How would you do differently if DC is only interested in SLACs?

[Anonymous]

I think the admissions landscape will be very different for most of these SLACs next fall. The number of foreign student applications will drop precipitously, although this may not affect your US student’s chances too much because relatively few of these foreign applications were accepted in recent years. These foreign applications (35-40% of the total) have made the top SLACs look more selective than they really are. More importantly, the economic chaos is putting a lot of pressure on endowments, and may make need blind admissions and meets full need aid policies impracticable. Look for the schools that have overweighted gold and oil & gas in their portfolios, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If trying to maximize ED boost, you might want to consider schools that have stopped legacy admissions and/or schools with lower levels of athletes. (Typically students hoping for a legacy or athletic bump are advised to apply ED.)

Here’s a list of schools that has stopped legacy admissions:

https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/legacy-admissions-bans/

Here’s a site that can be used to find % NCAA athletes on a campus:

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Carleton is an example of a school with comparatively low (20%) NCAA athletes and no legacy admission bump. There are others.

Reed has no varsity sports (so not listed at all on the ope site) but I believe still considers legacy.

Wesleyan is another; it’s bigger than most SLACs (3000) with about 25% varsity athletes, and they admit 50-60% of incoming class across two rounds of ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many applications do they limit you to? If you push back on it, they may likely make an exception. Our school used to limit apps but parents said no way as college admissions became more of a crap shoot - and it is unconscionable for a high school to limit applications these days. It literally takes no extra work from the HS college office if a kid applies to 20 schools instead of 10. I have a child at a SLAC and you are right about no ED advantage at Williams for example, but if your child has an absolute first choice, whether SLAC or university, I would ED anyway because why not? If they get in, they can be done. Otherwise, I would have them do any EA schools they are interested in (probably not many SLACs offer that), ED a top choice if they have it, ED2 only if they are sure that school is their next time, and RD widely if necessary. One of my dd's closest friends simply did not apply to enough schools, and as a result ended up at a school she does not love - but did not apply to some she would have. She was pressured by her college office to only apply to a couple of reaches, but then fill out the rest of her list with targets and safeties. She 100% would have gotten in, either RD or off WL, to a reach SLAC if she had just applied to enough of them.

It isn't quite right to say that there is no "ED Advantage". There is one for certain hooked applicants. Just not for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote/]1/4 of Amherst’s incoming class is FGLI. Plus minimum 1 student from every state and territory, and as many other countries as possible (40, I think). After athletic recruits as well, how many slots are left for unhooked suburban public school kids in such a small class? ED or no, statistically it is an incredible long shot.

Look at Naviance data for your suburban public school and see how many kids apply to SLACs versus the bigger universities. Look at acceptance rates for your school . Then decide. For high stats unhooked kids they absolutely have a shot at WASP.

My HS, with lots of T-20 admits every year, averages 0-1 acceptance per WASP each year. Seems like a waste of an ED.

Is this one of the mcps magnets? DC’s school shows 1 Amherst, 1 Pomona, and 1 Bowdoin admit. 0 Williams and Swat.

Yes, but how many apply? Calculate the admit to apply ratio at Amherst , Pomona and Bowdoin, compare with some other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote/]1/4 of Amherst’s incoming class is FGLI. Plus minimum 1 student from every state and territory, and as many other countries as possible (40, I think). After athletic recruits as well, how many slots are left for unhooked suburban public school kids in such a small class? ED or no, statistically it is an incredible long shot.

Look at Naviance data for your suburban public school and see how many kids apply to SLACs versus the bigger universities. Look at acceptance rates for your school . Then decide. For high stats unhooked kids they absolutely have a shot at WASP.

My HS, with lots of T-20 admits every year, averages 0-1 acceptance per WASP each year. Seems like a waste of an ED.

Is this one of the mcps magnets? DC’s school shows 1 Amherst, 1 Pomona, and 1 Bowdoin admit. 0 Williams and Swat.

Yes, but how many apply? Calculate the admit to apply ratio at Amherst , Pomona and Bowdoin, compare with some other schools.

And it isn't just how many get accepted. You also have to figure out if the people that apply have a legit shot of being accepted. Our public is showing four people have applied to Amherst with one acceptance. That person's stats were 3.95 UW and 1580. The 3 rejections were 3.68 UW and 1280, 3.74 UW and 1490 and 3.75 UW and 1560. Huge difference between the accepted student and the three that got rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, LACs are very small. Applying to five LACs is roughly equivalent to applying to one large national university: our school sends about ten students a year to Cornell, but typically only one to Williams. Additionally, the school limits how many applications each student can submit. I am not sure if it's wise to apply to LACs exclusively. Second, most SLACs do not offer an ED advantage—Middlebury is one notable exception. At the moment, Middlebury is not DC's dream school. So there is no ED strategy. I am also wondering if there is any consultant specialized in LACs.

