In general, ED at LACs does not provide any advantage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether ED offer an advantage at LACs is a tricky subject because it's hard to disaggregate the ED data when things like recruited athletes, Questbridge, FGLI, academically stronger ED pools, etc. are factored in. But, I think that as a general rule of thumb, the advantage of ED at LACs is a sliding scale from the least advantageous at the very most selective schools and the most advantageous in the 10-30 ranking zone. It's obvious advice, but it bears noting.

No advantage:
WASP

Small advantage:
Bowdoin (when we visited the AO said ED doesn't offer any advantage, but Bowdoin still considers demonstrated interest, so ED must have some small advantage)
Wellesley
Carleton
CMC

Big advantage:
Midd
Wesleyan
Grinnell
Most LACs ranked 10-30

I think this is a good list. But I would create a special, “disadvantage” category for Amherst and Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether ED offer an advantage at LACs is a tricky subject because it's hard to disaggregate the ED data when things like recruited athletes, Questbridge, FGLI, academically stronger ED pools, etc. are factored in. But, I think that as a general rule of thumb, the advantage of ED at LACs is a sliding scale from the least advantageous at the very most selective schools and the most advantageous in the 10-30 ranking zone. It's obvious advice, but it bears noting.

No advantage:
WASP

Small advantage:
Bowdoin (when we visited the AO said ED doesn't offer any advantage, but Bowdoin still considers demonstrated interest, so ED must have some small advantage)
Wellesley
Carleton
CMC

Big advantage:
Midd
Wesleyan
Grinnell
Most LACs ranked 10-30

I think this is a good list. But I would create a special, “disadvantage” category for Amherst and Williams.

That's not unique to either. It's disadvantageous for all the WASP schools, Williams is just loudest and most blunt about it.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused why it would be a disadvantage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether ED offer an advantage at LACs is a tricky subject because it's hard to disaggregate the ED data when things like recruited athletes, Questbridge, FGLI, academically stronger ED pools, etc. are factored in. But, I think that as a general rule of thumb, the advantage of ED at LACs is a sliding scale from the least advantageous at the very most selective schools and the most advantageous in the 10-30 ranking zone. It's obvious advice, but it bears noting.

No advantage:
WASP

Small advantage:
Bowdoin (when we visited the AO said ED doesn't offer any advantage, but Bowdoin still considers demonstrated interest, so ED must have some small advantage)
Wellesley
Carleton
CMC

Big advantage:
Midd
Wesleyan
Grinnell
Most LACs ranked 10-30

Would add Barnard to the big advantage list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether ED offer an advantage at LACs is a tricky subject because it's hard to disaggregate the ED data when things like recruited athletes, Questbridge, FGLI, academically stronger ED pools, etc. are factored in. But, I think that as a general rule of thumb, the advantage of ED at LACs is a sliding scale from the least advantageous at the very most selective schools and the most advantageous in the 10-30 ranking zone. It's obvious advice, but it bears noting.

No advantage:
WASP

Small advantage:
Bowdoin (when we visited the AO said ED doesn't offer any advantage, but Bowdoin still considers demonstrated interest, so ED must have some small advantage)
Wellesley - Big advantage
Carleton - Big advantage
CMC

Big advantage:
Midd - No advantage
Wesleyan - - No advantage
Grinnell -- No advantage
Most LACs ranked 10-30

I think this is a good list. But I would create a special, “disadvantage” category for Amherst and Williams.

Frankly no advantage for Grinnell, Midd as 50% of ed are athletes. Carleton, Wellesley, yes as their athlete % is a bit lower than others

https://xfactoradmissions.com/basic-guide-to-college-admissions/total-ncaa-athletes-at-the-top-colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether ED offer an advantage at LACs is a tricky subject because it's hard to disaggregate the ED data when things like recruited athletes, Questbridge, FGLI, academically stronger ED pools, etc. are factored in. But, I think that as a general rule of thumb, the advantage of ED at LACs is a sliding scale from the least advantageous at the very most selective schools and the most advantageous in the 10-30 ranking zone. It's obvious advice, but it bears noting.

No advantage:
WASP

Small advantage:
Bowdoin (when we visited the AO said ED doesn't offer any advantage, but Bowdoin still considers demonstrated interest, so ED must have some small advantage)
Wellesley - Big advantage
Carleton - Big advantage
CMC

Big advantage:
Midd - No advantage
Wesleyan - - No advantage
Grinnell -- No advantage
Most LACs ranked 10-30

I think this is a good list. But I would create a special, “disadvantage” category for Amherst and Williams.

Frankly no advantage for Grinnell, Midd as 50% of ed are athletes. Carleton, Wellesley, yes as their athlete % is a bit lower than others

https://xfactoradmissions.com/basic-guide-to-college-admissions/total-ncaa-athletes-at-the-top-colleges

Let’s break this down for Midd using real data, from official sources.

Midd has 706 varsity athletes (source: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details). So assume they are accepting 175 in each class—hell, let’s say 200, just to be generous.

For the class of 2028, they accepted 425 students in ED (source: https://www.middlebury.edu/announcements/announcements/2024/02/inclusive-admissions-and-incoming-class-update).

