Is binding ED the next shoe to drop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a good way to have a class that mostly really wants to be there.

This. There are schools who will request that students change from EA to ED2, basically giving you a readout of what your FA and merit offers will be, and stating, if you change you will get in. So you have the whole financial picture, and it's up to you to decide do I really want to attend. If you need to compare merit from other schools, then that school may not be for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to favor full-pay students who are more likely to discover their #1 pick—can afford multiple visits (hotels, airfare, etc). Equity issue that could ultimately go the way of legacy admissions?

If they filled all their spots with ED, I'd agree that there is an equity issue here. But most schools fill less than 50%. As others have said, they want to lock in the full pay kids, so they can manage the yield and financial aid later.

And in reality, at most schools with say a 25% ED acceptance and a 8% RD/EA, those numbers are skewed. As all the athletes typically come in ED, you might be at 17% vs 8%. Add in quest bridge (which is like ED--early admission), and you might take that down to 15% vs 8%. So yes still an advantage but not nearly as significant as the official numbers state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For every person against ED, there is a chorus of people who want it. Colleges get a lot of pressure from alumni and politicians on this.

They want it because there is a perceived admission advantage that in many cases (for unhooked applicants) does not actually exist. If the ED admissions stats were more transparent then enthusiasm would drop sharply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they’d give it up and also stop worrying about yield. It feels like the college admissions process is this big strategy game now. It does not benefit the students.

Universities are a business. If they don't yield enough students, they will have budget shortfalls. And if enough of those students are not full pay, they will have more budget issues.

ED ensures a student is agreeing to attend. It's a win/win for both student and university. Student knows in Dec where they are attending, university knows that student is guaranteed attending. Doesn't have to worry if that student will attend another university

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think so. Too much impact on the colleges bottom line. Ending legacy is one thing. But ending a guaranteed source of full pay students is another. I doubt this will go.

ED is not limited to full pay students. Applicants who are not satisfied with their aid offer can pick a school that offers more.

Also, if think "I wont be able to afford this school in ED", your merit/fa package is NOT likely to change for RD. So you still wont be able to afford it.
And ED is really only a thing for T50ish schools (And most cost $85K+ and dont' give much merit). So those "donut hole" complainers, the situation doesn't matter between ED/RD/EA. You still mostly likely cannot afford to attend if admitted. And if you are willing to stretch, then go ahead and do ED

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s she unfair but benefits the wealthy so won’t go anywhere.

You do realize the wealthy, full-pay families are what provide so many benefits to the students who can’t afford full-pay, correct?

That's a myth thee days. These schools have massive endowments and could easily make tuition free for everyone at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really thought that after the SC case, legacy would drop. Seems shameful to keep it while getting rid of AA. And then I thought athletics would be trimmed down - losing sailing and squash, etc.

But the spotlight has moved off them, and I dont see legacy even moving now.

Wait for the next big Supreme Court case...on legacy...which is likely to enshrine the practice. Prepare to be disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

None of HYPSM are on that list.

[Anonymous]

I've heard speculation that ED could be challenged on an anti trust basis. I don't know how cogent that argument is and I didn't see it being accepted by the current Court. Unless there's some movement on that, this thread is a lot of hot air. Things do not simply become fairer over time as if by magic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

SCEA is not really the same as ED because full pay kids can still apply elsewhere.
You can SCEA at Yale because you are legacy there and then apply to places like stanford and harvard because you would rather go to those places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most selective colleges will never willingly give up ED. It’s far too advantageous for them. It’s not even for the full pay students. High endowment schools will make it work for nearly every family. It’s because they can craft much of their class with students that both really want to be there and meet their institutional needs - athletes, engineers, vip, Pell grant, English majors, international etc. Every student has a box and ED allows the schools to fill these boxes as they see fit.

The most selective colleges don’t have ED.

Of course they do. What a silly comment.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/schools-with-early-decision/

Depends on what you mean by "most selective". But the top 5 schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT) do not have early decision.

Semantics. They have Single Choice Early Action, which is effectively the same thing. But agree that applying early to HYSMP doesn't make a difference for unhooked students. But ED does confer advantages at Duke, Penn, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, Rice, Northwestern, Chicago, and Cornell. Only a deeply out of touch person would regard them as less than "most selective." Ironically, it's often the ED rejects that end up at HYPSM in the RD round.

I agree that the schools you list are all top schools. But I think there is a big difference between Single Choice Early Action and binding ED. I know of kids who did SCEA, were accepted, and then applied to a bunch of schools RD...ultimately choosing one of the RD schools.

If you are legacy or have some sort of quasi-hook at any of the SCEA schools, then there is a good argument for going SCEA at those schools. Then going RD with your reach schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s she unfair but benefits the wealthy so won’t go anywhere.

So did legacy!

Legacy is not really gone. Donate seven or eight figures to a school on a regular basis. Dear child will be so exceptional on at least one part of a holistic admissions process that the University would have been insane to not admit them.

With an 8 figure donation, you really only have to do it once. A second donation isn't going to get your kid in if the first one didn't do the trick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They needed legacy donors too, but…

As someone who was a FGLI student, I couldn't agree more. I wish people would leave institutional priorities alone altogether. These schools would not be as desirable long-term if it ultimately came down to test scores.

Too many asians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s she unfair but benefits the wealthy so won’t go anywhere.

You do realize the wealthy, full-pay families are what provide so many benefits to the students who can’t afford full-pay, correct?

Can you cite the benefits you are referring to? Please provide specific examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s she unfair but benefits the wealthy so won’t go anywhere.

You do realize the wealthy, full-pay families are what provide so many benefits to the students who can’t afford full-pay, correct?

That's a myth thee days. These schools have massive endowments and could easily make tuition free for everyone at this point.

Wrong. There are maybe 3 colleges that could try. College #5 in EPS is MIT with about $2M, which at 4-5% annually would only be $80-100K per year per student, and that is with 100% of endowment going to that - which is not practical or possible.

Are you the person saying the same thing in the ED thread? Please stop.