of money. If the candidate is not applying ED, it would seem clear that the gift is not attached to the admission (and, again, the candidate is different, even if the stats are exactly the same.) An athlete who is recruited and promised the world by the coach and the admissions department if s/he applies ED yet decides not to, is indicating that the school is likely not the first choice and that they want to be sure to "fill the hole", it makes sense to look elsewhere. (Again, same stats, different candidate.) Questbridge (low-income URM) candidates by definition apply to only one school - ED - there is no comparable category for them RD.</p>
<p>The point is that the stats may be the same - in fact the APPLICANT is the same - but indicates very different things by applying RD rather than ED, things for which there are no controls.</p>
<p>(That they all lie, between us we have a consensus. Shall we add certain members of the Administration? ;))</p>
<p>geez, you guys must be really naive. frankly, I don't think they lie.... but I do think that parents and GCs and kids read the statistics and believe what they want to believe.</p>
<p>Frankly, your basic plain vanilla unhooked suburban kid from your average HS who's a good tennis player and volunteers at the local nursing home (fill in the blanks... animal shelter, hospice, they all work fine) reads the stats and thinks, "hey, my stats put me just below the median at U. Penn-- I've got a good shot here since half the kids there are above the median and half are below... and I'm only one person." Well-- the kids odds of getting in early (not so good) are probably identical to his odds of getting in RD (still not so good).</p>
<p>So-- are the adcoms lying? Take that same kid and make him a legacy, and by Penn's own admission, that kids odds go up in the early round and not at all in the regular round...</p>
<p>Take the same kid stats-wise, and make him first generation college student in a sub-par inner city school and the picture looks different, both in early and regular. If that same kid, with the same grades and scores becomes an Intel semi-finalist, or has composed a concerto which was performed at Tanglewood last summer, or whatever, same picture.</p>
<p>So-- an individual kids chances probably don't change much ED to RD-- you're a nice kid with no hook, your chances are terrible in both rounds. If you've got the goods (i.e. the stats) and something scarce that the school wants very much-- your chances are quite good in both rounds.</p>
<p>Who is lying? Maybe the GC's who keep telling all these tennis playing kids with all those community service hours and median stats that they've got a serious shot at some of these schools.....</p>
<p>blossom: Yes, exactly. Great points.</p>
<p>"So-- are the adcoms lying?"</p>
<p>No, I meant "lying" like in literally "deliberately and willfully not telling the truth", in writing, on the Columbia website, Robert Levin in the Yale Alumni Magazine, and on the Williams website (after reading the article about the tagging of "soci-ecs" in admissions in the Williams Alumni Review.)</p>
<p>(I actually think the Columbia folks were telling the truth about there being no admissions advantage; Levin at Yale was "parsing" the truth in saying the ED candidates were "better qualified"; and the Williams folks (and all of the need-blind schools) are stretching the truth beyond recognition, rather like sillyputty, when it comes to need-blind amdissions.)</p>
<p>Just a hypothesis, I don't have the data:</p>
<p>I think the ED boost in chances really occurs at those schools who often lose kids to "higher" ranked schools and really want the yield boost: the Tufts-syndrome schools just below HYPSM. When they get an ED app from a well-qualified kid, they really value it.</p>
<p>I truly wish we had the data to see if there is any boost otherwise, especially at HYPSM etc. Anecdotally, I haven't seen it. I do believe if we could parse the data, we would see that the higher % accepted ED is almost totally explained by higher stat pool, legacy etc.</p>
<p>Here's a section of Byerly's (Harvard alum) post on this topic. His source is the author of "The Early Admissions Game" which deals with this question:</p>
<p>This huge difference simply can't be rationalized away by pointing to the alleged "strength" of the early pool.</p>
<p>As Andrew Fairbanks, one of the authors of "The Early Admissions Game" and a former admissions dean at Wesleyan, observed to me last week:</p>