This is just wrong wrong wrong. I don't know of a single SLAC that doesn't have an ED advantage. You can run the data and see.

If not hooked ED at WASP does almost nothing.

Nt sure what your basis is for this. I’ve heard it repeated here but don’t think it’s true. The admissions rate is much higher early, and in anecdotal experience, for example Williams, I have seen unhooked kids get in early. Our school does better in ED than RD.

[Anonymous]

Davidson and Haverford both offer solid bumps in ED, even accounting for recruited athletes. DS looked at both and chose Davidson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amherst is 40% athletes. How doesn’t that totally impact the ED numbers

40% participate in sports; it does not mean they were admitted because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:40% athletes. 5% Questbridge. 13% international. Plus fgli..

ED is going to be v tough.

You are looking at it wrong. ED is sometimes the best and only option. Your school counselor should have insight to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst is 40% athletes. How doesn’t that totally impact the ED numbers

40% participate in sports; it does not mean they were admitted because of it.

Seems like an obvious point but it never seems to stick with these folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst is 40% athletes. How doesn’t that totally impact the ED numbers

40% participate in sports; it does not mean they were admitted because of it.

Seems like an obvious point but it never seems to stick with these folks.

According to this article from the Amherst paper, there are about 20 walk-ons per year. Some walk-ons quit as they don’t get as much playing time. But if none quit, that would give a walk on percentage of about 14% (80/598, with the 598 coming from the OPE site for unduplicated Amherst athletes.)

https://amherststudent.com/article/faculty-votes-to-release-discuss-data-on-athletic-recruitment-policies/amp/

So 0.86*598/1898= 27% of a class is recruited athlete if we assume no walk-ons quit. However, if, say, half of the walk-ons quit, the recruited percentage climbs to 29%.

NESCAC schools might have lower walk-on rates than some other conferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst is 40% athletes. How doesn’t that totally impact the ED numbers

40% participate in sports; it does not mean they were admitted because of it.

Seems like an obvious point but it never seems to stick with these folks.

According to this article from the Amherst paper, there are about 20 walk-ons per year. Some walk-ons quit as they don’t get as much playing time. But if none quit, that would give a walk on percentage of about 14% (80/598, with the 598 coming from the OPE site for unduplicated Amherst athletes.)

https://amherststudent.com/article/faculty-votes-to-release-discuss-data-on-athletic-recruitment-policies/amp/

So 0.86*598/1898= 27% of a class is recruited athlete if we assume no walk-ons quit. However, if, say, half of the walk-ons quit, the recruited percentage climbs to 29%.

NESCAC schools might have lower walk-on rates than some other conferences.

This is insightful.

Amherst admit 37% of its class through the ED route. Athletes takes 27% of its class. That leaves 10% of the class admitted through ED for non-athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the admissions landscape will be very different for most of these SLACs next fall. The number of foreign student applications will drop precipitously, although this may not affect your US student’s chances too much because relatively few of these foreign applications were accepted in recent years. These foreign applications (35-40% of the total) have made the top SLACs look more selective than they really are. More importantly, the economic chaos is putting a lot of pressure on endowments, and may make need blind admissions and meets full need aid policies impracticable. Look for the schools that have overweighted gold and oil & gas in their portfolios, I guess.

Top SLACS are in better financial shape than most top schools. Only HYPSM have higher endowment per student than WASP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, LACs are very small. Applying to five LACs is roughly equivalent to applying to one large national university: our school sends about ten students a year to Cornell, but typically only one to Williams. Additionally, the school limits how many applications each student can submit. I am not sure if it's wise to apply to LACs exclusively. Second, most SLACs do not offer an ED advantage—Middlebury is one notable exception. At the moment, Middlebury is not DC's dream school. So there is no ED strategy. I am also wondering if there is any consultant specialized in LACs.

This is just wrong wrong wrong. I don't know of a single SLAC that doesn't have an ED advantage. You can run the data and see.

If not hooked ED at WASP does almost nothing.

Nt sure what your basis is for this. I’ve heard it repeated here but don’t think it’s true. The admissions rate is much higher early, and in anecdotal experience, for example Williams, I have seen unhooked kids get in early. Our school does better in ED than RD.

I think it depends on the WASP school. ED at Williams seems to help. ED at Pomona does not help much.

[Anonymous]

Can everyone agree on that there is no ED advantage for Bowdoin? Saw in another thread their ED acceptance rate @ 13%.