Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Is it true that it isn't easier to get into Brown ED?

2»

Replies to: Is it true that it isn't easier to get into Brown ED?

  • fenwayparkfenwaypark Registered User Posts: 696 Member
    edited August 2015
    The numbers show that the acceptance rate for non-recruited athletic students is higher ED than RD (15% compared to less than 8%). Interpret that however you wish.

    I interpret it to mean there are higher than proportionate numbers of legacies, development cases, celebrities, super-high achievers, and other special considerations that apply ED compared to RD.

    I do not interpret it to mean that Dean Miller's credibility is at issue
  • fireandrainfireandrain Registered User Posts: 4,737 Senior Member
    To quote fenwaypark:

    "There is anecdotal speculation that a high percentage of legacy applicants/celebrities/development cases/Rhode Islanders apply ED. But no one posting here can claim that this is true unless they also say they are affiliated with the Office of Admission or otherwise have inside information."
  • fenwayparkfenwaypark Registered User Posts: 696 Member
    edited August 2015
    To quote fenwaypark:

    "There is anecdotal speculation that a high percentage of legacy applicants/celebrities/development cases/Rhode Islanders apply ED. But no one posting here can claim that this is true unless they also say they are affiliated with the Office of Admission or otherwise have inside information."

    Absolutely. That is my interpretation. That is my speculation. Never claimed to be affiliated with Admissions or to have inside information to be able to declare with certainty. I don't believe anyone else here can claim that either. If you have a point that might help applicants who are reading this, post it up. Otherwise, I think the personal verbal volleyball is a misuse of the Brown forum.

    Speaking of which, @gray7time , if Brown is definitely your Number One choice and you believe your credentials are competitive then I think there is nothing to lose by applying ED, except some flexibility with financial aid.

    If Brown is not your top choice, but you think that by applying ED your credentials would be looked upon more favorably than if you applied RD, I think there would be a good chance for disappointment. First, because it is my opinion that there is not an admissions boost for the unhooked in ED at Brown (see all the posts above), and second, because you probably would have given up your option to apply to your real Number One school ED or EA.

    These are opinions not based on affiliation with Admissions or inside information, but I think y'all (mostly) knew that.
  • goingnutsmomgoingnutsmom Registered User Posts: 1,585 Senior Member
    ^ Well this is getting complicated. The 26% I actually got from someone else posting in CC. Then I looked it up and sure enough it's correct. The Brown admissions person did not mention this figure.

    I can see that people are getting upset but the definite message from Brown was that unless you are getting recruited as an athlete, ED is not an advantage. She didn't mention any other group except that one. Why? I don't know.

    My inclination is to think that recruited athletes are first priority for Brown then it goes down to other hooked applicants. Just like someone posted above.

    So it makes sense then if you are not falling into those categories, applying ED would be a weak strategy.

    For my D, it's not a big deal. She hasn't decided to apply to Brown and I'd she does won't go ED anyway. There are just too many wonderful schools that she would be happy at to go ED. BTW, my don applied ED to a school where he was sure it was his top choice, we could afford, and we were confident enough the strategy would work. The ED strategy at Brown seems murkier.

    I'll leave you guys to continue the debate.

    Good luck to all Brown applicants.
  • fenwayparkfenwaypark Registered User Posts: 696 Member
    edited August 2015
    The primary reason the vast majority of athletes in the Ivy League, not only at Brown, come through the ED/EA process is so that the schools can try to compete for athletes who are also candidates for D1 athletic scholarships. While filling up sports teams is important for Brown, I don't think it is the "first priority". Let me try to explain.

    The early signing period for National Letters of Intent and athletic scholarships for most NCAA D1 sports is usually the second week of November. Football is a notable exception with its signing period usually in early February. If an athlete has a D1 scholarship offer by the second week of November and does not know at that time whether he or she will be admitted to an Ivy, it can be a real big risk to turn down the athletic scholarship.

    So the Ivies recommend that their recruits apply Early. Likely letters may go out as soon as October 1. By issuing likely letters prior to the NLI early signing period, Ivies have a better chance of getting recruits who are also being courted by D1 schools that give athletic scholarships. This also applies to football, even though an RD application by a football player could result in a likely letter before the February signing period for football. But even in the case of football, ED/EA certainty is a nice thing to have.

    So I agree that athletes are an ED priority at Brown, but I do not think it is the top priority. I also think a plurality of ED admits at Brown and other Ivies are probably athletes, but as the math done by @i_wanna_be_Brown shows, it is definitely not the majority.

    (If anyone is really bored and does not believe Dean Miller's statements about 26% or i_wanna_be_brown's math, you can go to the Brown Athletics site and add up all the freshmen on the 2014-2015 rosters, and correct for a few walk-ons.)

