Early decision seems like a scam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action for the rich.

Not true, at least for the elite schools that don't give merit. You run the NPCs and see what you can afford. We eliminated some colleges from our list that indicated no aid, and focused on narrowing down our list based on the ones that did. From everything I've heard (and from limited experience) NPC estimates are pretty accurate.

Some schools are likely to give merit to high stats kids whether they apply ED or RD, like Oberlin, Grinnell, and Case.

Yes, the NPC figures apply whether you apply ED or RD. You can compare college approximate "offers" before you even apply.

[Anonymous]

ED1 is a scam that helps colleges more than students.

But it's especially bad for rushing development in students. Most students are still developing into their senior year and ED admission doesn't allow for an examination or acknowledgement or celebration of that growth.

Arguably grade 12 1st semester grades are most important, followed by grade 11. The rest don't matter as your student's brain, focus and habits are growing. If they were already good they shouldn't get worse with age. And grades as courses get harder matter more. ED1 essentially ignores the results of grade 12. UCs do the same thing but at least they ignore grade 9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ED1 is a scam that helps colleges more than students.

But it's especially bad for rushing development in students. Most students are still developing into their senior year and ED admission doesn't allow for an examination or acknowledgement or celebration of that growth.

Arguably grade 12 1st semester grades are most important, followed by grade 11. The rest don't matter as your student's brain, focus and habits are growing. If they were already good they shouldn't get worse with age. And grades as courses get harder matter more. ED1 essentially ignores the results of grade 12. UCs do the same thing but at least they ignore grade 9.

I don't see how it "rushes development." Yes, it rewards those kids who do great in 9th, 10th, and 11th grade. By your logic, it would be better if high school lasted another year, because students are still growing. When do they stop growing? Where is the cutoff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action for the rich.

Not true, at least for the elite schools that don't give merit. You run the NPCs and see what you can afford. We eliminated some colleges from our list that indicated no aid, and focused on narrowing down our list based on the ones that did. From everything I've heard (and from limited experience) NPC estimates are pretty accurate.

Some schools are likely to give merit to high stats kids whether they apply ED or RD, like Oberlin, Grinnell, and Case.

Yes, the NPC figures apply whether you apply ED or RD. You can compare college approximate "offers" before you even apply.

Exactly. Assuming you’re so rich that the difference between being full-pay at a school like Duke and getting a full ride to a school like UNC-CH would be meaningless to you, you can go right ahead and apply ED to Duke. What’s $400,000 in savings anyway? Chump change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

It benefits the student because the student likely has a better chance of getting in ED than they would EA. The student is competing against fewer classmates in ED, because most of those classmates have other colleges as their top choices. But if the college had EA, all those classmates could apply, and the student would be competing against all of them. For a kid who knows where they want to go, ED is a valuable way to show that to the school. In that way it adds a tiny bit of efficiency to college admissions, which is a horribly inefficient process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

It benefits the student because the student likely has a better chance of getting in ED than they would EA. The student is competing against fewer classmates in ED, because most of those classmates have other colleges as their top choices. But if the college had EA, all those classmates could apply, and the student would be competing against all of them. For a kid who knows where they want to go, ED is a valuable way to show that to the school. In that way it adds a tiny bit of efficiency to college admissions, which is a horribly inefficient process.

A. Only for the wealthy.

B. Does it really add any efficiency? Most of the kids I know who ED don't ED to their actual top choice, they ED to the school where they think they'll get the biggest boost.

A + B = Wealthy kids snapping up (and committing to) slots that they only kinda want and that then are not available for kids who really want them but lack the resources to play the ED game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

It benefits the student because the student likely has a better chance of getting in ED than they would EA. The student is competing against fewer classmates in ED, because most of those classmates have other colleges as their top choices. But if the college had EA, all those classmates could apply, and the student would be competing against all of them. For a kid who knows where they want to go, ED is a valuable way to show that to the school. In that way it adds a tiny bit of efficiency to college admissions, which is a horribly inefficient process.

A. Only for the wealthy.

B. Does it really add any efficiency? Most of the kids I know who ED don't ED to their actual top choice, they ED to the school where they think they'll get the biggest boost.

