Why would you not apply ED?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually wonder if it’s harder for an unconnected kid without any hooks to get in ED.

It isn't (generally). See the book referenced elsewhere in this thread which provides evidence and data.

If a school is need-aware, ED is a pretty solid hook.

I think it depends a lot on the school. For the most competitive schools, I’m not sure how much of an advantage ED gives if you don’t have any hooks. For less competitive schools, ED absolutely gives an advantage. Obviously there is a huge range and there are likely a lot of variables at play.

But my kid won't need an advantage at less competitive schools. Neither will many others.

And for the person who likes the book, can you provide any data?

From the amazon page:

Applying to an elite college through an early-admissions program can improve students' chances of getting in by as much as 50 percent over their odds during the regular admissions cycle, a difference that is the equivalent of scoring 100 points higher on the SAT...Based on an analysis of admission data at top colleges, as well as interviews with over 400 college freshmen [The Early Admissions Game] challenges the official line of college admissions deans, who have long held that applying early does not give prospective students an advantage over regular applicants. But the research confirms what many high-school counselors already suspected, and it is likely to fuel debate over whether early-admissions programs favor wealthy and well-connected students and should be eliminated or reformed.
--Jeffrey R. Young, Chronicle of Higher Education

That's not data. That's a blurb trying to sell a book.

Also, it says it *can* be the equivalent of 100 pts on an SAT--which likely means that's the most extreme example--not the most typical case.

Yeah that makes sense.

No, wait, it doesn’t. Because you didn’t read the effing book, and the guilt writing the blurb did, and I did too.

It is the average boost overall. Read the damn book and then you can dispute it. Try your local library.

No, wait look at the blurb:
Applying to an elite college through an early-admissions program can improve students' chances of getting in by as much as 50 percent over their odds during the regular admissions cycle, a difference that is the equivalent of scoring 100 points higher on the SAT

"By as much as" pretty much indicates that it's as much as---which they equate to 100 SAT points. Plus earlier you said 150 and the blurb
says 100, so you're not really a trustworthy reporter on it...or the blurb is wrong which puts it as kind of not that trustworthy with data either...
I'm the PP who mentioned an earlier study that on average ED confers 1-2 percent, so I basically KNOW it's not the average overall too.

[Anonymous]

Nice. So if my kid applies early, he'll have a 1650. Try to keep her out now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously depends on the school and you can see the numbers in the common data sets. But if you hear enough presentations, you will come across schools that essentially say "DC won't get in unless they apply ED."

But why is that? Who are they taking RD then?

It is (1) an effort to increase yield for ranking purposes; (2) a way to shape the class with more precision; and (3) maybe - a way to conserve merit for kids who have leverage. As for who falls into that category, I would guess it is perfect candidates that the school may want to lure away from their SCEA schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously depends on the school and you can see the numbers in the common data sets. But if you hear enough presentations, you will come across schools that essentially say "DC won't get in unless they apply ED."

But why is that? Who are they taking RD then?

It is (1) an effort to increase yield for ranking purposes; (2) a way to shape the class with more precision; and (3) maybe - a way to conserve merit for kids who have leverage. As for who falls into that category, I would guess it is perfect candidates that the school may want to lure away from their SCEA schools.

There is no doubt that there are benefits for the school. The whole admissions process is built to benefit the school. What is not clear is if there is any benefit to the student.

[Anonymous]

There is a benefit in admissions. How big is debatable but at the very least one gets more attention to one's application based on volume alone. And I strongly suspect that at most or all there is some bump. There is also a benefit in ending the process in December and having some certainty in one's life. That may be very attractive to some but not matter to others. DC was really pleased to be able to stop playing the waiting game. And, for those who are heart sick over a school , there is some comfort in taking their best shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually wonder if it’s harder for an unconnected kid without any hooks to get in ED.

It isn't (generally). See the book referenced elsewhere in this thread which provides evidence and data.

If a school is need-aware, ED is a pretty solid hook.

I think it depends a lot on the school. For the most competitive schools, I’m not sure how much of an advantage ED gives if you don’t have any hooks. For less competitive schools, ED absolutely gives an advantage. Obviously there is a huge range and there are likely a lot of variables at play.

But my kid won't need an advantage at less competitive schools. Neither will many others.

And for the person who likes the book, can you provide any data?

