Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I can tell you is the unhooked kids I know at the most selective SLACs all got in ED. The Naviance from our HS bears out that ED seems to be the way kids usually get in.

None of these schools is easy to get into, either way. If you are saying ED isn't a huge advantage for unhooked kids, I wouldn't argue with you, but I can't agree with the "don't apply ED." Even if you're deferred to RD, you have signaled to the school it is your first choice, and that carries some value.

The point is if there is no advantage in ED, you will find other schools that have an ED advantage. Efficient.

For example, between Williams and Chicago, you would ED Chicago, if you have the chops for getting in Williams RD after deferral, Chicago ED is a shoe in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you're kidding yourself if you think that SLACs give preferential ED admissions to most or all athletes.

Not all. Most? Not sure. But def a sizable number in a small class. I already know kids who have committed to Midd and Bowdoin in my kids small high school class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can tell you is the unhooked kids I know at the most selective SLACs all got in ED. The Naviance from our HS bears out that ED seems to be the way kids usually get in.

None of these schools is easy to get into, either way. If you are saying ED isn't a huge advantage for unhooked kids, I wouldn't argue with you, but I can't agree with the "don't apply ED." Even if you're deferred to RD, you have signaled to the school it is your first choice, and that carries some value.

The point is if there is no advantage in ED, you will find other schools that have an ED advantage. Efficient.

For example, between Williams and Chicago, you would ED Chicago, if you have the chops for getting in Williams RD after deferral, Chicago ED is a shoe in.

But the issue there is that most Williams applicants aren’t looking for a Chicago- they’re looking for peer schools, which have the same issue.

[Anonymous]

Boarding schools with which I am familiar encourage the strategic use of ED, including to highly selective liberal arts colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... also Pomon and CMC have lower athletic numbers. It may help there. I think it does help with CMC from our HS.

Pomona is low comparatively, but CMC has very HIGH athlete numbers (351 males across only 696 male students over all 4 year's of classes) - CMC's numbers are 50% varsity athletes for males. I absolutely would not ED to CMC if my DS was unhooked and not a recruited athlete. Also, I imagine the freshman (recruited athlete) numbers would be even a higher proportion than seniors when they drop off.

CMS for women ED non-athlete is better since they share a team with Scripps which is an all-women college that has a fair proportion of athletes. Harvey Mudd has very few recruited athletes and contributes very little to CMS joint team.

Pomona shares with Pitzer and Pitzer pulls it's own weight. Pomona has fewer varsity athletes than CMC despite being nearly double its size.

[Anonymous]

It’s impossible to get into top SLACs in the RD round. Do not listen to OP. You do not need to be hooked. Just show demonstrated interest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... also Pomon and CMC have lower athletic numbers. It may help there. I think it does help with CMC from our HS.

Wrong on CMC. Check numbers here. Almost all of ED for CMC is taken by recruited male athletes once you extrapolate from the number of varsity athletes reported on this website. Especially for guys. It seems like the entirety of CMC ED for males is dominated by recruited athletes which is a shame.

Like genuinely how does the rest of the class benefit from water polo or cross-country recruited athletes when no one ever watches either sport?

I'd rather have some super cool and smart academic folks who don't spend all their time playing sports. Comedians, actors, scientists, writers, journalists, coders, philosophers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Middlebury is the exception among top LACs. There is a real advantage applying ED. Their model is very similar to UChicago.

True, but for others like amherst, swat, bowdoin, cmc, williams, I wouldn't bother. Don't waste your ED on them.

I would ED as a non-athlete for middlebury, carleton, pomona, wesleyan, vassar. For these ones you'll get an advantage!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know if this differs at all at some of the women’s colleges (Bryn Mawr, Smith, MHC)? The ED rates are certainly higher and appear to give a substantial bump, but I’m uncertain about for unhooked applicants like my DD.

I think op is FOS and there is an ED advantage everywhere (even if not huge). For sure at the women's colleges. You can look to see what percentage of the class they fill in ED, too. If it is more than half the class, then even at the same or similar admissions rate there are more spots.

[Anonymous]

OP wants to reduce their kids competition. OPs kid is probably EDing at a Slav and would be better chance if others are persuaded to not apply. Shady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middlebury is the exception among top LACs. There is a real advantage applying ED. Their model is very similar to UChicago.

True, but for others like amherst, swat, bowdoin, cmc, williams, I wouldn't bother. Don't waste your ED on them.

I would ED as a non-athlete for middlebury, carleton, pomona, wesleyan, vassar. For these ones you'll get an advantage!

+1

But honestly, you're better off EDing to larger unis like Rice, Vandy, UChicago BU, NYU, WashU. Much better odds than tiny LACs that use their ED slots primarily for athletes with coach support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can tell you is the unhooked kids I know at the most selective SLACs all got in ED. The Naviance from our HS bears out that ED seems to be the way kids usually get in.

None of these schools is easy to get into, either way. If you are saying ED isn't a huge advantage for unhooked kids, I wouldn't argue with you, but I can't agree with the "don't apply ED." Even if you're deferred to RD, you have signaled to the school it is your first choice, and that carries some value.

The point is if there is no advantage in ED, you will find other schools that have an ED advantage. Efficient.

For example, between Williams and Chicago, you would ED Chicago, if you have the chops for getting in Williams RD after deferral, Chicago ED is a shoe in.

This is stupid. If Williams is your first choice, ED to Williams.

[Anonymous]

My DD (non-athlete) was rejected last year at Bowdoin. Wish I read this thread last year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s impossible to get into top SLACs in the RD round. Do not listen to OP. You do not need to be hooked. Just show demonstrated interest

Yeah this really confuses me. If you don’t have a seat at ED, you definitely don’t have one regular decision where the other 7-14,000 applicants are applying for a few hundred spots max

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middlebury is the exception among top LACs. There is a real advantage applying ED. Their model is very similar to UChicago.

True, but for others like amherst, swat, bowdoin, cmc, williams, I wouldn't bother. Don't waste your ED on them.

I would ED as a non-athlete for middlebury, carleton, pomona, wesleyan, vassar. For these ones you'll get an advantage!

+1

But honestly, you're better off EDing to larger unis like Rice, Vandy, UChicago BU, NYU, WashU. Much better odds than tiny LACs that use their ED slots primarily for athletes with coach support.

Have we forgotten the purpose of ed is to apply to the university you want to go to? I don’t think a single LAC other than tangentially Barnard is like NYU.