Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Don't you think, with a decision that is impactful as ED, people should go with facts, and not with what you "expect"?

Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is important. What you say may be true at some schools and not at others, and no one should make blanket assertions without facts. ED can and does make a difference between acceptance and rejection for many students.

It is important and I think you missed my point. ED can make a difference, but one can see how it undermines the school's incentive with respect to merit. That was the point of the question. Your approach is not any different - you are saying that ED can get you in, which may be correct (at some schools but not at others). But that's a blanket assertion as well. I am saying that it can diminish the size of an award. The assumption that merit will be the same RD vs ED is just not supported that I can tell, hence my question.

That's a fair enough opinion, but statistics prove the overall admissions benefit of ED (see book below) so it is not really a comparable blanket assertion as one is supported by data and one isn't. Unless you have some of course, please provide and I will mea culpa.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-chapter/dp/0674016203

This book shows ED is the equivalent boost of 150 SAT points. Well worth a read if you are interested.

Again, you are missing the point. To be clear, I agree there is an ED bump but the numbers are hard to quantify because of the hooked students that are built into ED. But assuming arguendo it is a bump, that does not mean it is a bump that offsets the potential risk associated with locking in to a school before it provides a merit award. There is a fair bit of admittedly anecdotal evidence that RD students can sometimes bargain for additional merit aid through comparison to other offers.

My overall point is I don't know but logic suggests less leverage results in less merit and schools have no incentive to break down that data. And even if they did, it is still a tough read. Look at a school like Tulane that was at one time known for merit aid (and still is to an extent). Even if it broker down the numbers, thy would be skewed by the fact that the RD ADMITTED applicants largely have higher stats that the ED/EA people, who, on average, are more likely to be looking for the bump you mention. Couple that with most of the slots being filed through ED/EA such that the RD admits (less than 10% of the applicants) have tippy top stats. So even if it were clear that the RD kids got more merit than the ED kids on average, it would be hard to compare students who are apples to apples in terms of test scores/gpa.

We don't disagree - i am just noting that there is a clear reason why RD may get more merit and bemoaning the fact that it is hard to drill down there.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen good data on the advatage to applying ED? I do not mean the raw admissions rate, which is generally meaningless. It is hard to find any data comparing the likelihood of admission for a given student applying by different routes.
One problem with using the raw admissions data is that it neglects that the sample of ED applicants is very different from RD applicants. Trying to account for this leaves me with rates that are not nealy as different. For example:
Columbia University 2021
Total applications 60551
Total admitted 2358 3.8%
Total attend 1569

RD Applications- 54116
RD admissions- 1706 3.1%

ED Applications- 6435
ED Admissions- 650 10.1%

But, roughly 193 of the admitted students were recruited athletes, nearly all of whom use ED, leaving 457 non-athletes admitted ED.
Then there are legacy admissions who tend to heavily use ED. I cannot find exact data, but inferring from Barnard, roughly 14% of all attending students are legacies, which would amount to at least 220 students of the admitted pool. Even with the conservative estimate that only 50% of these admitted legacies applied ED, that leaves only 347 non-athlete, non-legacies admitted ED for a rate 5.3%. The advantage does not seem to be nearly as great as people make it out to be.

Assuming your numbers are correct, you'd still have a 40% better chance applying ED

Has anyone seen good data on the advatage to applying ED? I do not mean the raw admissions rate, which is generally meaningless. It is hard to find any data comparing the likelihood of admission for a given student applying by different routes.
One problem with using the raw admissions data is that it neglects that the sample of ED applicants is very different from RD applicants. Trying to account for this leaves me with rates that are not nealy as different. For example:
Columbia University 2021
Total applications 60551
Total admitted 2358 3.8%
Total attend 1569

RD Applications- 54116
RD admissions- 1706 3.1%

ED Applications- 6435
ED Admissions- 650 10.1%

But, roughly 193 of the admitted students were recruited athletes, nearly all of whom use ED, leaving 457 non-athletes admitted ED.
Then there are legacy admissions who tend to heavily use ED. I cannot find exact data, but inferring from Barnard, roughly 14% of all attending students are legacies, which would amount to at least 220 students of the admitted pool. Even with the conservative estimate that only 50% of these admitted legacies applied ED, that leaves only 347 non-athlete, non-legacies admitted ED for a rate 5.3%. The advantage does not seem to be nearly as great as people make it out to be.

