<p>Does anyone know the numbers for Duke University Early Decision this year?</p>
<p>Dartmouth ED went up almost 9%. Probably some who would have gone ED at Harvard and Princeton with Dartmouth as a backup for RD decided to go straight for Dartmouth. I would guess Brown, Penn and Cornell would see the same thing. Here's the article from the Dartmouth school newspaper.</p>
<p>TheDartmouth.com</a> | ‘Busiest year ever’ for Early Decision apps. flood 41</p>
<p>YES!!! Stanford's numbers stayed the same. Good thing, but also kind of puzzling...</p>
<p>
[quote]
some who would have gone ED at Harvard and Princeton with Dartmouth as a backup for RD decided to go straight for Dartmouth
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard didn't have ED. Harvard's early round was nonbinding, so why would Harvard setting up its new single-deadline system would prompt any students to apply binding ED to Dartmouth?</p>
<p>"Harvard's early round was nonbinding, so why would Harvard setting up its new single-deadline system would prompt any students to apply binding ED to Dartmouth?"</p>
<p>I thought Harvard's used Single Choice EA - that that you couldn't SCEA Harvard and ED Dartmouth, for example.</p>
<p>But if you have a decent shot of getting into Harvard, you have a HUGE shot of getting into Dartmouth ED, and then you have NIL chance of getting into Harvard. So why would a person who is interested in Dartmouth (a very warranted interest, to be sure) and also interested in Harvard apply to Dartmouth ED? That is what would be done by someone with NO interest in Harvard, perhaps, but that person would be little influenced by Harvard's change of policy.</p>
<p>That's true........</p>
<p>Does anyone have an idea as to why Stanford's early applications didn't go up? I'm guessing it's just because Stanford is different from Harvard and Princeton if you disregard prestige: different location, different environment, different feel, etc. At least I hoped that would be the case when I decided to apply early this year...and it looks like I lucked out :)</p>
<p>Does anyone know of Northwestern's ED numbers for this year?</p>
<p>Stanford doesn't give much of an advantage to people who apply early so there is less incentive to apply early there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know students who have been advised to change their EA applications to RD to give them time to straighten their application and to compete in a weaker pool.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What sort of advice is that? With very few exceptions, EAs that are not outright unqualified and deferred to RD if not accepted. I don't see how forgoing EA can give any advantage?</p>
<p>Remember, people, that selectivity in admissions does not necessarily equate to a better school or superior education. There is more parity in the quality of education at many schools than people admit to. Yes, the uber elites and Ivy's have more kids with higher SAT's. Fine. I wish them all very well in a crowded field of brilliant kids. If that is for you, go for it and good luck! But its not for everyone. The best school for YOU may well be something down the list a little ways. That is a highly subjective analysis depending on many different factors and those factors vary in importance from family to family: culture, religion, money, interests, geography, weather, dorms, programs, type of campus, state or private, size of school, on and on. </p>
<p>Frankly the entire admissions process needs to be revamped. I applaud Harvard and Princeton for dumping their early admissions program. I have a few thoughts on how it should be revamped, though I am certainly open to discussion:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>No college should solicit or accept applications before January 1 of any given year. The application will not be deemed complete until the first semester grades are received their senior year in high school.</p></li>
<li><p>Colleges may wish to go to a two tiered admissions cycle, with none of it being binding. For example, a non binding first tier would be in January and a second tier would be in mid February. </p></li>
<li><p>All colleges would be required to make a decision within 30 days of the application deadlines. There would be no rollover applications, meaning if you applied to the first tier and got rejected or waitlisted, then that is the decision and you are not pooled with the second tier kids. </p></li>
<li><p>I would require waitlists to be no more than a reasonable figure with reasonable expectations of a chance of admission, in other words, clear standards not a dumping ground. It would be a larger figure at larger schools who have historically high percentages of kids who decline offers of admission. They should publish those figures to the public at large so people can see. And also publish the number of kids who get off a wait list, clearly and not hidden in secret CDS files or buried in hard to find locations on their websites. Tell them right up front: We offer 100 kids a waitlist spot and typically 20 get offered admission in May. etc.</p></li>
<li><p>The second tier applications can be for those kids who are disappointed with rejections at higher ranking schools in the first tier, or who simply needed to see how their grades went or a retake of the SAT/ACT or similar need to defer to the second tier.</p></li>
<li><p>I would ask colleges to publish clear standards of admission and accurate and complete factors that go into admission and whether legacy and other soft factors play a significant role in their admissions cycle. If they have a cutoff for gpa and SAT then publish it and say, "we regret that students below these figures have a severely diminished chance of admission." That cuts down on the looky lou applications and fishing expeditions.</p></li>
<li><p>I would tell kids that applying to more than 10 schools is not in their best interest and require them to publish to schools the names of schools they have made application. Fair is fair. If you want schools to be forthright, then you have to be forthright. I might even suggest a methodology of ranking them in terms of interest from the kids.</p></li>
<li><p>And I would have some kind of clearinghouse, almost like a monster.com kind of system where kids can post their gpa's, their SAT scores and their EC's and how many AP classes they have successfully taken and let colleges see for themselves what is out there, and conversely a clearinghouse for kids to peruse with CLEAR and ACCURATE standards of admission, i.e. a clear cut off figure for stats, a 25-50-75th percentile figure.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And some way to convey to kids that selectivity of admissions does not equate to a better education or better experience for them. In many cases a better choice is a better fit for them. The clearinghouse might have a rotating system of featuring on the web 10 schools a week for example, as a sort of free advertising.</p>
