Your Experience With Early Decision vs Early Action

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. It would be so, so much appreciated if we stick to experiences. I fully understand FA place in decisions but I am trying to avoid a thread takeover about one's HHI and how one's kid did or did not have a hook, DCUM style.

TIA.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please share your experience with EA vs Ed vs RD, and if there were any regrets.

This is not a discussion about financial aid (though that can play a role), full pay, or test scores, please.

Just a discussion whether you think you should've or not have done EA or ED and waited to do RD.

But all these things - whether to do EA, ED, RD, SCEA/REA - are intertwined with FA/merit/stats...etc. Talking about without the other, you lose context.

+1

My son would have done ED, but could not because we need merit aid in order to afford college for him. We could not allow him to make a binding decision in the absence of knowing what the aid would be.

He applied EA wherever it was available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time (tomorrow and the day after may be another story), DC has decided to roll the dice and do EA non-binding for MIT, UChicago, UMD, and Michigan for this December notification. RD for everything else.

At least DC will have some idea out of those four if there will be a seat (or not) while waiting for spring '17 results.

This is a fantastic strategy! The best of both worlds.

It was just fortunate that these would've been DC's choices for RD. Now, DC will know by December to do another game plan if wanted or needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. It would be so, so much appreciated if we stick to experiences. I fully understand FA place in decisions but I am trying to avoid a thread takeover about one's HHI and how one's kid did or did not have a hook, DCUM style.

TIA.

+1

Then do as many EA/ED as possible. It's pretty simple actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please share your experience with EA vs Ed vs RD, and if there were any regrets.

This is not a discussion about financial aid (though that can play a role), full pay, or test scores, please.

Just a discussion whether you think you should've or not have done EA or ED and waited to do RD.

But all these things - whether to do EA, ED, RD, SCEA/REA - are intertwined with FA/merit/stats...etc. Talking about without the other, you lose context.

+1

My son would have done ED, but could not because we need merit aid in order to afford college for him. We could not allow him to make a binding decision in the absence of knowing what the aid would be.

He applied EA wherever it was available.

I think what OP wants to avoid is the inevitable discussion of how much money you make, etc, etc. Most understand that is a given about finances when applying but there are several good posts that discuss the actual experiences, good or bad, about the ED and EA choices. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

We did rolling app to Pitt very early, had decission in October. The same with British schools. Then we did a bunch of EA schools (Tulane, u of Miami, Case), got in there too by Christmas. Waiting on RD schools, but they are not first choice.

ED is too restrictive and not worth it for majority of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My big observation seeing my son and his friends go through the process this year is that Early Action gives a negligible bump, if any at all, to an applicant's candidacy, while binding Early Decision gives a very significant bump.

One kid was outright rejected from HYP in SCEA and then accepted by Vanderbilt in ED II. Almost across the board, the EA kids were deferred and the ED applicants got in. Obviously the SCEA schools are the most selective, but going ED boosted a lot of kids into next tier schools they probably otherwise wouldn't have gotten into - Duke, Vandy, etc.

Another interesting dynamic has been seeing the stress of the SCEA kids. They're used to being at the top of the class and now they're left on the sidelines, waiting for RD, while so many other classmates are already all set for next year.

I have a different take on this scenario. My high stats DC was one of the kids deferred SCEA to HYP, but accepted EA to several flagship state universities. Considered ED to one of the Ivies, but felt that the bump in ED was not worth the price in feeling restricted to one institution (which was not DC's top choice), and not being able to compare FA packages. We were very realistic about slim SCEA chances, and, given the extra time, DC put in the strongest applications in the RD round. Waiting for the RD results (without stress)and grateful that flagship unis (that DC would be very happy to attend) are in the pocket. My sense is that some of the students that were accepted ED, settled for less than they capable of, but I guess we'll never know for certain. I'm astounded by the number of people that 'just want to get this process over with'. We've all worked so hard, for so long not to see it through to the end. Although the ED kids already have comfort in knowing where they will be going next year, the SCEA kids will do just fine!

The waiting can be overwhelming especially when kids see their EA/ED classmates knowing one way or the other, and just want it to be over. My own kid just wants the standardized testing to be over, and I consider that a normal response with all the school work, prepping, taking diagnostic tests, etc.

That said, I agree that the ED is not worth the restriction but EA is definitely a good, viable option.

[Anonymous]

I agree with earlier PP who said EA doesn't seem to give much of a bump, while ED can definitely give an edge, but that only works if one of child's very top choice schools happens to have ED and you don't need/want to line up and compare merit aid/financial aid from several schools. For many schools now it seems EA can even be more selective than RD. We saw a number of very strong -- 32-34 ACT, 2100-2200 SAT, strong grades/leadership -- but not off the charts kids among DC's friends who were deferred during EA from schools that they were kind of expected to get into. The kids with absolutely top stats and/or hooks still got in, but often these were backup schools for them. A little frustrating and stressful. I also agree that a good strategy seems to be go for a mix of safeties and reaches on EA, so you have at least 1-2 options in the pocket before the long waiting for RD. Ideal if at least 1 of those "safeties" is actually a happy option for DC, and possibly somewhere they'd get merit aid, not just somewhere they'd be forced to go if they don't get in anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please share your experience with EA vs Ed vs RD, and if there were any regrets.

