Then don't apply to these schools and/or ignore the headlines. Why should this matter to any of us?

Anonymous wrote:Most the top schools with ED (not EA) are filling approximately 50 percent their slots using ED since it’s binding (yield rate in the upper 90s…exception is financial reasons for not going). The remaining is filled via ED2 (if they offer) and RD. Less applications in ED vs RD with roughly the same number of spots to fill but ED has higher yield rate so RD even though more applicants will have more acceptances than ED bc of the lower yield rate.

I don't think people understand how impactful athletic recruits are at some of these schools. Sure, Princeton doesn't have a binding ED, but they have EA. There are approximately 1,000 athletes/students at Princeton spread across 38 varsity sports. There are approximately 5,600 undergrads, and about 1,350 freshmen enroll each year. So almost 20% of those slots are taken out of the general pool in any given year. There really are only 1,100 non-athletic spots open for admissions. Who knows how many are reserved for donors, URM's, etc. When you get into the granular level, now you see why even the perfect straight A, high SAT student has to apply to all the ivies, and the JHU's, G'town's, Emory, NEU's, Vandy's.

If the stunt that Cornell pulled this year is followed by more top schools (and publicized) I wonder if the ED rounds will become less important? After you factor in athletes, legacies, URM, top privates and magnet, and other hooks, who really is left in ED?

Once you are looking at an acceptance rate less than 10%, it really is like a lotto drawing.

Most the top schools with ED (not EA) are filling approximately 50 percent their slots using ED since it’s binding (yield rate in the upper 90s…exception is financial reasons for not going). The remaining is filled via ED2 (if they offer) and RD. Less applications in ED vs RD with roughly the same number of spots to fill but ED has higher yield rate so RD even though more applicants will have more acceptances than ED bc of the lower yield rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Northeastern number is really sus

It has no business being in the same range as Princeton, Penn, Vanderbilt, Rice, Northwestern.

I don't know what voodoo magic that school is doing. It was a commuter school for cops from Revere twenty years ago.

I'm from Boston too so I know you're true.
But you're going to get branded as "The Northeastern Hater" and your posts will be deleted.

With respect to Northeastern, even the most virulent NEU hater will admit that the quality of students, teachers, facilities, research and outcomes is so far different than the 1980's. 30 years ago, BC's acceptance rate was over 50% and any decent kid was accepted. It was filled with parochial school kids who were average in their not-so-rigorous high school. 30 years ago, BU's College of Basic Studies was an open-enrollment college. Pre-covid, NEU's average SAT score was 1500. Post-covid with test optional, a million kids think that they can get a lottery ticket in, so they apply. They attract the top kids that would be indistinguishable from Cornell or Dartmouth if you swapped them out.

And I'll say it out loud, from my DC's high school, NEU is a hotter school than BU.

Anonymous wrote:The Northeastern number is really sus

It has no business being in the same range as Princeton, Penn, Vanderbilt, Rice, Northwestern.

I don't know what voodoo magic that school is doing. It was a commuter school for cops from Revere twenty years ago.

I'm from Boston too so I know you're true.
But you're going to get branded as "The Northeastern Hater" and your posts will be deleted.

What are the acceptance rates for ED1, ED2 etc? That is the real questions. And who is accepted into these early decision groups (first generation, athletes, legacies)?

You can't win if you don't play!

Sadly, this is how some think of "shotgunning" to the top schools. Admissions officers are guilty of encouraging this. They tell students it's not all about their GPA's, or SAT's, it's about you, the person. Well, everyone is a snowflake in their own eyes, especially Mumsie and Father.

ED1, ED2, whatever doesn’t matter in the larger perspective, if you consider context. First, only the better schools have such policies. Second, no one forces students to apply to any school or any tier college. So, the fact that better/best students are willing to commit themselves to these schools suggests that the students believe that these colleges are the best schools they can likely attend. In fact, with ED, students too are looking for an advantage, so it’s unfair to lay this game at the feet of colleges only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You would think that the schools having ED1 and ED2 would discourage many RD applicants from applying.