    Again a disclaimer for anyone who might need it: This is based on personal experience, not on any affiliation with Admissions or inside information
  • fenwayparkfenwaypark Registered User Posts: 696 Member
    A respected poster on the Princeton forum, @Cantiger , has said this about SCEA at Princeton.
    Keep in mind that almost all recruited athletes (probably somewhere in the range of 200) apply and are accepted EA, as do most legacies and the children of faculty. The unhooked acceptance rate is probably closer to that of RD.
    http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/1797678-business-finance-at-princeton.html#latest

    I think these comments are relevant here
  • esdad697esdad697 Registered User Posts: 39 Junior Member
    Last year, a consultant who was previously in admissions at a top LAC told my daughter, "ED, we take who we want. RD, we take who we need." He believed that personable, well qualified candidates without hooks do better ED. The schools just don't take many people in certain categories (think no hooks and specific locations) and the slots fill up fast.

    This is an oblique answer. It is not clear how much it helps.

    Similarly, people ask if High School summer programs help.On their face, they don't. But it does help if you learn something about the school and curriculum. You may meet some students and faculty, though most people at these programs are not from the school. And you may learn if you want to attend the school.
  • goingnutsmomgoingnutsmom Registered User Posts: 1,585 Senior Member
    So OP ^ , are you implying that the consultant was saying that the ED applicant to Brown has to be stronger because they don't have "hooks"?

    The interesting thing is that my D was invited to the admissions seminar and when she asked Brown about ED, they were clear that ED most favors recruited athletes and would offer no real bump to other applicants. And every kid hearing this in that room was a high stats URM that had been invited to the presentation. There were at the most 12 kids there.

  • Falcon1Falcon1 Registered User Posts: 1,950 Senior Member
    Besides recruited athletes, you have to take into account legacies and children of faculty in the ED round. No admissions officer is going to speak about this in front of a group of people. According to the Harvard Class of 2019 survey released yesterday, 16% of the class reported they had one or both parents attend Harvard. Further, they reported that most of them applied early which meant that 22% of the attending SCEA admits was a direct legacy. Of course, there is overlap in that number with recruited athletes but it tells you that legacy is highly significant in the early rounds. This is not even taking into account children of Harvard employees.

    Of course, the survey isn't scientific but the numbers have remained stable the past few years.

    http://features.thecrimson.com/2015/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/

    Even more sobering is that 28% of the incoming class reported they had a relative attend Harvard (parent, sibling, aunt, uncle etc.). if most of these kids applied early than an even higher percentage of the early admits had some sort of connection to Harvard .

    I believe the legacy percentage at Brown is 10- 12%. So using 11%, if these kids applied ED in order to take advantage of the legacy boost that means that potentially 179 of the 617 or 29% of the ED acceptances were direct legacy (not even taking account sibling or other ties). Add in the recruited athletes who were not legacies, children of Brown faculty and other employees, celebrities, development cases and you see how the ED advantage quickly disappears.

    Again, no admissions officer is going to open up the can of worms concerning legacy admits in front of a group of people but they know that it exists and the ED pool is heavy with them. Just my opinion YMMV.
  • fenwayparkfenwaypark Registered User Posts: 696 Member
    I believe these excerpts from an article in The Harvard Crimson about 2020 Early Action results may be relevant here:
    When deciding to admit a student during the early cycle, “we want to be not 99 percent certain, but 100 percent certain that we would also admit the person later,” Fitzsimmons said.
    Fitzsimmons also cautioned against the notion that applying early would bolster a student’s odds of admission, instead attributing the higher acceptance rate for early applicants to the stronger applicant pool during the early cycle.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/12/11/early-action-class-2020/

  • i_wanna_be_Browni_wanna_be_Brown Forum Champion Brown Posts: 8,254 Forum Champion
    Definitely relevant, but of course need to consider what influence, if any, binding ED vs. non-binding SCEA has.
  • fenwayparkfenwaypark Registered User Posts: 696 Member
    Cannot come up with a distinction between ED and SCEA as it may affect the selectivity of either type of early program. Welcome others' thoughts. For now I am taking to heart the comments of Dean Miller (ED) and Dean Fitzsimmons (SCEA) that ED/SCEA do not increase the odds of admission at their respective schools.

    Just looked at the Early results at Penn and HYP.

    Penn says it admitted 54% of its expected class in ED.

    HYP, as we know, are SCEA. Applying a yield of 80-90% to their SCEA acceptances and comparing them to likely respective class sizes for 2020, I come up with about 50% for each of them.

    Brown admitted 669 ED, and yield should be close to 100%. Class size should be somewhere between 1650 and 1700. This means about 40% of the class will have been accepted early.

    Cannot clearly articulate why, but I think early acceptance ratios should be below 50%. Otherwise we should refer to Early Decision as Regular Decision, and Regular Decision as Late Decision...I think.

  • i_wanna_be_Browni_wanna_be_Brown Forum Champion Brown Posts: 8,254 Forum Champion
    edited December 2015
    Cannot come up with a distinction between ED and SCEA as it may affect the selectivity of either type of early program.
    I guess given the schools (and in particular, Harvard) that use SCEA you're right that it's probably not a factor because of the high yields - which I didn't really consider when I wrote my earlier post. At other schools, the lack of a guaranteed matriculation in SCEA vs. ED could be meaningful.
2»
This discussion has been closed.