what did you or your kid think of restrictive early action?

[Anonymous]

If you are unhooked and a very strong applicant and want to go to an Ivy, game theory would suggest that the value of ED to Brown, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth and Cornell is far greater than the value of SCEA to Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Empirical evidence shows all these schools use the early round for hooked categories disproportionately. For unhooked high stats/very strong applicants who get deferred in ED this translates into a higher propensity to accept the offer of admission in the RD round from the perspective of the university and therefore the conversion ratio from ED deferral to RD accept vs SCEA deferral to RD accept is much greater because it has a significant impact on yield from the school’s perspective. SCEA is really for those with multiple hooks, especially VIP, legacy, athlete, URM and 1st gen. Last year Yale, in SCEA, after many years history of deferring the majority of applicants to RD from SCEA, flipped to outright rejecting the majority of applicants in SCEA. SCEA is just a waste if you are unhooked. Even if you get deferred, you are unlikely to eventually get in during RD.

[Anonymous]

I wish DC's top choice (Northwestern) offered REA. It's a great way to let an institution know they're your top private choice without being locked in by ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find REA to be obnoxious on the schools part. Yes, you can still apply EA to state schools. But not to other private schools that offer EA. My DC applied ED and was able to still apply EA to schools like MIT and Case. You can’t do that if apply REA. But if it’s your kid’s first choice and that’s what they offer, then that’s what it is. At some schools it gives an advantage, at others it doesn’t.

Those schools with REA don't have ED to severely limit your choices.
That's the point.

NP. Yes, but by not allowing any non-public EA choices, it eliminates a lot of safeties for those students and feels more restrictive than ED, where it least you can get some likely acceptances under your belt. I don’t understand why someone applying SCEA to Harvard can’t apply to a middle to low ranked EA, but they can apply to Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. even if they are out of state, which further causes those schools EA numbers to go up and up, which leads to more deferrals, etc. Then SCEA students who are rejected or deferred have no acceptances for months on end which leads to the stress ytou often see on this board. I can see it both ways, but the schools who have SCEA do it because they are selective enough and prestigious enough to know that the vast majority of kids accepted will view it as binding. I know, not everyone, but their yields are still extremely high. And none of my kids went the SCEA route. It just seems as tilted in favor of the schools as ED is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are unhooked and a very strong applicant and want to go to an Ivy, game theory would suggest that the value of ED to Brown, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth and Cornell is far greater than the value of SCEA to Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Empirical evidence shows all these schools use the early round for hooked categories disproportionately. For unhooked high stats/very strong applicants who get deferred in ED this translates into a higher propensity to accept the offer of admission in the RD round from the perspective of the university and therefore the conversion ratio from ED deferral to RD accept vs SCEA deferral to RD accept is much greater because it has a significant impact on yield from the school’s perspective. SCEA is really for those with multiple hooks, especially VIP, legacy, athlete, URM and 1st gen. Last year Yale, in SCEA, after many years history of deferring the majority of applicants to RD from SCEA, flipped to outright rejecting the majority of applicants in SCEA. SCEA is just a waste if you are unhooked. Even if you get deferred, you are unlikely to eventually get in during RD.

What is the sc in scea? Isn’t the term restrictive early action?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are unhooked and a very strong applicant and want to go to an Ivy, game theory would suggest that the value of ED to Brown, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth and Cornell is far greater than the value of SCEA to Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Empirical evidence shows all these schools use the early round for hooked categories disproportionately. For unhooked high stats/very strong applicants who get deferred in ED this translates into a higher propensity to accept the offer of admission in the RD round from the perspective of the university and therefore the conversion ratio from ED deferral to RD accept vs SCEA deferral to RD accept is much greater because it has a significant impact on yield from the school’s perspective. SCEA is really for those with multiple hooks, especially VIP, legacy, athlete, URM and 1st gen. Last year Yale, in SCEA, after many years history of deferring the majority of applicants to RD from SCEA, flipped to outright rejecting the majority of applicants in SCEA. SCEA is just a waste if you are unhooked. Even if you get deferred, you are unlikely to eventually get in during RD.