A + B = Wealthy kids snapping up (and committing to) slots that they only kinda want and that then are not available for kids who really want them but lack the resources to play the ED game.

And the other drawback: ED schools are now full of the kind of status-obsessed wealthy kids who are willing to settle for slots they only kinda want. And these charming people are academically weaker than the students who might have been admitted RD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

It benefits the student because the student likely has a better chance of getting in ED than they would EA. The student is competing against fewer classmates in ED, because most of those classmates have other colleges as their top choices. But if the college had EA, all those classmates could apply, and the student would be competing against all of them. For a kid who knows where they want to go, ED is a valuable way to show that to the school. In that way it adds a tiny bit of efficiency to college admissions, which is a horribly inefficient process.

A. Only for the wealthy.

B. Does it really add any efficiency? Most of the kids I know who ED don't ED to their actual top choice, they ED to the school where they think they'll get the biggest boost.

A + B = Wealthy kids snapping up (and committing to) slots that they only kinda want and that then are not available for kids who really want them but lack the resources to play the ED game.

And the other drawback: ED schools are now full of the kind of status-obsessed wealthy kids who are willing to settle for slots they only kinda want. And these charming people are academically weaker than the students who might have been admitted RD.

Simple: just apply regular decision.

Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

And for kids who know exactly what they want.

+1
Every school should have ED so there is no doubt about who will actually enroll if accepted. This would save SO MUCH time and effort on both the students' and the colleges' part.

Except it makes it impossible to comparison shop based on merit aid. If it were up to me colleges wouldn’t be able to have binding ED and maintain their nonprofit status. I say this as someone who can afford the full cost of a private university for my kids so they’ll likely benefit from ED.

But nobody is entitled to merit aid. ED matches and the resulting probable guaranteed tuition revenue allows the schools to offer more merit etc later. I think those who are put off by ED are people who try to use ED to game the system themselves like EDing at a high reach or to allay self-imposed anxiety by having a sure thing in the fall rather than a range of choices in the spring. That was not the purpose of ED.

Maybe I just have a different perspective because it worked out well for my dc. He EDed to basically a target school and it was his first choice by far and we could pay. Boom done.

And? How is that relevant?

The point is that candidates who may otherwise be admitted cannot try because ED'ing means taking the risk of committing to a school they can't afford.

No one is entitled to admission, either.

NPCs are accurate and you can back out if the offer is less than suggested by the NPC. Nobody should be surprised by the cost when applying ED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

It benefits the student because the student likely has a better chance of getting in ED than they would EA. The student is competing against fewer classmates in ED, because most of those classmates have other colleges as their top choices. But if the college had EA, all those classmates could apply, and the student would be competing against all of them. For a kid who knows where they want to go, ED is a valuable way to show that to the school. In that way it adds a tiny bit of efficiency to college admissions, which is a horribly inefficient process.

A. Only for the wealthy.

B. Does it really add any efficiency? Most of the kids I know who ED don't ED to their actual top choice, they ED to the school where they think they'll get the biggest boost.

A + B = Wealthy kids snapping up (and committing to) slots that they only kinda want and that then are not available for kids who really want them but lack the resources to play the ED game.

And the other drawback: ED schools are now full of the kind of status-obsessed wealthy kids who are willing to settle for slots they only kinda want. And these charming people are academically weaker than the students who might have been admitted RD.

Simple: just apply regular decision.

Done.

That’s not how it works. You individually applying RD won’t change the fact that most of the other students at your college will be disgruntled rich kids who were persuaded to apply ED to a school they didn’t really want in order to secure the admissions bump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's literally a scam in an anti-trust way:

https://www.highereddive.com/news/32-colleges-accused-of-using-early-decision-to-drive-up-costs/757337/

Zero chance of this suit succeeding.

DP the practice is discriminatory against the students. It is an anticompetitive monopolization. The binding decision is illegal. Independent entities who are in competition can not form a cartel to reduce competition between them. Restricting the number of schools that can be applied to and making the decision binding places the students at a competitive disadvantage.

Look at a place like Stanford. Restrictive Early Action admissions is 8-10% and regular admission is 3-5%. A student with the grades and test scores that match the profile of accepted students at Stanford would also have similar chances at Harvard, Yale, MIT, Brown, etc. If Stanford does not accept this student REA, the students now has to apply regular admission to Harvard, Yale, MIT, Brown, etc. with a much lower acceptance rate.