So even if every single one of the 200 athletes (probably a high number) was accepted in ED, that’s still not 50%. And not every athlete is accepted ED. Let’s figure 80% are accepted ED; that’s 38% of ED offers. And if you use the more conservative (and likely more accurate) 175 number for varsity athletes admitted per class, that’s only 33% of ED offers to athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused why it would be a disadvantage

Some schools have early admissions tailored around attracting athletes/questbridge/legacy, which means a normal applicant might actually have a lower acceptance rate chance of admission than regular decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether ED offer an advantage at LACs is a tricky subject because it's hard to disaggregate the ED data when things like recruited athletes, Questbridge, FGLI, academically stronger ED pools, etc. are factored in. But, I think that as a general rule of thumb, the advantage of ED at LACs is a sliding scale from the least advantageous at the very most selective schools and the most advantageous in the 10-30 ranking zone. It's obvious advice, but it bears noting.

No advantage:
WASP

Small advantage:
Bowdoin (when we visited the AO said ED doesn't offer any advantage, but Bowdoin still considers demonstrated interest, so ED must have some small advantage)
Wellesley - Big advantage
Carleton - Big advantage
CMC

Big advantage:
Midd - No advantage
Wesleyan - - No advantage
Grinnell -- No advantage
Most LACs ranked 10-30

I think this is a good list. But I would create a special, “disadvantage” category for Amherst and Williams.

Frankly no advantage for Grinnell, Midd as 50% of ed are athletes. Carleton, Wellesley, yes as their athlete % is a bit lower than others

https://xfactoradmissions.com/basic-guide-to-college-admissions/total-ncaa-athletes-at-the-top-colleges

Have to be suspicious of any website whose narrative for Williams gives one number, while the table immediately below it gives another. The proper (government) site to lookup athlete percentages is this: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search

Athletes are one variable. For instance, Swarthmore goes crazy recruiting first gen.

Then: does the school have 2 rounds of ED; what is the ED admissions rate: and what is the percent of class filled ED.

So, “frankly,” Grinnell and Midd are huge advantages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused why it would be a disadvantage

Some schools have early admissions tailored around attracting athletes/questbridge/legacy, which means a normal applicant might actually have a lower acceptance rate chance of admission than regular decision.

Williams and Amherst are definitely in this category. But there are probably others too…

[Anonymous]

FWIW the unhooked white girls I know at Williams got in ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW the unhooked white girls I know at Williams got in ED.

Legacy, major, family wealth, famous, first gen, geographic diversity, WOW, lower-income high school, no contact with any coaches whatsoever, even as a likely walk on. If any of these, they were indeed hooked. It is also possible they had these but you did not know.

Or maybe they were just lucky to overcome the admissions disadvantage. Doubt it, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW the unhooked white girls I know at Williams got in ED.

Legacy, major, family wealth, famous, first gen, geographic diversity, WOW, lower-income high school, no contact with any coaches whatsoever, even as a likely walk on. If any of these, they were indeed hooked. It is also possible they had these but you did not know.

Or maybe they were just lucky to overcome the admissions disadvantage. Doubt it, though.

Nope, UMC white girls, unhooked, whose families I know well. There aren’t that many Williams admits from our school and those there are tend to be ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW the unhooked white girls I know at Williams got in ED.

Legacy, major, family wealth, famous, first gen, geographic diversity, WOW, lower-income high school, no contact with any coaches whatsoever, even as a likely walk on. If any of these, they were indeed hooked. It is also possible they had these but you did not know.

Or maybe they were just lucky to overcome the admissions disadvantage. Doubt it, though.

Nope, UMC white girls, unhooked, whose families I know well. There aren’t that many Williams admits from our school and those there are tend to be ED.

For Williams, legacy alone isn’t that big a hook anymore. Usually legacy + ED and/or some other hook works better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't advise people EDing at a LAC unless that school is his absolute first choice.
There are a number of schools where ED makes a real difference. These include Chicago, Northwestern, and Duke.

Please! Don't ED at LACs. If you really prefer LACs, and you don't have a dream school, just RD so that you are not limited to one single choice. When you have acceptance from several LACs, your kid can then compare and visit to make a decision.

You shouldn't apply ED anywhere unless it is your absolute first choice.

And if you have an absolute first choice and it is affordable and they offer ED, you should apply ED.

No reason to make it more complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't advise people EDing at a LAC unless that school is his absolute first choice.
There are a number of schools where ED makes a real difference. These include Chicago, Northwestern, and Duke.

Please! Don't ED at LACs. If you really prefer LACs, and you don't have a dream school, just RD so that you are not limited to one single choice. When you have acceptance from several LACs, your kid can then compare and visit to make a decision.

You shouldn't apply ED anywhere unless it is your absolute first choice.

And if you have an absolute first choice and it is affordable and they offer ED, you should apply ED.

No reason to make it more complicated.

All this strategizing over ED1 and ED2 choices is making kids compromise on fit in favor of ranking/prestige. And compressing the high school academic experience to three years. Not everyone is going to be running full speed on all full cylinders by spring/summer of their junior year. I get the ED may make sense for some people but it used to be for the few people who 1. Were tippy top students who had a strong enough profile by the end of their junior year and 2. Were absolutely sure that their ED school was their first choice. I now see kids committing to ED schools a tier lower than where they might have gotten in, if they hadn’t limited their options early on.