Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because ED acceptance rates are 2 or 3 times RD? Seems simple.

The appearance isn’t the reality for a typical unhooked applicant. ED is full of hooked kids who are almost 100% sure of admission (Athletes, Posse, Questbridge, etc.) which wildly skews the number.

So?

ED is still ED and confers an advantage IF you have the academic stats.

Try it.

NP:

I still don't think you understand. The vast majority of ED applicants are hooked in some way and as a result, they are typically already guaranteed admission. Example: athlete goes through a preread, passes, and then applies ED. App is marked and student gets in. Now multiply that by all the hooked kids (questbridge, FGLI, ROTC, athlete, rural area, etc.) applying ED and then add in some unhooked applicants. Sure, it may make a highly selective school go from a 4.2% RD admission to a stated 20% ED admission but in reality when the unhooked applicants are removed it is more like a 5% ED admission.

You're kidding yourself if you don't understand this. Yeah, ED gives you a higher chance but it is far, far from the advertised ED acceptance rate for an unhooked applicant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course! ED acceptance rates are much higher that RD.

You're looking at the top level number. At a visit day for committed athletes, we were told that roughly half the ED admits are athletes. So, maybe marginally easier if full pay (since even need blind schools can assume that most ED applicants will be comfortable with their ability to pay and need aware schools, the full pay kids will check a box that they are not seeking need based aid). My kid would be a 50/50 at best if not committed but has a likely letter because of athletics.

At which school? Sounds like a WASP rather than a (larger) Ivy, which will have a smaller % of recruited athletes.

Easy answer: if by the time the deadline for ED approaches your child truly says “X school is my #1 choice” then do it. If they’re not there yet, wait for EA or RD. Too many people obsess with the “what if” question rather than focusing on what matters: finding the best fit.

Anonymous wrote:Because ED acceptance rates are 2 or 3 times RD? Seems simple.

Most of that is athletes, donors etc. So no, it isn't that much easier, particularly for someone receiving the kind of aid the OP is suggesting.

Saw this and thought it was helpful for this group.

Look at the charts and the numbers of legacy vs. athletes.

https://ingeniusprep.com/blog/athlete-legacy-admissions-advantage/

Most applicants imagine a wide-open playing field: submit a strong application, compete on merit, and hope for the best. The reality is different. At many top schools, 40–50% of the class is pre-allocated to students who meet institutional needs.

At Harvard, data from Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard revealed that over 43% of admitted students fell into the ALDC category—Athletes, Legacies, Dean’s interest, and Children of faculty/staff—with admit rates 4–5x higher than unhooked applicants.

Consider these figures:

Recruited athletes: admit rates as high as 86% in some cycles.
Legacies: admit rates around 34%—versus ~5% for everyone else.
Nationwide, legacy students can have admission odds 3x higher than non-legacies, and in some institutions the multiplier jumps to over 15x.
These aren’t criticisms—they’re reminders that admissions is more like building a portfolio than judging a competition. Universities need students who fill specific roles that serve funding, mission, and reputation goals.

(A) Athletes are 10% of class.

(L/D/C) Legacy / Donor/ Faculty Kids are 12-15% of class.

You can hit the "trifecta" if your kid is (1) an underep major (10% of class); hits a mission-aligned priority (this can be expanding a certain group (e.g., Emory and its new interfaith engagement initiative) (10% of class); and is an "academic standout" with stellar LOR/stats (25-30% of class). Then your kid's chances change to 5X the normal admit rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because ED acceptance rates are 2 or 3 times RD? Seems simple.

The appearance isn’t the reality for a typical unhooked applicant. ED is full of hooked kids who are almost 100% sure of admission (Athletes, Posse, Questbridge, etc.) which wildly skews the number.

So?

ED is still ED and confers an advantage IF you have the academic stats.

Try it.

SCEA to your top school because the readers will spend more time reviewing your application than in the cursory RD round. Even if they defer you and come back, you'll application will be more closely read than in the RD round.

(DS was accepted ED to Brown.)

Anonymous wrote:My instincts on getting gypped always fire on this topic.

RD vs ED: this is a wrong statistical argument. RD invites hail-marry applicants. ED invites traditional plays that should score.

The statistical number describing the acceptance rate for the ED crowd is a sub-set of the RD crowd. So, I don't buy into ED has a 10% acceptance rate and RD has a 5%. Your chances are not doubled.

ED incentivizes to wait-list kids to RD then accept (which keeps the acceptance rate to ED lower). RD incentivizes to wait-list those that wont likely accept admission. The kids that say I got wait-listed for WASP but got into an Ivy - I'm sure this is what is happening. It's all about exclusivity.

I was always told ED is for hooks: athletes, legacy, and donors/special interest candidates. That’s why the numbers are higher. My kid didn’t ED. He did really well RD when acceptance rates went down to 3% at some of those ED/SCEA schools, it did make us question if the SCEA that WL him RD would have accepted if he had applied there early. He chose a lower ranked school because we were discouraged from doing early rounds at the Ivies. I think if they were test required he would have gotten in—too many applicants with test optional.

My instincts on getting gypped always fire on this topic.

RD vs ED: this is a wrong statistical argument. RD invites hail-marry applicants. ED invites traditional plays that should score.

The statistical number describing the acceptance rate for the ED crowd is a sub-set of the RD crowd. So, I don't buy into ED has a 10% acceptance rate and RD has a 5%. Your chances are not doubled.

ED incentivizes to wait-list kids to RD then accept (which keeps the acceptance rate to ED lower). RD incentivizes to wait-list those that wont likely accept admission. The kids that say I got wait-listed for WASP but got into an Ivy - I'm sure this is what is happening. It's all about exclusivity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course! ED acceptance rates are much higher that RD.

You're looking at the top level number. At a visit day for committed athletes, we were told that roughly half the ED admits are athletes. So, maybe marginally easier if full pay (since even need blind schools can assume that most ED applicants will be comfortable with their ability to pay and need aware schools, the full pay kids will check a box that they are not seeking need based aid). My kid would be a 50/50 at best if not committed but has a likely letter because of athletics.

At schools that offer both ED and EA, often the athletes are done in the EA round. UVA for example does it that way.