I went to a SLAC that had ED. My alma mater was very interested in applicants who had a strong interest in being there (a "Why X School" was a supplemental essay to the common application), because it very much had a specific vibe that wasn't for everyone--I imagine this is true of other schools on that list, since small liberal arts schools tend to appeal to a particular niche of student. Applying ED was a signal of having a strong interest in the school.

As far as the financial aid packages go, I was told by people who worked in admissions that ED doesn't affect financial aid--they looked strictly at the expected family contribution from the FASFA in determining financial aid (there wasn't merit aid at this school). In fact, they tended to review ED candidates more closely, because they knew that they were absolutely going to attend, so it wouldn't be a waste of time. The school wasn't 100% need blind--they had a policy that they called "need aware"--i.e. the endowment wasn't large enough to commit to complete need blind admissions, but they did the best they could. This mainly was an issue for marginal admits--they were more likely to admit a full pay borderline candidate or let them off the wait list than someone who needed financial aid. The school isn't proud of this, but they don't have as deep pockets as some other schools so there has to be an element of pragmatism.

Anecdotally, I have friends who applied ED who needed financial aid and got financial aid packages that didn't appear to screw them over and were aligned with their families EFC as per the FASFA. Obviously, they have no comparison of what the aid package would have been RD, or other schools to compare it to, so we can never know if admissions are being truthful. Also, FAFSA's definition of demonstrated need is different from what a lot of families can comfortably pay without feeling financially insecure, so there's that. But it definitely didn't seem like they were totally screwed out of financial aid because they applied binding early decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What best schools are moving away from EA? I don't think this is true.

PP said ED (early decision) not EA (early action). Which top schools still offer ED?

Penn - now I know some will laugh at it being a 'top school' but you apply to colleges/programs at Penn and Wharton UG, Fisher Program, Huntsman Program are HYPS caliber that all screen students ED if they apply ED.

Swarthmore has two rounds of ED.

Anonymous wrote:Here's a very good summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission

I could be wrong but are some confusing 'needs blind" with 'no loan policy'?

For the SLACs with strong sports programs (i.e. the NESCAC schools, which include many of the top SLACs academically as well i.e. Amherst, Williams, Midd, Bowdoin, Tufts, Wesleyan) a huge percentage of the ED admits are recruited athletes, so they generally know their chances and have decided where to play even before they apply ED (via a pre read from the admissions office), another large group are likely alumni kids who have been focused on going to the school forever. So the much higher accept rate is no surprise. I think the advantage for a random kid without alumni parents or athletic recruitment is much less. Still there for sure, but need to be in the 25/75 range for SATs, have the GPA etc, and then instead of being a 1 in 5 chance might go up to a 1 in 2 or 3 chance if clearly qualified and fit into the general population academically. The schools do it completely to lock in their matriculating class and have a high yield

Anonymous wrote:To all those who say full pay students get added admissions benefits I can only add our experience this year. DD applied early admission (not ED) to 4 privates and 4 public colleges and we were not seeking any financial aid. She was deferred at 3 privates and accepted early (with merit $$) at 3 publics. So full pay was no added benefit.

Your DD applied EA, which doesn't give the same bump as ED. One piece of the ED game is that schools are looking to bump up their matriculation rates (which are used in those rankings). Because ED is binding, they know almost 100% of those kids will be matriculating (exceptions are granted only if something really big changes in the applicant's circumstances, for example the family can no longer pay tuition). Bottom line: ED applicants, who have committed to going if accepted, get a bump that isn't extended to EA applicants who could matriculate somewhere else.