What you want to believe and what the law actually says are different. There is nothing discriminatory, you have the option to apply in RD if you do not want to apply ED. The decision is actually not binding, you can back out if the price is greater than the NPC. Schools also have every right to practices which help them with budget certainty and providing an advantage in return for budget certainty is well within their rights. The people most upset are those who want to chase merit. If you want to chase merit and compare that is fine but you need to recognize that you have zero right to attend any of the schools in the suit.

The actual admissions rates are typically not very different once you back out hooked students. ED as a big advantage is a myth at the most desirable schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

It benefits the student because the student likely has a better chance of getting in ED than they would EA. The student is competing against fewer classmates in ED, because most of those classmates have other colleges as their top choices. But if the college had EA, all those classmates could apply, and the student would be competing against all of them. For a kid who knows where they want to go, ED is a valuable way to show that to the school. In that way it adds a tiny bit of efficiency to college admissions, which is a horribly inefficient process.

A. Only for the wealthy.

B. Does it really add any efficiency? Most of the kids I know who ED don't ED to their actual top choice, they ED to the school where they think they'll get the biggest boost.

A + B = Wealthy kids snapping up (and committing to) slots that they only kind a want and that then are not available for kids who really want them but lack the resources to play the ED game.

You have no right to attend any private school. They have the right to choose whom they admit as long as they are within the bounds of the law.

You have no right to financial aid at any private school. Any aid that you receive from them is a gift awarded at their sole discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is for colleges, recruited athletes, and suckers.

My daughter doesn't fit into the first two categories, but I don't think we were suckers: we are full pay, she knew without a doubt what SLAC she wanted to get into, so for her ED was a great way to just get the whole college search out of the way by December.

I don't feel like anyone gamed us at all; rather, we benefitted from the 4+ months of peace of mind it offered.

Non-binding rolling or EA admissions can offer that same peace of mind. Adding "binding" to the package and calling it "ED" benefits only the school.

It benefits the student because the student likely has a better chance of getting in ED than they would EA. The student is competing against fewer classmates in ED, because most of those classmates have other colleges as their top choices. But if the college had EA, all those classmates could apply, and the student would be competing against all of them. For a kid who knows where they want to go, ED is a valuable way to show that to the school. In that way it adds a tiny bit of efficiency to college admissions, which is a horribly inefficient process.

A. Only for the wealthy.

B. Does it really add any efficiency? Most of the kids I know who ED don't ED to their actual top choice, they ED to the school where they think they'll get the biggest boost.

A + B = Wealthy kids snapping up (and committing to) slots that they only kinda want and that then are not available for kids who really want them but lack the resources to play the ED game.

And the other drawback: ED schools are now full of the kind of status-obsessed wealthy kids who are willing to settle for slots they only kind of want. And these charming people are academically weaker than the students who might have been admitted RD.

Pretty sure that you have no idea what you are talking about but are obviously upset that some are wealthier than you. Private schools are a luxury good, not something that you are automatically entitled too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My unhooked got in ED2. Doesn't feel like a scam.

But did your kid have regrets when they saw where classmates got in RD? If already at college do they have regrets about binding in EDII now?
I ask as I know kids who definitely regret it, more in the EDII group than the EDI.

Zero regrets. He had been wanting that school for 2 years. He actually regretted not doing ED1 there and changed his EA to ED2. Very happy.

I don't understand kids who have ED regrets. They should not be playing games with ED, but rather choosing their top choice, or their top choice they still want to attend (knowing that HCY might not be a real chance). But if you would have regrets, then ED is not for you

The students are 17 year-olds- they aren't the ones playing games, the schools are

No, the schools are not. They are simply picking kids who want to attend and are willing to commit. If you don't want to do that, then don't apply ED. If you want choices, then EA/RD is available.

And yes 17 yo are playing games. Kids pick schools they think they can get into, but often are not their top choice (sometimes not even in their top 3). That is not what ED is for, unless you are willing to accept the result and not "wonder what could have been". It's literally there for students who have a TOP choice and are willing to commit.