The data says differently - in particular for competitive LACs |
+1 |
Most try to have ED represent their overall class in percentage of categories listed above, but recruitment of athletes is larger in ED. Means very few spots left for those not in category listed above and an unhooked application might have the same or less of a change in ED. But most are not less of a chance. Also, generally speaking ED applications are usually very strong. The kids who can get it together and are ready to apply then tend to be strong academically, the pool you are compared against might be higher. |
Not how game theory works, so follow this 10-20 years passed advice, and you hurt your chances. |
| ED at most top LACs is a waste because while they do have a higher accept rate than RD, it's mostly accounted for by recruited athletes, ED athletes and Questbridge. |
+1000 - Waste for all top 30 SLACs |
Musical or artistic talent, supported by an arts supplement, can also be a hook for Williams. |
Same. Kid1 was told of the LACs he liked best, ED was his best shot. However, his first choice school didn't have an ED, so he didn't ED anywhere: rejected from all the LACS on his list, even though above 75th percentile for several. They just don't have a lot of seats to offer. |
You won't think that when your kid gets shut out. These schools are tiny. |
| In our school, there is 1 admit at Middlebury Hamilton Wellesley level of LAC each. Zero ED admits for all top LAC. About 6-8 goes to SWAP level in the RD round. |
|
agree, most of LAC spaces go to athletes (recruited or tip), questbridge and FGLI.
it's much better to use your ED on a bigger place (NYU, Emory, Chicago, Tufts, etc.) depending on profile/interest. I feel like we wasted ED1 for DD on a top LAC. |
Northwestern, and Cornell if in-state. |
Agreed. Also agree with PP who said Northwestern or Cornell make more sense than a top LAC if you have a strong profile. |
Wellesley and Middlebury are in the top tier of LACs. |
Wellesley yes, Middlebury no. |