For example, president of a large company or a small country, producer in Hollywood or superstar in BollyWood, head of NIH or judge of federal court.

Full pay means zilch zero to these colleges, they can fill up their college 10 times with ful pay students and still have more applicants left. What matters is if you can donate million+ or have a connected parent who'll be an asset to student network in some ways.

Anonymous wrote:Full pay, will be applying RD. Worried because there aren’t many spots left in RD after athletes, questbridge, and ED.

What is needed to be a competitive applicant to these schools in RD?

Overprivileged or underprivileged or be willing to game the system, otherwise just a lottery no matter even if you are naturally the kind of student, deans of admissions claim to want.

Anonymous wrote:OP, is there any reason not to ED1/ED2 at any lacs?

It depends on the LAC. ED offers little or no advantage at WASP. At certain other LACs, ED is a real boost over RD. But I wouldn’t be afraid of RD.

Anonymous wrote:My two nieces got into top-25 LACs without much fuss. They simply were fully qualified for admission and applied ED. One had a letter of recommendation from an alumnus.

ED at privates is a huge boost. For rich people. Most of us can’t commit to the full tuition and need to wait for scholarship and aid offers first.

OP, is there any reason not to ED1/ED2 at any lacs?

Here's my personal and very rough comparison of LACs to university admissions.

WASP: Ivy-level qualifications (top stats, great ECs, and luck), but not necessarily HYPSM level qualifications. Character traits can be very important. Bowdoin is at this level or pretty close.

T5-10ish LACs: T15-25-ish university qualifications (high stats, really good ECs, and a little luck). Regardless of their ranking, add Wesleyan and Midd to this level for RD. (ED is a different story.)

T10-20 LACs: T20-40-ish university stats (high stats, good ECs) and perhaps demonstrated interest at certain LACs.

T20-30 LACs: T30-50-ish university stats (good stats, good ECs) and perhaps demonstrated interest at certain LACs.

FWIW, my DD was salutatorian, 1540 SAT, great ECs, etc. got into 2/3 WASPs, 1/2 Ivies, 1/1 Ivy+'s, and Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Smith, Scripps, and Macalester. Waitlisted at the other Ivy and an LAC outside the T30. Her only rejection was the one WASP.

^^^ and adding one more thing my DD was not “highest rigor” because she didn’t like math. She never took calculus and didn’t take math at all senior year.

^^^ but at the end of the day these are lucky admits and probably because she was meeting some need / interest in balancing the class. She did not get into Brown which was initially her first choice. (ED deferred and then rejected.)

TO, submitted the writing supplement, 4.0 from rigorous private, student govt president, interesting and unusual ECs, humanities. Was deciding between Yale and Williams and chose Williams because it’s so beautiful!

Anonymous wrote:My kid got into Williams RD. Unhooked, female, not an athlete. Can’t say why she got in though.

Could you please share her stats etc? Thanks

I think once you get to RD especially for LACs you have to play it like a numbers game and not be overly wedded to a few schools. Make sure you include enough schools in the 20-30 range.

My daughter was accepted to Amherst, Bowdoin and Williams in RD this year, rejected from Swarthmore. 4.0/4.4, highest rigor (MVC, Physics C, Spanish 5), 1510 SAT (790 math), good ECs but nothing earth shattering, and a lot of work and volunteer experience (regular work - swim coaching, life guarding etc). We are not full pay.

Beyond consideration of overall rankings, you may benefit from considering LACs by selectivity. For example, the highly-ranked Carleton offers a somewhat better admission prospect than some schools ranked a bit further down in U.S. News.

Correction: If you would like to avoid an ED I commitment to an LAC, why not consider an ED II application?