What is the sc in scea? Isn’t the term restrictive early action?

Single choice. Not sure why OP thinks this is a new thing. I applied under SCEA/REA in the early 1980s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find REA to be obnoxious on the schools part. Yes, you can still apply EA to state schools. But not to other private schools that offer EA. My DC applied ED and was able to still apply EA to schools like MIT and Case. You can’t do that if apply REA. But if it’s your kid’s first choice and that’s what they offer, then that’s what it is. At some schools it gives an advantage, at others it doesn’t.

Those schools with REA don't have ED to severely limit your choices.
That's the point.

NP. Yes, but by not allowing any non-public EA choices, it eliminates a lot of safeties for those students and feels more restrictive than ED, where it least you can get some likely acceptances under your belt. I don’t understand why someone applying SCEA to Harvard can’t apply to a middle to low ranked EA, but they can apply to Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. even if they are out of state, which further causes those schools EA numbers to go up and up, which leads to more deferrals, etc. Then SCEA students who are rejected or deferred have no acceptances for months on end which leads to the stress ytou often see on this board. I can see it both ways, but the schools who have SCEA do it because they are selective enough and prestigious enough to know that the vast majority of kids accepted will view it as binding. I know, not everyone, but their yields are still extremely high. And none of my kids went the SCEA route. It just seems as tilted in favor of the schools as ED is.

Depending on their school choices, kids may not find it all that restrictive. The only private school on DC's list that even offered EA was Macalaster. Definitely wished their ED school had offered REA instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find REA to be obnoxious on the schools part. Yes, you can still apply EA to state schools. But not to other private schools that offer EA. My DC applied ED and was able to still apply EA to schools like MIT and Case. You can’t do that if apply REA. But if it’s your kid’s first choice and that’s what they offer, then that’s what it is. At some schools it gives an advantage, at others it doesn’t.

Those schools with REA don't have ED to severely limit your choices.
That's the point.

NP. Yes, but by not allowing any non-public EA choices, it eliminates a lot of safeties for those students and feels more restrictive than ED, where it least you can get some likely acceptances under your belt. I don’t understand why someone applying SCEA to Harvard can’t apply to a middle to low ranked EA, but they can apply to Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. even if they are out of state, which further causes those schools EA numbers to go up and up, which leads to more deferrals, etc. Then SCEA students who are rejected or deferred have no acceptances for months on end which leads to the stress ytou often see on this board. I can see it both ways, but the schools who have SCEA do it because they are selective enough and prestigious enough to know that the vast majority of kids accepted will view it as binding. I know, not everyone, but their yields are still extremely high. And none of my kids went the SCEA route. It just seems as tilted in favor of the schools as ED is.

Depending on their school choices, kids may not find it all that restrictive. The only private school on DC's list that even offered EA was Macalaster. Definitely wished their ED school had offered REA instead.

True, and that’s entirely different topic! I think too many schools offer ED when EA would be fairer to students and better for the schools because stronger applicants would apply earlier, but like I said, that is a whole different thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read that CalTech was going "restrictive early action" and was like huh? Google taught me some but I have a PhD and my head kind of hurts just trying to get my head around this newer option (well really the only option to find out early) for Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, etc.

Curious to hear anyone's thoughts on it from your own observations, college counseling/advising, or your kid who went through, or is going through the process. Bonus points if you add a little about your socioeconomic background and how it influenced how you think about it.

(For example--we're a donut hole family, which is not the end of the world, but REA seems kind of disadvantageous in some sort of way for...almost everyone except the institutions themselves? Maybe I'm missing something? Like it's supposed to be beneficial for lower/moderate income students, but thinking back to my high school self, which came from a lower SES background, and I don't think I would have liked REA as someone who wanted to consider elite schools but wasn't necessarily deadset on attending one)

Let’s get terms right for this discussion. I know CalTech calls it REA but that’s disingenuous: Cal Tech has SCEA, meaning you can’t apply EA to any other private school. SCEA, which HYPS also has, is downright evil. If you are an unhooked student, you should never go this route. You will not get in, will have foregone ED to a school you might have had a shot at, will not have applied EA to a “safety” such as Macalester, and you will be left with ED2 or RD. ED2 is harder than ED1, so when you apply to one of the few top schools that even have it (Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Swarthmore), you will likely not get in and be left with RD anyhow. In short, falling for the SCEA trap means you will probably be attending a less selective school than if you had avoided it altogether.

