Is binding ED the next shoe to drop?

[Anonymous]

ummm legacy is still alive and well and will decrease but by no means go away. ED is here to stay -- you cannot tie anything negative to it. I am not ready to make a decision yet is not something that will resonate. Don't do ED. DO EA or regular. Agree that it only impacts the upper end of middle class and the lower end of UMC. Rich and poor are good with ED.

[Anonymous]

ED is binding with full pay. If a school is aiming for diversity they aren’t going to love the idea of ED. Therefore many schools have tested this theory of with or without ED to see which works best for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

[Anonymous]

ED looks like it gives a big boost. But for T20 and top SLACs, I don't think it does much for most applicants. Many ED acceptances are reserved for athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

I agree that the schools you list are all top schools. But I think there is a big difference between Single Choice Early Action and binding ED. I know of kids who did SCEA, were accepted, and then applied to a bunch of schools RD...ultimately choosing one of the RD schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ED looks like it gives a big boost. But for T20 and top SLACs, I don't think it does much for most applicants. Many ED acceptances are reserved for athletes.

You'd be wrong about the proper universities. They often take roughly 50 percent of their class in the ED round. Find me the athletes at the University of Chicago. The prestigious D1 schools are big enough that the athletic recruits aren't a big deal. Even the bigger sports schools - Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame - are big enough where it doesn't really impact admissions. Those students are put in a different pile. Little Jimmy is not competing for a spot at Duke with a basketball recruit.

But you'd be right about the SLACs. Williams is nearly 40 percent recruited athletes. Others are similar. Only low-information applicants would waste an ED app on a SLAC. ED and athletes are a completely different game at liberal arts colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: ED is binding with full pay. If a school is aiming for diversity they aren’t going to love the idea of ED. Therefore many schools have tested this theory of with or without ED to see which works best for them.

This is incorrect. Schools typically fill institutional priority spots during ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

It’s not semantics, single choice early action is not binding on the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

It’s not semantics, single choice early action is not binding on the student.

It does prevent you from applying to other ED schools, so there's a huge opportunity cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

It’s not semantics, single choice early action is not binding on the student.

It does prevent you from applying to other ED schools, so there's a huge opportunity cost.

Not really, most of the schools with high ED acceptance rate would not be the first choice of a kid aiming for T15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

It’s not semantics, single choice early action is not binding on the student.

It does prevent you from applying to other ED schools, so there's a huge opportunity cost.

Not really, most of the schools with high ED acceptance rate would not be the first choice of a kid aiming for T15.

For most families considering T20 schools, they pay attention to the differential between ED and RD acceptance rates. Vanderbilt for instance is 15.2 vs 3.7 percent. Duke is 12.92 vs 4.1 percent. Brown is 14.38 vs 3.9 percent. Rice is 15.3 vs 3.9 percent.

Choose.

They really aren't safeties for those gunning for Stanford or Harvard. The RD round is brutal for most top students. That's when it really becomes a lottery. Most of the Harvard or bust students end up at state schools or getting merit somewhere disappointing.

But go ahead with the la-di-dah thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think so. Too much impact on the colleges bottom line. Ending legacy is one thing. But ending a guaranteed source of full pay students is another. I doubt this will go.

ED is not limited to full pay students. Applicants who are not satisfied with their aid offer can pick a school that offers more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s she unfair but benefits the wealthy so won’t go anywhere.

So did legacy!

Legacy is not really gone. Donate seven or eight figures to a school on a regular basis. Dear child will be so exceptional on at least one part of a holistic admissions process that the University would have been insane to not admit them.

[Anonymous]

I don't see a problem with ED.

Advantage to applicant- early certainty and a potential slight boost in chances
Advantage to school- early certainty and potential to attract desirable students

The financial issue is beside the point. There will always be schools where the student can't afford the sticker price and schools that don't provide a lot of need-based aid, regardless of admission plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a good way to have a class that mostly really wants to be there.

Agree.