I just feel most teens change their minds so many times. I don’t think we’ll do EA because I don’t want son to feel backed in a corner.

Anonymous wrote:Applied to REA

Do not ever do REA.

Do EA to schools you will be happy to go to. ED to your dream school, if you finances are not a huge concern.

Anonymous wrote:I read some where that waitlisted students would likely have gotten in if they’d applied ED.

It doesn't really help though because you can't apply ED everywhere and you can't really guess which one would have taken you. When counselors call the college's area rep and they ALL say this kid's best shot is to "apply ED, but no guarantees," they are still stuck with the reality that when they choose one, they are giving up on all the rest at the same level and one notch below. If you miss your ED shot, you can fall pretty low. There are always stories of the kid who didn't get in ED and then got into a higher ranked school RD, but that is likely rare. So the reality is that kid may like 4-5 schools that are fairly similar and they have to guess which one will like them best, and if they are wrong, all of them are no longer an option. A lot of the schools my DC likes only have one ED round and one has none, so it isn't as if this is one cohesive system like med school matching; every college has its own quirky system. It used to be that they could apply to all the schools they like, then they have an equal shot at each and go to the one that accepts them. Instead they now have to take one or two ED shots, then apply to 10 more lower level schools for RD hoping something sticks. so a kid who might have gone to an Ivy or top SLAC, ends up at Wisconsin because he put his raffle ticket in the wrong bucket.

Obviously ED is best decision if money is not issue and it is kids top choice. Most are not in this situation so it is calculated decision to ED school that is high on list but maybe not highest if he got into everything. Do you give up chance at Harvard for Duke (extreme example). Also, at some schools that do give merit, you are putting yourself at disadvantage. My kid EA Miami and got $22k merit. A kid with similar stats ED, got in but no merit. This is a moot point at top schools but even Villanova, Wake Forest, etc lower top 50 give merit but no chance with ED.

The college admission process is very inefficient. Students apply to 10+ even though they will use only one spot at the end. This clogs the system. I am sure it all ends up with matches that are subpar (both from the perspective of students and schools). Reforming the system would be great, but realistically there are too many unknowns and nobody wants to risk a fiasco. Meanwhile, ED is a tool that helps things become more efficient by clearing a portion of the market before RD. If one does away with ED, the overall inefficiencies in college admission would increase. There would be more well prepared students applying to multiple schools. What we need is more incentives for ED application, possibly creating a dedicated financial aid fund. Ultimately it is about generating incentives for students prioritizing a school.

I read some where that waitlisted students would likely have gotten in if they’d applied ED.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Don't you think, with a decision that is impactful as ED, people should go with facts, and not with what you "expect"?

Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is important. What you say may be true at some schools and not at others, and no one should make blanket assertions without facts. ED can and does make a difference between acceptance and rejection for many students.

It is important and I think you missed my point. ED can make a difference, but one can see how it undermines the school's incentive with respect to merit. That was the point of the question. Your approach is not any different - you are saying that ED can get you in, which may be correct (at some schools but not at others). But that's a blanket assertion as well. I am saying that it can diminish the size of an award. The assumption that merit will be the same RD vs ED is just not supported that I can tell, hence my question.

That's a fair enough opinion, but statistics prove the overall admissions benefit of ED (see book below) so it is not really a comparable blanket assertion as one is supported by data and one isn't. Unless you have some of course, please provide and I will mea culpa.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-chapter/dp/0674016203

This book shows ED is the equivalent boost of 150 SAT points. Well worth a read if you are interested.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Don't you think, with a decision that is impactful as ED, people should go with facts, and not with what you "expect"?

Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is important. What you say may be true at some schools and not at others, and no one should make blanket assertions without facts. ED can and does make a difference between acceptance and rejection for many students.