<p>"A couple of points: (1) in addition to controlling for SATs, class rank, and other demographic data, we also controlled for the Admission Officers' reader ratings themselves. So the argument that we didn't account for the intangible strengths of a file falls a bit flat; (2) I worked for an admissions office for 5 years, and I can state unequivocally that advantages were given to ED students for precisely the reasons that (you) articulate - demonstrated interest and increased likelihood of yield. Granted - Wesleyan was not operating from the same position of strength as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but the incentive to give an advantage to early applicants always exists when there is a tangible difference in yield between Regular and Early admits."</p>
<p>and later ----</p>
<p>"I have great respect for Bill Fitzimmons. He wrote an excellent review of our book in Harvard Magazine last year that raised some interesting critiques of our work. If you look carefully at his text above, it does not necessarily refute our core finding. While it may be true that admitted EA students with comparable 'objective' criteria to their counterparts in the Regular pool may have stronger 'intangible' strengths - that does not address the issue of whether the standards are different between the two programs. Those intangible strengths may explain some of the differences in admit rates across the two admissions programs between applicants with similar credentials, but our analysis shows that even when controlling for those intangible differences, the most selective colleges and universities still admit early applicants at a significantly higher rate than their regular decision counterparts."</p>
<hr>
<p>Mini: you have amply demonstrated that extremely selective schools like Williams which present themselves as need-blind are not, in that they actually give a boost to low-income students.</p>
<p>You have also demonstrated that most schools practice "enrollment management" but not, according to any articles posted that I've read, the top, uberselectives calling themselves need-blind and full-need like Williams. </p>
<p>So, my question is, for schools like this, why do you think that being "full pay" is an advantage in ED, and what is your basis for your assertion that they are lying about this?</p>
<p>Got it. And I note that they didn't control for a single factor I referenced, except yield in the case of the athlete.</p>
<p>"So, my question is, for schools like this, why do you think that being "full pay" is an advantage in ED, and what is your basis for your assertion that they are lying about this?"</p>
<p>Whether Williams gives a "boost" to low-income applicants is unclear from what they wrote. It looks more to me like "The Price is Right", get as close to the target without going over, but don't go too far under for fear of embarrassment. The point being that there is a target, much as the data suggests that there is likely a target for full-fare customers. At any rate, need-blind they ain't, and they use enrollment management strategies like everyone else. (In fact, Gordon Winston's work at Williams is one of the seminal sets of papers in the field.)</p>
<p>At the very least, being "full fare" is an advantage in ED as an indirect result of the advantage given to: 1) legacies, and 2) developmental admits. In the first case, the advantage is implicit; in the second case, explicit. I'm not sure exactly what your question means. I don't think they lie about the advantages given to legacies and developmental admits; on the contrary, I think they are quite open about it.</p>
<p>Perhaps you are asking why I think being full-fare (independent of these other factors) is an advantage in ED. This one can't be proven - it is more likely that full-fare customers will (by definition) forego the "luxury" (or need) to compare financial aid offers. From the admissions office perspective it would seem rather simple: filling the need for full-fare customers (or critical athletes, etc.) in ED allows them to play the field much more openly among a much larger pool of candidates in the RD round. If you already have the new starting quarterback, you can then pick and choose among 10 potential backups in the RD round, each with different qualifications (and different levels of need.) An unhooked financial aid applicant applying ED who is deferred is just as likely to be around in April (unless someone has caught her on the ED II rebound.) So what possible need would there be to tie up the place?</p>
<p>I was querying your post #42, suggesting that not applying for FA is worth 100 points on SAT.</p>
<p>And just to guild the lily with some actual stats from Harvard:
** Total SCEA + SCEA deferred admit rate: 23.4% (09) - 24.1% (08)
** RD - SCEA deferred admit rate: 6.1% (09) - 6.9% (08)</p>
<p>Overall it appears that the SCEA admit rate is even higher and the RD admit rate is even lower when you factor in the EA deferred kids that get accepted in April. Basically, a student is 4x more likely to get in if they apply SCEA than by applying RD.</p>