REA as a term should be reserved to Notre Dame and Georgetown: apply EA anywhere you want, but not ED. Not only can you then apply to both Georgetown and Notre Dame, then, but Macalester and a host of other private schools.

Then there is good old-fashioned non-restrictive EA. There are 2 kinds here: the EA that tells you in time to apply somewhere else ED2, and the EA that does not. Most state schools do not tell you in time to inform an ED2 decision (Georgia is an exception). Most private EA schools will tell you in time to inform an ED2 decision (Richmond is an exception).

This is is what any unhooked applicant should do: avoid SCEA like the plague. Apply ED1 somewhere (ask yourself if Penn or Columbia or Brown, if a female, are really worth the risk here — they probably aren’t) like Chicago or a top SLAC like Williams or Amherst which has no ED2. Then apply to other private schools EA. In December, you likely have an ED1 rejection and have gotten a sense where you stand in terms of merit aid to some EA schools. Then drop down a rung for ED2 (consider SLACs here; there are more good options).

Yet unhooked kids persist in applying SCEA…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read that CalTech was going "restrictive early action" and was like huh? Google taught me some but I have a PhD and my head kind of hurts just trying to get my head around this newer option (well really the only option to find out early) for Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, etc.

Curious to hear anyone's thoughts on it from your own observations, college counseling/advising, or your kid who went through, or is going through the process. Bonus points if you add a little about your socioeconomic background and how it influenced how you think about it.

(For example--we're a donut hole family, which is not the end of the world, but REA seems kind of disadvantageous in some sort of way for...almost everyone except the institutions themselves? Maybe I'm missing something? Like it's supposed to be beneficial for lower/moderate income students, but thinking back to my high school self, which came from a lower SES background, and I don't think I would have liked REA as someone who wanted to consider elite schools but wasn't necessarily deadset on attending one)

Let’s get terms right for this discussion. I know CalTech calls it REA but that’s disingenuous: Cal Tech has SCEA, meaning you can’t apply EA to any other private school. SCEA, which HYPS also has, is downright evil. If you are an unhooked student, you should never go this route. You will not get in, will have foregone ED to a school you might have had a shot at, will not have applied EA to a “safety” such as Macalester, and you will be left with ED2 or RD. ED2 is harder than ED1, so when you apply to one of the few top schools that even have it (Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Swarthmore), you will likely not get in and be left with RD anyhow. In short, falling for the SCEA trap means you will probably be attending a less selective school than if you had avoided it altogether.

REA as a term should be reserved to Notre Dame and Georgetown: apply EA anywhere you want, but not ED. Not only can you then apply to both Georgetown and Notre Dame, then, but Macalester and a host of other private schools.

Then there is good old-fashioned non-restrictive EA. There are 2 kinds here: the EA that tells you in time to apply somewhere else ED2, and the EA that does not. Most state schools do not tell you in time to inform an ED2 decision (Georgia is an exception). Most private EA schools will tell you in time to inform an ED2 decision (Richmond is an exception).

This is is what any unhooked applicant should do: avoid SCEA like the plague. Apply ED1 somewhere (ask yourself if Penn or Columbia or Brown, if a female, are really worth the risk here — they probably aren’t) like Chicago or a top SLAC like Williams or Amherst which has no ED2. Then apply to other private schools EA. In December, you likely have an ED1 rejection and have gotten a sense where you stand in terms of merit aid to some EA schools. Then drop down a rung for ED2 (consider SLACs here; there are more good options).

Yet unhooked kids persist in applying SCEA…

Genius.
What are your favorite ED2 options?

[Anonymous]

14.27

GREAT ADVICE!

Wish my DC had thought that all through before applying SCEA. It sounds so tempting and you think it has the same admit rate bump as ED, but that just isn't the case.