Anonymous wrote:Some schools have much higher acceptance rates if you apply earlier:

These statistics only count the early applicants who are accepted early. Many colleges defer decisions on some early applicants, accepting them after the deadline for being counted as early admissions, so the eventual acceptance rate for early applicants is often even higher than these numbers indicate.
admitted early

Davidson College NC 58% 2 admitted early 26% regular applicants admitted 32% Difference in acceptance rates
Oberlin College OH 61% admitted early 29% regular applicants admitted 32% Difference in acceptance rates
Trinity University TX 81% admitted early 49% regular applicants admitted 32% Difference in acceptance rates
Haverford College PA 54% admitted early 24% regular applicants admitted 30% Difference in acceptance rates
Washington and Lee University VA 46% admitted early 17% regular applicants admitted 29% Difference in acceptance rates
Miami University--Oxford OH 88% admitted early 52% regular applicants admitted 36% Difference in acceptance rates
Bucknell University PA 62% admitted early 28% regular applicants admitted 34% Difference in acceptance rates
Lehigh University PA 68% admitted early 35% regular applicants admitted 33% Difference in acceptance rates
Connecticut College CT 61% admitted early 29% regular applicants admitted 32% Difference in acceptance rates

Interesting. What's your source?

Anonymous wrote:I think folks are overplaying the ED - safety school connection. Look at some of the schools on this list.

http://collegeadmissionbook.com/blog/2013-colleges-early-decision-plans

I think "second choice" is a better characterization than "safety." Think Notre Dame and Cornell - countless kids grown up dreaming of going to ND, not so for Cornell.

I think folks are overplaying the ED - safety school connection. Look at some of the schools on this list.

http://collegeadmissionbook.com/blog/2013-colleges-early-decision-plans

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone's information is dated. Here's the scoop: Harvard, Princeton and the University of Virginia dropped all early admissions processes (which were binding early admission programs) in 2007. All three reversed course in February 2011, restoring an early-admission program, though less restrictive than previous offerings.

Yale and Stanford switched from early decision to restrictive early action. Other schools that offer non-restrictive early action include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the California Institute of Technology, UNC-Chapel Hill, the University of Chicago, Villanova University, and the University of Notre Dame.


Definite move toward non-binding EA.

It depends. This may be true for the most competitive schools but there are plenty who don;t want to be everyone's safety and so have ED. Cornell is an example.

I think this is right. Schools that are commonly used as "safety" or "second choice" schools try to identify those with real interest. Schools that are often "first choice" don't need to use ED - which is controversial. Interestingly, you can't rely on rankings alone to guess as to what schools are often safety schools. UVA is a very common first choice school whereas Cornell (a slightly higher ranked school) is commonly a second choice. Notre Dame is also usually a first choice school.

Anonymous wrote:I meant ED. Tons of top schools offer ED, no? Harvard, Wesleyan, Brown, to name a few ...

Harvard offers SCEA, not ED. Wesleyan and Brown are ED.

I meant ED. Tons of top schools offer ED, no? Harvard, Wesleyan, Brown, to name a few ...

Anonymous wrote:Someone's information is dated. Here's the scoop: Harvard, Princeton and the University of Virginia dropped all early admissions processes (which were binding early admission programs) in 2007. All three reversed course in February 2011, restoring an early-admission program, though less restrictive than previous offerings.

Yale and Stanford switched from early decision to restrictive early action. Other schools that offer non-restrictive early action include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the California Institute of Technology, UNC-Chapel Hill, the University of Chicago, Villanova University, and the University of Notre Dame.


Definite move toward non-binding EA.

It depends. This may be true for the most competitive schools but there are plenty who don;t want to be everyone's safety and so have ED. Cornell is an example.

Someone's information is dated. Here's the scoop: Harvard, Princeton and the University of Virginia dropped all early admissions processes (which were binding early admission programs) in 2007. All three reversed course in February 2011, restoring an early-admission program, though less restrictive than previous offerings.

Yale and Stanford switched from early decision to restrictive early action. Other schools that offer non-restrictive early action include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the California Institute of Technology, UNC-Chapel Hill, the University of Chicago, Villanova University, and the University of Notre Dame.


Definite move toward non-binding EA.

Anonymous wrote:What best schools are moving away from EA? I don't think this is true.

PP said ED (early decision) not EA (early action). Which top schools still offer ED?

What best schools are moving away from EA? I don't think this is true.