<p>"I was querying your post #42, suggesting that not applying for FA is worth 100 points on SAT."</p>
<p>Oh, different question, and much more complex. It is not the "not-applying" for FA that is worth 100 points on the SAT, it is not NEEDING FA. The CollegeBoard studies suggest that at this level of applicant, a 1400 SAT score (old scores) (for the minimum income non-FA candidate, roughly $150k), is simply a 1200 plus $100k in income. That is, the environmental conditions that produce the SAT scores makes it easier for the non-FA candidate to score well. </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 then the stats posted by Byerly. Basically, a student is 4x more likely to get in if they apply SCEA than by applying RD."</p>
<p>Only if the same candidate under the same conditions. By definition, a legacy candidate in December is a different candidate if a legacy in April. (Though for Harvard, with such a high yield, this admitted might apply in different ways.)</p>
<p>Mini, I do understand your distinction between ED/EA recruited athletes, legacies, etc. and the RD versions of those, but if all recruited athletes, legacies, developmental admits, etc. were removed from both sides of the equation, wouldn't that be a way to "control" for that factor? Anyway, maybe my grasp of how these analyses would work is too rudimentary, but I for one, believe that the EA/ED advantage cannot be explained by a "stronger applicant pool", whether you're talking about Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Wesleyan, or any of the others. And it isn't just about the interest that an early ap implies..its also about being in the first group as niches that the school desires begin to get filled (see thread about dinner with the adcom).</p>
<p>Okay, Mini, I'll venture a personal case, which speaks to Donemom's point. S was accepted, as many here know, to one of the colleges discussed here, ED. Did not fit any of the categories you have outlined, except for the "didn't apply for FA" box. However, he didn't have any of the environmental conditions you allude to (high income was pretty recent, attended barely adequate public schools, no summer programs or enrichment beyond what public schools offered, no test prep, no tutoring, no friends in high places, etc). So I have to say, as much as I'd like to think he'd have gotten chosen when the odds were 1 in 11, rather than 1 in 5, I'm just not seeing it. Not a legacy, certainly not development admit (though he knows a couple), not URM, not athlete, not Intel or anything at all like that. Just a really likeable kid, who plays trombone pretty well (but not well enough for a regional or state band), had pretty high SATs, likes stars a lot, and came across really well in his application, if you looked at it very, very closely. </p>
<p>I truly think that with 18,000 apps, instead of 1800, he'd never have gotten looked at closely. And that's where I think the advantage lies--that the subtleties get noticed in ED which might be overlooked in RD.</p>
<p>And if you're interested in this topic, you may be interested in the following link, which is Fitzsimmons' review of The Early Admissions Game from Harvard Magazine:</p>
<p>And in this excerpt from an article in the Atlantic (link to full article below):</p>
<p>"'In an ideal world we would do away with all early programs,' Fitzsimmons said when I asked him about the right long-term direction for admissions systems. 'We'd go back to the days when everyone could look at all their options over the senior year. Students, parents, and high schools would be very grateful. Philosophically and in every other way it would be so much better if we all could make the change.' Because of Harvard's position in today's college pyramid, Fitzsimmons is the most influential person in American college admissions. His 'ideal world' is significant news. What holds him back is the need to know that other schools will lower their guns if he lowers his."</p>
<p>It's easy for Fitzsimmons to be in favor of doing away with early decision programs. He has 80% yield.</p>
<p>Talk to an admissions dean at a school with 20% yield about enrollment management with no early decision. The schools would have to rent out Sotheby's on weekends to auction off their slots in the freshmen class. Each student would be assigned an auction number and the admissions deans could hold up little paddles to bid on them.</p>
<p>Basically, there would be no selectivity or matching in the application stage as many colleges would have to mail acceptances (actually invitations to the auction) to just about all of their applicants.</p>
<p>The handful of big-endowment elite colleges would benefit enormously from the end of early decision.</p>
<p>The schools are not lying. They just are very selective in the information they disclose. How about disclosing statistics for ED applicants broken down for URM, athlete, legacy and all other. Same for the regular round. Hard numbers would tell plain vanilla applicants their odds. Then, again, colleges like large pool of applicants even if the applicants don't have a real shot...that is what is meant as 'highly selective.' They don't want you to see how they make the sausage called college admission. Lying, no...shady, YUP!</p>
<p>JACK - 100 points on the SAT translated to probably 10 to 20 percent higher acceptance rate. If that is significant or not is a judgement call. Byerly, got it right...it is the best deal going.</p>
<p>Thanks, Cosar, for the links. It's interesting to read Fitzsimmons review of "The Early Admissions Game". </p>
<p>It was also noted in that CC thread that their study "corrected for all variables (including legacy status, athletic recruit status, admissions officer rating, etc) "</p>
<p>ED is a transaction. The college gets ahead of the game in yield management, the student has improved odds of admissions. Both parties benefit, though my cynical eye says the college benefits more than the student. I think far too many 17-year-olds are too plastic in their interests and convictions to make an informed ED decision.</p>
<p>Jack, there are approximately 50-100 universities and 25-50 LAC's for which admissions is significantly angst provoking. Long before you run through those 75-150 schools, you've gone past the range of ED institutionsand institutions that ED schools regard as peers. It is not denigrating or elitist, it is statement of fact. U/Wyoming was a helpful volunteer from the audience; I could have used any number of other schools as a stand-in. </p>
<p>However, I have a thought or two on the use of gaffer's tape.</p>
<p>Driver, a most excellent reason for using Wyoming...thanks for the positive reinforcement.</p>
<p>TheDad: Not to beat a dead horse here (though it may already be too late), my point was/is that you simply did not have to illustrate the point with the name of any particular school. (See post #3 that says, in part:
"They (Columbia) will not release you to apply to any schools they consider competitive (as THEY define it) . . ." That's self-explanatory, nothing more needed. (You might like duct tape, too, for your purposes...a lot cheaper than gaffer's--by the by.)</p>
<p>I don't think they are currently using lethal injection- firing squad- electric chair or any such extreme measures
However they will brand the name of the school to which you applied ED and then rejected on your forehead with a big SLASH through it- and whenever you go back to your high school , even 30 years later for your reunion, you will be ostracized as the one who closed the door to that school for future students- because the college blamed the school for allowing you to apply ED, even though you weren't commited enough to attend.
Your children will be shamed- because all comparable schools will scorn you & you will be forced to attend a school that your parents duck their heads when they say its name.
Is this what you want to look forward to?</p>
<p>Jack, as an experienced writer that has been oft paid decent sums for words that you receive for free, I know that the use of a specific often makes a general point more clearly and more effectively. I won't be troubled to take the delicate sensitivities of fussbudgets into consideration.</p>
<p>Duct tape lacks a certain je ne sais quois for the purposes I envision...it was uncannily perceptive of you to suggest it in the first place.</p>
<p>TheDad: A writer? What a coincidence. I would have never guessed that from your rather pedestrian posts. (I hope you don't write fiction. If so, you might want to hold on to your day job.) :)
More to the point...when you do write, you also want to ensure that you don't distance your reader by insulting his or her intelligence--unless, of course, that's your desire. Again, and this will be my last post on the subject and to you, your specific illustration was totally unnecessary. (See post #71.)</p>