[Anonymous]

For an unhooked, high stat kid which one has a better shot: EA at MIT or SCEA at Princeton? (Assume kid would be happy to go either way.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read that CalTech was going "restrictive early action" and was like huh? Google taught me some but I have a PhD and my head kind of hurts just trying to get my head around this newer option (well really the only option to find out early) for Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, etc.

Curious to hear anyone's thoughts on it from your own observations, college counseling/advising, or your kid who went through, or is going through the process. Bonus points if you add a little about your socioeconomic background and how it influenced how you think about it.

(For example--we're a donut hole family, which is not the end of the world, but REA seems kind of disadvantageous in some sort of way for...almost everyone except the institutions themselves? Maybe I'm missing something? Like it's supposed to be beneficial for lower/moderate income students, but thinking back to my high school self, which came from a lower SES background, and I don't think I would have liked REA as someone who wanted to consider elite schools but wasn't necessarily deadset on attending one)

Let’s get terms right for this discussion. I know CalTech calls it REA but that’s disingenuous: Cal Tech has SCEA, meaning you can’t apply EA to any other private school. SCEA, which HYPS also has, is downright evil. If you are an unhooked student, you should never go this route. You will not get in, will have foregone ED to a school you might have had a shot at, will not have applied EA to a “safety” such as Macalester, and you will be left with ED2 or RD. ED2 is harder than ED1, so when you apply to one of the few top schools that even have it (Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Swarthmore), you will likely not get in and be left with RD anyhow. In short, falling for the SCEA trap means you will probably be attending a less selective school than if you had avoided it altogether.

REA as a term should be reserved to Notre Dame and Georgetown: apply EA anywhere you want, but not ED. Not only can you then apply to both Georgetown and Notre Dame, then, but Macalester and a host of other private schools.

Then there is good old-fashioned non-restrictive EA. There are 2 kinds here: the EA that tells you in time to apply somewhere else ED2, and the EA that does not. Most state schools do not tell you in time to inform an ED2 decision (Georgia is an exception). Most private EA schools will tell you in time to inform an ED2 decision (Richmond is an exception).

This is is what any unhooked applicant should do: avoid SCEA like the plague. Apply ED1 somewhere (ask yourself if Penn or Columbia or Brown, if a female, are really worth the risk here — they probably aren’t) like Chicago or a top SLAC like Williams or Amherst which has no ED2. Then apply to other private schools EA. In December, you likely have an ED1 rejection and have gotten a sense where you stand in terms of merit aid to some EA schools. Then drop down a rung for ED2 (consider SLACs here; there are more good options).

Yet unhooked kids persist in applying SCEA…

Genius.
What are your favorite ED2 options?

Depends on the candidate but I believe any SLAC below Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and Pomona should have it (Swarthmore and Pomona have it but too tough an admit for ED2), and then national universities like Emory. Assuming ED1 is something like Dartmouth or Cornell…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For an unhooked, high stat kid which one has a better shot: EA at MIT or SCEA at Princeton? (Assume kid would be happy to go either way.)

If your kid is only high stats (unless she’s math Olympiad high stats), the point is that both are terrible options and your child will be rejected and have wasted their first round pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For an unhooked, high stat kid which one has a better shot: EA at MIT or SCEA at Princeton? (Assume kid would be happy to go either way.)

If your kid is only high stats (unless she’s math Olympiad high stats), the point is that both are terrible options and your child will be rejected and have wasted their first round pick.

She does not have any other first round pick. I was just curious if someone knows the admit stats for unhooked kids for both scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For an unhooked, high stat kid which one has a better shot: EA at MIT or SCEA at Princeton? (Assume kid would be happy to go either way.)

If your kid is only high stats (unless she’s math Olympiad high stats), the point is that both are terrible options and your child will be rejected and have wasted their first round pick.

She does not have any other first round pick. I was just curious if someone knows the admit stats for unhooked kids for both scenarios.

No one can answer this question. If your child is truly genius, 160 IQ, performing like a Princeton or MIT graduate on the world stage already, then go for it. But “normal” smart unhooked kids don’t get into mit and Princeton ED or RD.