This is not a discussion about financial aid (though that can play a role), full pay, or test scores, please.

Just a discussion whether you think you should've or not have done EA or ED and waited to do RD.

But all these things - whether to do EA, ED, RD, SCEA/REA - are intertwined with FA/merit/stats...etc. Talking about without the other, you lose context.

Yes, this. My DC applied to 6 schools EA and was accepted to all of them, with significant merit aid offers from 5. But these schools were chosen in large part because we knew DC was a strong candidate not just for admission but for merit aid, which we need in order to afford a SLAC, which DC wants. So the EA process worked out fantastically for DC, in part because 5 of the 6 decisions were received before the RD deadlines of the other (state) schools DC was intending to apply to if the merit aid quest didn't work out (so DC didn't need to finish those RD applications). But the outcome might have been very different if we could easily have been full-pay anywhere, because then DC likely would have applied to several "reaches" instead of all safeties/matches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please share your experience with EA vs Ed vs RD, and if there were any regrets.

This is not a discussion about financial aid (though that can play a role), full pay, or test scores, please.

Just a discussion whether you think you should've or not have done EA or ED and waited to do RD.

But all these things - whether to do EA, ED, RD, SCEA/REA - are intertwined with FA/merit/stats...etc. Talking about without the other, you lose context.

Yes, this. My DC applied to 6 schools EA and was accepted to all of them, with significant merit aid offers from 5. But these schools were chosen in large part because we knew DC was a strong candidate not just for admission but for merit aid, which we need in order to afford a SLAC, which DC wants. So the EA process worked out fantastically for DC, in part because 5 of the 6 decisions were received before the RD deadlines of the other (state) schools DC was intending to apply to if the merit aid quest didn't work out (so DC didn't need to finish those RD applications). But the outcome might have been very different if we could easily have been full-pay anywhere, because then DC likely would have applied to several "reaches" instead of all safeties/matches.

Forgot to add: If you do want merit aid, the consensus advice seems to be that much of the aid is given out in the EA round, so waiting to apply RD could be a mistake (if EA is offered).

[Anonymous]

I think applying ED depends a lot on your financial situation. My DC applied ED and was deferred. DC also applied to 3 EA schools and got into all and ended up at one. She received merit $ where it was offered but for schools who only give need based, we won't receive any money. What we did not know that would have absolutely changed our decision to apply ED is that applying ED means your DC cannot be nominated for scholarships to other schools. This is different than merit. DC's counselor informed us of this after ED application. I'm not saying DC would have received the scholarship but 2 of the 3 schools seriously considered offered them and counselor said she would've nominated DC if she had not applied ED. So know your facts, needs and requirements and restrictions. It can be confusing.

[Anonymous]

EA's good to get a leg up on the merit aid. But my three kids all went ED, and I'm so glad. What we did to maximize our advantage, though, was decline to submit an application for financial aid.

That gave us a chance to let our lack of need work in our favor. You want the school to know that you're not going to leech from them. By going ED and forgoing aid, we were telling the school that we had absolutely no problem paying full freight. The school then realized that not only could we pay tuition now, but our kids were likely to be successful and would be donors in the future. We coupled that with each kid taking a high frills "philanthropic" internship abroad, and it was easy even for the Admissions cretins to connect the dots.

I'd say our steps bought each of our kids a 150 or so points on the SAT, and perhaps 3-5 tenths in the GPA. That put them well within range of the admission pool, and thus each wound up knowing in December exactly where they would be attending that fall.

[Anonymous]

My oldest DC did restrictive early action and was accepted at a "dream" school. We didn't think it was the right place for DC, but s/he wouldn't consider doing any more applications. By that point, s/he was sick of the whole application process, plus, "hey -- I got into a school that people dream of getting into, Mom." Fast-forward -- DC pretty much hated the school and transferred to a very different school (a school we had suggested way back in junior year, though DC had declined to even visit.) All's well that ended well -- DC (now a senior) is very happy, but we're not EA/ED fans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My oldest DC did restrictive early action and was accepted at a "dream" school. We didn't think it was the right place for DC, but s/he wouldn't consider doing any more applications. By that point, s/he was sick of the whole application process, plus, "hey -- I got into a school that people dream of getting into, Mom." Fast-forward -- DC pretty much hated the school and transferred to a very different school (a school we had suggested way back in junior year, though DC had declined to even visit.) All's well that ended well -- DC (now a senior) is very happy, but we're not EA/ED fans.

Good things worked out for your DC. However, EA and restrictive EA are totally different and might not have had such a bad experience who s/he had done EA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest DC did restrictive early action and was accepted at a "dream" school. We didn't think it was the right place for DC, but s/he wouldn't consider doing any more applications. By that point, s/he was sick of the whole application process, plus, "hey -- I got into a school that people dream of getting into, Mom." Fast-forward -- DC pretty much hated the school and transferred to a very different school (a school we had suggested way back in junior year, though DC had declined to even visit.) All's well that ended well -- DC (now a senior) is very happy, but we're not EA/ED fans.

Good things worked out for your DC. However, EA and restrictive EA are totally different and might not have had such a bad experience who s/he had done EA.

NP - How so? EA and REA/SECA are different but I'm not sure if I'd characterize it as "totally different." One just has more restrictions than the other. Maybe I am missing your point.