Is ED a marker of prestige?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the opposite of prestige. For schools, it makes them look uncertain of their yield. For students, everyone knows they are weaker because ED is an easier admit.

This exactly. My daughter didn't have to do ED to get into schools. She did EA and RD for all schools that were not her first choice and so far admitted to all due to her amazing resume and stats.

Mine too. But you have to understand that “prestige” is often conferred in the opinions of people who don’t think (and often don’t want to think) as clearly as we do about the college admissions process. To them “prestige” means some melange of “schools that cost a lot” and “schools with low admissions rates.” You and I know that both sticker price and admissions rate can be manipulated. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be used to create prestige.

It’s the same way that some people think high SAT scores are prestigious, and prefer not to ask questions about what percentage of students submit or whether those are super scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Title. Obviously at the tip top there are many that do not have ED, but once you get out of the t10-15 it seems to correlate with prestige

It's not that it correlates with prestige, it's that an uncompetitive college would never attract an ED application.

If you are selective, ED works in your favor so almost all selective colleges do it.

You don't have to have prestige to be a popular school. Those are the schools that have success with ED. It's not that they are necessarily a great school...it's just popular and they get lots of applications.

Yes there are some prestigious schools that have ED, but there are others that are prestigious that don't offer ED at all. Think ND and Georgetown.