<p>There are many, many smaller colleges out there that offer an amazing opportunity and are often not on the radar screen for superb students. Though with the ridiculous figures in applications we are seeing, many top students have figured that out and applying to say, a Hamilton or Haverford College may well be better for them than applying to Harvard, Princeton or Yale. </p>
<p>Just my two cents. I am sure someone will throw eggs at me now.</p>
<p>Happy Thanksgiving, everyone and best of luck in the admissions process. Been there done that last year with my kid and it was a very enlightening experience, if disconcerting at times.</p>
<p>Groovy: The RD pool is not necessarily weaker. Many schools have more stringent standards in the RD pool than in ED/EA. Indeed, many have an easier time getting accepted in early admissions cycles. Furthermore, I can tell you that many schools openly state that the RD pool is often filled with late comers....people rejected or waitlisted at Ivy League and super elites.....</p>
<p>I know this for a fact at Washington and Lee University and previously at UVa.</p>
<p>Many times you have a better chance of getting in EA/ED, though it is of questionable ethics in the financial aid circles because often they dont tell you what your package is until much later and you are gambling on being admitted and with money, or in some cases its not even needs blind and they sort of hold that against you if you apply for financial aid. It can be a very arbitrary and capricious process at times.</p>
<p>I wouldnt want to be an admissions officer. Its a tough job and often thankless. But being clear, forthright and consistent would do a lot to make it easier for everyone involved. </p>
<p>Harvard, for example, might publish their admissions standards with a caveat like this, "we reserve the right to admit anyone of our own choosing for any lawful reason we so choose and among those reasons may be athletic ability, legacy, diversity of ethnic background, and diversity of scores. We do not typically admit a class full of perfect SAT scores. We like a mix of public and private school kids, from all corners of the country and certain foreign countries. Typically, this represents 25% of our admitted students." Or something like that. Put it out there for all to read and judge for themselves.</p>
<p>catfishin -- Thanks for a really interesting, well-thought-out post. I agree with some of it, and disagree with some, maybe most. But it's thoughtful.</p>
<p>Here are some of my issues:</p>
<p>You are prescribing a universal solution to a problem that exists, if at all, in a tiny corner of the world. The vast majority of students who go to college only apply to one or two schools, which are not terribly selective. Most state universities admit applicants on a rolling basis starting as early as August. You don't hear choruses of complaints about this, which represents most of the world.</p>
<p>On the other side, you are asking Harvard to make 10,000 decisions within 30 days in two consecutive months. That's brutal, and it isn't going to improve the quality of the decisions. Last year, they made final decisions on about 2,000 applications in six weeks, and then dealt with 18,000 over three months. So you are almost doubling the processing rate, and introducing a truly random aspect by forbidding deferrals.</p>
<p>If colleges don't think they need first semester senior grades, why do you want to impose that on them? What percentage of kids do you think have meaningful differences in their grades first semester of 12th grade vs. 10-11 grades, that are not explained by nonacademic factors (illness, etc.)? My guess is: not all that many. Especially not in the group we're talking about here. Right now, the colleges decide on a case by case basis whether they need to see more data or not.</p>
<p>Similarly, you are imposing a statistical cut-off on colleges that, time and time again, have made clear that they do not want to have statistical cut-offs, even if it's hard to tell that there isn't one. Why do you know better than they?</p>
<p>Waitlists: I basically like your proposal, but waitlist numbers can vary really significantly year to year at the same school.</p>
<p>Also: Yes, for some students Hamilton or Haverford could be better than Harvard or Yale. But that is far, far from universally true. You really don't see a lot of evidence that Harvard and Yale students are unhappy with their experience and wish they had gone elsewhere.</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins just released that they have this year an all time high of 1055 ED applications.</p>
<p>Source: Hopkins</a> Insider</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard, for example, might publish their admissions standards with a caveat like this, "we reserve the right to admit anyone of our own choosing for any lawful reason we so choose and among those reasons may be athletic ability, legacy, diversity of ethnic background, and diversity of scores. We do not typically admit a class full of perfect SAT scores. We like a mix of public and private school kids, from all corners of the country and certain foreign countries. Typically, this represents 25% of our admitted students." Or something like that. Put it out there for all to read and judge for themselves.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doesn't Harvard already say that quite clearly? I don't think Harvard selects for "diversity of scores" (what does that mean, by the way?), but it makes clear enough in its NCAA self-study </p>
<p><a href="http://www.college.harvard.edu/deans_office/NCAASelfStudy.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.college.harvard.edu/deans_office/NCAASelfStudy.pdf</a> </p>
<p>and in any of its public statements about its admission practices that it admits students on a variety of bases, and doesn't just go down the list of top-scoring students in strict rank order. </p>
<p>So what is the problem here?</p>
<p>any idea as to how Duke's ED stats look?</p>
<p>To answer peacock90's question: Columbia College ED applications are reportedly over 2500 for this year.</p>
<p>OldPerson--where did you see the information about Columbia reported? Was it in the Spectator?</p>
<p>Penn had lower ED applicants this year - down by 1.5%.</p>
<p>Early</a> Decision applications decrease 1.5 percent - News</p>
<p>Interesting "viewing comment" at the bottom of page.</p>