From the amazon page:

Applying to an elite college through an early-admissions program can improve students' chances of getting in by as much as 50 percent over their odds during the regular admissions cycle, a difference that is the equivalent of scoring 100 points higher on the SAT...Based on an analysis of admission data at top colleges, as well as interviews with over 400 college freshmen [The Early Admissions Game] challenges the official line of college admissions deans, who have long held that applying early does not give prospective students an advantage over regular applicants. But the research confirms what many high-school counselors already suspected, and it is likely to fuel debate over whether early-admissions programs favor wealthy and well-connected students and should be eliminated or reformed.
--Jeffrey R. Young, Chronicle of Higher Education

That's not data. That's a blurb trying to sell a book.

Also, it says it *can* be the equivalent of 100 pts on an SAT--which likely means that's the most extreme example--not the most typical case.

Yeah that makes sense.

No, wait, it doesn’t. Because you didn’t read the effing book, and the guilt writing the blurb did, and I did too.

It is the average boost overall. Read the damn book and then you can dispute it. Try your local library.

No, wait look at the blurb:
Applying to an elite college through an early-admissions program can improve students' chances of getting in by as much as 50 percent over their odds during the regular admissions cycle, a difference that is the equivalent of scoring 100 points higher on the SAT

"By as much as" pretty much indicates that it's as much as---which they equate to 100 SAT points. Plus earlier you said 150 and the blurb
says 100, so you're not really a trustworthy reporter on it...or the blurb is wrong which puts it as kind of not that trustworthy with data either...
I'm the PP who mentioned an earlier study that on average ED confers 1-2 percent, so I basically KNOW it's not the average overall too.

You know whose analysis is untrustworthy? Yours. You haven't read the book. Most important, you haven't supported your claim that it is "likely means that's the most extreme example", because it isn't.

And you don't seem to understand math much either, because of course the boost depends on where you are starting. They use difference examples. I'm holding my copy of the book. Here's what it says on the bottom of page 234, where they list a formula for a specific set of stats: "Table 7.1 suggests that applying early to Notre Dame increases your chances of admission from 67 to 81 percent". The equivalent of which in RD is a student with 100 more SAT points for the same chance of admission. And no, that is not an outlier, the tables has all the boost and all the ranges, would you would know IF YOU HAD READ IT.

That's just one reference I pulled from the book's index of SAT. Read the book please and come back and argue your point. You're just wrong. This is a Harvard economist and a Harvard professor and a Wesleyan admissions Dean analyzed 500,000 application data points they were given special access to, and spent years doing this on a book that keeps getting updated and remains in print. They are telling you that you are wrong, not me.

What kind of person argues about a book they haven't read? This is insane. I am out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously depends on the school and you can see the numbers in the common data sets. But if you hear enough presentations, you will come across schools that essentially say "DC won't get in unless they apply ED."

But why is that? Who are they taking RD then?

It is (1) an effort to increase yield for ranking purposes; (2) a way to shape the class with more precision; and (3) maybe - a way to conserve merit for kids who have leverage. As for who falls into that category, I would guess it is perfect candidates that the school may want to lure away from their SCEA schools.

Yield is not used in the USNWR rankings formula. Is there another substantive ranking that uses yield?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually wonder if it’s harder for an unconnected kid without any hooks to get in ED.

It isn't (generally). See the book referenced elsewhere in this thread which provides evidence and data.

If a school is need-aware, ED is a pretty solid hook.

I think it depends a lot on the school. For the most competitive schools, I’m not sure how much of an advantage ED gives if you don’t have any hooks. For less competitive schools, ED absolutely gives an advantage. Obviously there is a huge range and there are likely a lot of variables at play.

But my kid won't need an advantage at less competitive schools. Neither will many others.

And for the person who likes the book, can you provide any data?

From the amazon page:

Applying to an elite college through an early-admissions program can improve students' chances of getting in by as much as 50 percent over their odds during the regular admissions cycle, a difference that is the equivalent of scoring 100 points higher on the SAT...Based on an analysis of admission data at top colleges, as well as interviews with over 400 college freshmen [The Early Admissions Game] challenges the official line of college admissions deans, who have long held that applying early does not give prospective students an advantage over regular applicants. But the research confirms what many high-school counselors already suspected, and it is likely to fuel debate over whether early-admissions programs favor wealthy and well-connected students and should be eliminated or reformed.
--Jeffrey R. Young, Chronicle of Higher Education

That's not data. That's a blurb trying to sell a book.

