Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously depends on the school and you can see the numbers in the common data sets. But if you hear enough presentations, you will come across schools that essentially say "DC won't get in unless they apply ED."
No, CDS only gives ED app and admit #'s. Not stats and does not break out athletes, legacy etc. The data does not allow comparison.
Agreed it does not break it down but it is useful to see what percentage of the class is admitted ED. And if one were really interested, it would be possible to take a rough cut at the athlete admits. Agree you could never get precision this way. But when a school is admitting up to half its class or more ED, that tells you something.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously depends on the school and you can see the numbers in the common data sets. But if you hear enough presentations, you will come across schools that essentially say "DC won't get in unless they apply ED."
No, CDS only gives ED app and admit #'s. Not stats and does not break out athletes, legacy etc. The data does not allow comparison.
Agreed it does not break it down but it is useful to see what percentage of the class is admitted ED. And if one were really interested, it would be possible to take a rough cut at the athlete admits. Agree you could never get precision this way. But when a school is admitting up to half its class or more ED, that tells you something.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Yes, and $0.02 is 100% more than $0.01, but still meaningless.
And the pools aren't identical--people choose their ED because they have a good shot there so candidates tend stronger. RD includes everybody (including those deferred from ED).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Obviously depends on the school and you can see the numbers in the common data sets. But if you hear enough presentations, you will come across schools that essentially say "DC won't get in unless they apply ED."
No, CDS only gives ED app and admit #'s. Not stats and does not break out athletes, legacy etc. The data does not allow comparison.
Anonymous wrote:Obviously depends on the school and you can see the numbers in the common data sets. But if you hear enough presentations, you will come across schools that essentially say "DC won't get in unless they apply ED."
Anonymous wrote:Quite a few posters here say ED is a huge advantage. Is it really? Based on what data? If you believe some admission statistics available in public space ED can improve your chances from maybe 10 to 20 percent. Not that much in my opinion. And half of it is probably legacies, athletes, etc
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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
Yes, and $0.02 is 100% more than $0.01, but still meaningless.
Anonymous wrote:Quite a few posters here say ED is a huge advantage. Is it really? Based on what data? If you believe some admission statistics available in public space ED can improve your chances from maybe 10 to 20 percent. Not that much in my opinion. And half of it is probably legacies, athletes, etc
Anonymous wrote: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