But I looked it up. Every single one received more applications last year than the year before.

Because parents and kids think that they will be the exception and get into RD with a less than 15% chance--just like unhooked applicants think that they will get into Ivy+ with a less than 2% chance of acceptance! Same with thinking they will become the next Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg

Or they have enough money that buying what is essentially a bingo card to try your luck is worth it. A 1/50 chance is better than lottery scratch offs, and lots of people buy those.

Anonymous wrote:You would think that the schools having ED1 and ED2 would discourage many RD applicants from applying.

But I looked it up. Every single one received more applications last year than the year before.

But isn’t basically every school getting more applications? More kids, more kids going to college, and more anxiety about low admissions rates all leads to a lot more applications.

The ED and EA stuff is genius for the schools thought — Pitt gets a ton of applications mainly because kids want to have one in the pocket before holidays. I think northeastern also benefits from this. It’s also crazy to me how all the college counselors suggest northeastern — it’s so rampant I’d suspect kickbacks except that I think it’s more just that 5 years ago it was a good safety/target but they’ve overhyped it so much that the admit rate is now really low.

It’s all just a crazy irrational market that is totally non transparent and filled with under informed consumers (through no fault of their own — it’s just impossible to really know what you’re buying). The med school match system might make more sense -/ I don’t know.

My kid got in ED to top choice but I am not looking forward to doing this insanity again in 3 years.

Anonymous wrote:You would think that the schools having ED1 and ED2 would discourage many RD applicants from applying.

But I looked it up. Every single one received more applications last year than the year before.

Because parents and kids think that they will be the exception and get into RD with a less than 15% chance--just like unhooked applicants think that they will get into Ivy+ with a less than 2% chance of acceptance! Same with thinking they will become the next Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg

You would think that the schools having ED1 and ED2 would discourage many RD applicants from applying.

But I looked it up. Every single one received more applications last year than the year before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Main reason for ED is yield not lowering acceptance rate.

If ED acceptance rate is high, it discourages applicants for RD, thus it negatively affect acceptance rate, too.

For whatever reason, even the schools offering double rounds of ED get more applications. Truly I don't understand why.

They are popular for reasons.
Supply/Demand and Free market in action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Northeastern, Vanderbilt, Tufts, Carnegie Mellon and Emory appear to be the most manipulative when it comes to admissions gamesmanship. Never underestimate how offering EDI and EDII really does depress acceptance rates. A good percentage of the freshman class is already selected by the time regular decision rolls around.

1)California Institute of Technology 4% REA
2)Harvard University 4% REA
3)Columbia University 4% ED
4)Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4% EA
5)Stanford University 4% EA
6)Brown University 5% ED
7)University of Chicago 5% EA, EDI, EDII
8)Yale University 5% REA
9)Dartmouth College 6% ED
10)Duke University 6% ED
11)Princeton University REA
12)Cornell University 7% ED
13)Johns Hopkins University 7% EDI, EDII
14)Northeastern University 7% EA, EDI, EDII
15)Northwestern University 7% ED
16)University of Pennsylvania 7% ED
17)Vanderbilt University 7% EDI, EDII
18)Rice University Houston, TX 9% ED
19)University of California, Los Angeles 9%
20)Tufts University 10% EDI, EDII
21)Carnegie Mellon University 11% EDI, EDII
22)Emory University 11% EDI, EDII

JHU, N'eastern, Vanderbilt, CMU, & Emory should not be included in this list since they all accept students during two ED rounds in addition to RD. Artificially lowers admit rate. (A tactic also used by many LACs to apear to be more selective.)

A stroke of marketing genius. Once you achieve critical mass, it's like the perpetual motion machine of selectivity. Nobel prize for whomever came up with this scheme. It isn't just two rounds of ED, I think that ANY round of ED really impacts perceived selectivity.