Anonymous wrote:I don't have data to offer my opinion, but my sense is schools are filling up a greater proportion of their freshman classes with EA.

Meaning they are admitting large classes early? Or that you have no real chance of getting in unless you EA?

Assume you are referring to OOS public’s?.

I don't have data to offer my opinion, but my sense is schools are filling up a greater proportion of their freshman classes with EA.

Anonymous wrote:I think we just don’t know yet. I’m so curious to see if demographics (legacy, under representative students, athletes) change at all at the top 20 schools or whether they ever even release this data again at all. There already is a lot of obfuscation in the CDS and if I were a dean of admissions, I would try to get away with his little transparency as possible from now on.

My public school kid aimed for a top 40 school for ED1 and it worked out for him this year. He was a strong student, but definitely not the best from his class. The very top students in his class were mostly rejected or deferred from HPYSM and other Ivies. But, who knows, maybe it will work out for them during regular decision.

This is what I talked about in prior post. AOs are seeing that by taking more students early rounds--they don't have space for superstars that show up in the RD pool later. Some schools now try to keep the numbers the same early and RD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems many schools are deferring and waitlisting applicants that would have been clear admits even a year ago. A few have accepted less ED/Rest.EA and chose to defer.

But haven’t they always done this?

No. Like Cornell ED this year, many other schools admitted fewer than they did last year in the early rounds. That isn't about more qualified applicants---they took less overall on purpose.

It can be a way to make acceptance rate appear lower. And some have said they are seeing many more qualified applicants in RD so they don't want to grab up a bunch of students early round when more qualified (they didn't get into their first choice) show up later round.

I think we just don’t know yet. I’m so curious to see if demographics (legacy, under representative students, athletes) change at all at the top 20 schools or whether they ever even release this data again at all. There already is a lot of obfuscation in the CDS and if I were a dean of admissions, I would try to get away with his little transparency as possible from now on.

My public school kid aimed for a top 40 school for ED1 and it worked out for him this year. He was a strong student, but definitely not the best from his class. The very top students in his class were mostly rejected or deferred from HPYSM and other Ivies. But, who knows, maybe it will work out for them during regular decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems many schools are deferring and waitlisting applicants that would have been clear admits even a year ago. A few have accepted less ED/Rest.EA and chose to defer.

But haven’t they always done this?

Yes, particularly the last two cycles and RD acceptance rates continue to decline. There’s just more high stats applicants each year based on US demographics, grade inflation and increasing amount of international students.

ED1 rates are different at each college. Many take 40-50% of the class this way though some are trying to take less ED this year (Cornell for example) but not sure exactly what percentage they are targeting.

Anonymous wrote:Based on current school Instagrams (see below link) about 20-25% of students at any given private school are successful in ED1. Bear in mind a lot of recruited athletes, URM, legacies and development cases (eg filthy rich or board member parents) skew the early results. It is definitely not 40-50% of the class having successful early round results.

As to applying to 15-20 schools that does seem to be the new normal for those deferred or rejected ED. Remains to be seen if that is an effective strategy. Come back in April.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1173827.page

Isn’t the 40-50% number a reference to the incoming freshman class (numbers of seats filled) at the college

Too soon to call balls and strikes. Will have to see if things even out in RD or veer off.

But clearly something’s changed in the early process.

April discussion - here!!

Anonymous wrote:It seems many schools are deferring and waitlisting applicants that would have been clear admits even a year ago. A few have accepted less ED/Rest.EA and chose to defer.

But haven’t they always done this?

It seems many schools are deferring and waitlisting applicants that would have been clear admits even a year ago. A few have accepted less ED/Rest.EA and chose to defer.

Def think 15-20 is new normal for this year.

Have heard about full pay unhooked top stats kids closer to 30 after rejected REA…..so maybe the 15-20 becomes 20-30 next year? Don’t know.

Agree April and time will tell

Based on current school Instagrams (see below link) about 20-25% of students at any given private school are successful in ED1. Bear in mind a lot of recruited athletes, URM, legacies and development cases (eg filthy rich or board member parents) skew the early results. It is definitely not 40-50% of the class having successful early round results.

As to applying to 15-20 schools that does seem to be the new normal for those deferred or rejected ED. Remains to be seen if that is an effective strategy. Come back in April.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1173827.page

I want to know this too.

Reading through old posts, where folks have said many private top 30+ schools fill 40-50 percent of their entering class via ED, has any of that changed this year with an increase in deferrals from kids who (by stats) would likely have been admitted last year? Same applies for EA at highly ranked OOS public’s.

If they are still filling 40-50% early, but with different kids, how does that impact the RD process (will all admits go to the same high caliber students who were shutout in ED so those kids have dozens of options) while waitlist #s increase for all schools?

If so, isn’t this an argument to apply to 20+ schools so you increase likelihood of waitlists for selective schools in a post SupCt admissions environment?

And doesn’t this seem like a yield/enrollment management problem?