When I visited Brown for a college tour, at the info session, and Admissions officer made it clear that Brown confers no advantage to ED applicants. He stressed several times that those accepted to Brown ED were the same caliber as those accepted RD. It would be of better use to apply ED to a school that would confer a better advantage to ED applicants.
^Only for legacies -- or, at least, that's the way it was when I applied.
In any case, don't take what people say at face value. People have re-hashed this subject on here a thousand times, but it seems clear as day to me: schools (including Brown) that pretend that applying under a binding early program does not confer an advantage are simply lying. And they have good reason to: to avoid strategic ED-ers like the people your post was directed at.
ED is binding. If you are accepted ED to a school, you have to go there. You should apply ED to your absolute first-choice school. If the idea that ED doesn't confer an advantage at one school drives you into applying ED at a different school that's further down on your list, then you shouldn't be applying ED anywhere.
While it is true that ED benefits legacies and recruited athletes the most, any student that has Brown at the top of his/her list should apply ED as long as financial aid is not a consideration.
But remember that when considering ED versus RD, we're not only looking at two pools of completely different sizes but also pools of completely different compositions.
Most of the people who apply ED to Brown (or, indeed, any other institution) are not applying because they can. However, there are plenty of people who apply RD who submit an application because it can't hurt. Those applications significantly up RD numbers.
But perhaps what's more important is that the people who apply ED aren't necessarily the kids who think that they won't stand a shot in the RD round. There are people who might get into HYPS etc. but decide that Brown is their first choice, and they just want to be done. It appears that the concentration of those sorts of applicants is higher in ED than RD. Research has even suggested that ED pools, especially at elite institutions, are of higher caliber than the RD equivalents, largely because of the two aforementioned groups.
In short, there is not necessarily an advantage to applying early. Your likelihood of acceptance is higher, numbers-wise, but the competition may well be stiffer.
^The pools are absolutely different -- there's no doubt that that's true. That doesn't change the fact that it's simply the case that you're more likely to get in with the same application ED than RD.
Schools waste a lot of breath trying to convince kids otherwise, but everything I've ever seen suggests it's true, especially when you remember that some deferred ED-ers get in in the RD round like I did.
And really, it has to be true. In terms of likely fit and yield protection issues, it would be highly bizarre if schools didn't take ED status into account.
It would be of better use to apply ED to a school that would confer a better advantage to ED applicants.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. If Brown isn't your first choice, then please don't apply ED. That means someone will get in who wants to go, someone who is applying because they want to attend Brown and not because they look at ED as a strategic game.
Several of us have been making this argument for years (that ED does not have a huge benefit, mainly because of athletic recruits). I'm glad the admissions officer convinced you.
(That said, I do believe there are some advantages to applying ED. There are fewer applicants and the law of diminishing returns would suggest it is easier to get in at the beginning of the process, when every seat is open, than at the end of the process when only a few remain.)
My guess is its hard to pull so large a percentage of your incoming class ED and then acknowledge that this group is relatively "weaker" than the RD admits.
Quote:
And really, it has to be true. In terms of likely fit and yield protection issues, it would be highly bizarre if schools didn't take ED status into account.
Agree. ED is a trade-off where the institution gives admissions advantage and gets better yield numbers, lower admit numbers (increased selectivity), and wealthier students who need less financial aid (since they lose the chance to leverage offers against one another). It works against the institution's interest not to dig a little deeper into this pool.