Also, it says it *can* be the equivalent of 100 pts on an SAT--which likely means that's the most extreme example--not the most typical case.

Yeah that makes sense.

No, wait, it doesn’t. Because you didn’t read the effing book, and the guilt writing the blurb did, and I did too.

It is the average boost overall. Read the damn book and then you can dispute it. Try your local library.

No, wait look at the blurb:
Applying to an elite college through an early-admissions program can improve students' chances of getting in by as much as 50 percent over their odds during the regular admissions cycle, a difference that is the equivalent of scoring 100 points higher on the SAT

"By as much as" pretty much indicates that it's as much as---which they equate to 100 SAT points. Plus earlier you said 150 and the blurb
says 100, so you're not really a trustworthy reporter on it...or the blurb is wrong which puts it as kind of not that trustworthy with data either...
I'm the PP who mentioned an earlier study that on average ED confers 1-2 percent, so I basically KNOW it's not the average overall too.

You know whose analysis is untrustworthy? Yours. You haven't read the book. Most important, you haven't supported your claim that it is "likely means that's the most extreme example", because it isn't.

And you don't seem to understand math much either, because of course the boost depends on where you are starting. They use difference examples. I'm holding my copy of the book. Here's what it says on the bottom of page 234, where they list a formula for a specific set of stats: "Table 7.1 suggests that applying early to Notre Dame increases your chances of admission from 67 to 81 percent". The equivalent of which in RD is a student with 100 more SAT points for the same chance of admission. And no, that is not an outlier, the tables has all the boost and all the ranges, would you would know IF YOU HAD READ IT.

That's just one reference I pulled from the book's index of SAT. Read the book please and come back and argue your point. You're just wrong. This is a Harvard economist and a Harvard professor and a Wesleyan admissions Dean analyzed 500,000 application data points they were given special access to, and spent years doing this on a book that keeps getting updated and remains in print. They are telling you that you are wrong, not me.

What kind of person argues about a book they haven't read? This is insane. I am out.

When what the person says in multiple posts doesn't agree (e.g., in one post you say it's equal to "150 SAT points average overall" and then another time post a blurb that says "it can be as much as 100 SAT points" in this one you--where you cite actual information--you say it depends on the school (which makes much more sense than your original claim). And I argued because I read an academic study that said it confers on average 1-2% admissions advantage which is wildly different than what you initially claimed the book said. So I didn't need to read the book to know you were off in your initial information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What kind of person argues about a book they haven't read? This is insane. I am out.

When what the person says in multiple posts doesn't agree (e.g., in one post you say it's equal to "150 SAT points average overall" and then another time post a blurb that says "it can be as much as 100 SAT points" in this one you--where you cite actual information--you say it depends on the school (which makes much more sense than your original claim). And I argued because I read an academic study that said it confers on average 1-2% admissions advantage which is wildly different than what you initially claimed the book said. So I didn't need to read the book to know you were off in your initial information.

You don't know what average means.

You don't understand how samples work in statistics.

You refuse to accept the findings of experts. Fine, "Do your own research". I'm tired of arguing with you. The facts are you get a substantial bump from ED in most cases. Dispute that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_Admissions_Game#

The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite is a 2004 book which concerns early admission (a form of college admissions in the United States). The authors combine survey research with an empirical analysis of more than 500,000 applications to a number of colleges. They conclude that taking advantage of early applications significantly improves one's chances of admission.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674016200

Applying early is not for everyone, but it will improve—sometimes double, even triple—the chances of being admitted to a prestigious college.

See, all these people have read the book, and you haven't. Who are you going to trust? Maybe Joe Rogan has an opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The very top students would rarely apply ED. That’s because the very top schools don’t even offer it. If I seriously wanted t8 attend HYPSM, why would I ever apply ED anyplace else?

Because you know that even as a top student your odds are 50-90% against, and your second choice, (Columbia? Duke?) offers ED so you decide to compromise to have your application reviewed against a significantly smaller cohort.

That is why SCEA sucks so bad, because it forces kids into this game theory.

Very true. My tippy top student did SCEA and it didn’t work out but then during RD got into 2 of the HYPSM plus Penn, Columbia….
My top student compromised, got in ED to Penn, but wonders if Stanford or Yale would have worked out if applied to. Really dislike what a game the whole process is and how much importance is given to the essays.