It is important and I think you missed my point. ED can make a difference, but one can see how it undermines the school's incentive with respect to merit. That was the point of the question. Your approach is not any different - you are saying that ED can get you in, which may be correct (at some schools but not at others). But that's a blanket assertion as well. I am saying that it can diminish the size of an award. The assumption that merit will be the same RD vs ED is just not supported that I can tell, hence my question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding that I know the financial aid package issue is one reason to not ED, but assuming you are prepared to be full pay my question is why not apply ED?

That's a big assumption. Most people put money front and center in making decisions about college.

ED is affirmative action for the rich.

Stop with the bs. The npc tells you if the school is affordable or not long before the ED decision needs to be made.

Affordable according to the school, which may or may not be what a family can actually afford.

Right - so then you don't apply if it's not going to be affordable.
DP

Right.

Like I said, affirmative action for the rich.

DP: But it's not like it's going to be any more affordable RD. And if you're so top-notch that you think you're going to get a merit award then it doesn't really matter whether you apply ED or RD, you'd be getting in because merit awards are not awarded differently between the groups (or if anything RD is favored at some schools to lure top candidates). SO I think you're not really understanding how the finances work.

I know exactly how the finances work. I advise people on this for a living.

We mostly have no way of knowing whether merit awards are awarded differently between the groups, or for that matter what the amount of merit scholarship money will be. At the University of Rochester information sessions, for example, the admissions people say that if you depend on merit scholarship money to attend, you should definitely not apply early decision. The admissions rep at Washington University in St. Louis says the same thing.

If you are reliant on merit money to attend, then with very few exceptions you cannot apply early decision because it’s too risky. Since the decision to apply is binding if the student is accepted, and since you do not know for sure whether the school will give your kid any merit scholarship money, applying ED amounts to a blank check. For many families that is an unacceptable risk. That’s my point.

^^^ Don't you think, with a decision that is impactful as ED, people should go with facts, and not with what you "expect"?

Not trying to be a jerk here, but this is important. What you say may be true at some schools and not at others, and no one should make blanket assertions without facts. ED can and does make a difference between acceptance and rejection for many students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding that I know the financial aid package issue is one reason to not ED, but assuming you are prepared to be full pay my question is why not apply ED?

That's a big assumption. Most people put money front and center in making decisions about college.

ED is affirmative action for the rich.

Stop with the bs. The npc tells you if the school is affordable or not long before the ED decision needs to be made.

Affordable according to the school, which may or may not be what a family can actually afford.

Right - so then you don't apply if it's not going to be affordable.
DP

Right.

Like I said, affirmative action for the rich.

DP: But it's not like it's going to be any more affordable RD. And if you're so top-notch that you think you're going to get a merit award then it doesn't really matter whether you apply ED or RD, you'd be getting in because merit awards are not awarded differently between the groups (or if anything RD is favored at some schools to lure top candidates). SO I think you're not really understanding how the finances work.

What's the basis for saying merit is not awarded differently. If merit is intended in part to lure students, there is no need to lure an ED candidate. I get the "not necessarily" poster's point that schools can still give merit awards to ED applicants, but I take that with a grain of salt. And I understand some schools essentially discount tuition for ED applicants by giving them all a set merit award, but I expect there are bigger merit awards to be had for the RD applicant they want to bring to the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding that I know the financial aid package issue is one reason to not ED, but assuming you are prepared to be full pay my question is why not apply ED?

That's a big assumption. Most people put money front and center in making decisions about college.

ED is affirmative action for the rich.

Stop with the bs. The npc tells you if the school is affordable or not long before the ED decision needs to be made.

Affordable according to the school, which may or may not be what a family can actually afford.

Right - so then you don't apply if it's not going to be affordable.
DP

Right.

Like I said, affirmative action for the rich.

You are making no sense whatsoever. Answer the PPs comment and explain how RD costs are higher or don't, but pithily repeating nonsense is not helpful, adds nothing to the conversation and reflects poorly on you.