Cornell RD easier than ED for admission for the unhooked?

Colleges & Universities Cornell University
1

<p>There are many threads and debates about whether Cornell admission is easier ED than RD.
The school says ED gives you a small advantage. Some say that is a myth, look at the cc threads on Cornell ED myth.
Point 1 - most recruited athletes at cornell (as at other schools that have ed) apply ed.
Point 2 - most legacies, if they want to show they honor their legacy, apply ed.
Point 3 - Cornell accepted about 256 athletes last year
Point 4 - Cornell accepted about 753 legacy last year.
Point 5 - ED at cornell last year accepted about 1200.
Point 6 - If even 1/2 (375) of the ed admits were legacy and 250 were athletes, then about 625 of the ed class admits are taken before the unhooked are looked at. the rest of the applicants are left with 1/2 of the ed spaces. If, more than 375 of the ed admits are legacy, then even less than 1/2 of the spaces are left. If 3/4 of the legacy got in ed, then about 75% of the ed admits are athletic and legacy. Getting in ed as an unhooked applicant at cornell is super difficult.
For the unhooked, since Cornell takes so many athletes ed, and a lot of legacy, the math says you have a better chance going RD.<br>
Cornell may take the second most athletes behind California’s Stanford University.</p>

<p>here is the stats from cornell.
look at the letter at the bottom.</p>

<p>[Class</a> of 2014 Experiences Record Low Acceptance Rates | The Cornell Daily Sun](<a href=“http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/04/12/class-2014-experiences-record-low-acceptance-rates]Class”>http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/04/12/class-2014-experiences-record-low-acceptance-rates)</p>

2

<p>

</p>

<p>Honestly, who cares? And, more importantly, RD is certainly no easier than ED. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Source for this claim? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>These sound like mere speculations on your part. For instance, you would be surprised to know that legacy applicants don’t get noticeable boosts in admissions. There is no way in hell that 3/4 of all legacy applicants would get into Cornell. Being a legacy is a minor soft factor, not a major boost. Being a recruited athlete or being black, on the other hand, is a different story.</p>

3

<p>I wouldn’t say legacy is that soft of a factor, but it certainly can’t make an applicant with SAT of say 1900 overshadow one with 2300. But on the whole, I agree with lazy. RD cannot be easier than ED. Having a lot of applicants with such “hooks” would make the hooks dull, and a regular “unhooked” 2300 applicant with solid academics and ecs would certainly gleam through in a lackluster pile of under avg applicants that have such similar “hooks”. For both types of applicants, ED helps their chances. There is just no way a school would penalize you for showing such commitment and substantiating proof of your interest in the school.</p>

<p>Your link does not prove point 6. It only shows where you got your numbers in the other points.</p>

4

<p>@lazy
read my post, I never said anything like 3/4 of all legacy applicants get in ed or rd.
cornell itself says that they accepted 753 legacy last year.
are you saying that cornell’s own numbers are wrong?
if most of those legacy applicants got in ed, then that #, combined with athletes, leaves very few places for the unhooked ed applicant
I’m basing this off cornell’s numbers.
as for recruited athletes, my school had about 15, and everyone of them that was recruited by a school offering ed, went ed.
read the post
read the numbers from cornell itself and do the math
ps - I never said legacy is a big factor - it is not
legacy from big money is a huge factor
recruited athlete is a big factor
minority is not that big anymore</p>

5

<p>^ have you considered the possibility (more like reality though) that maybe not that many academically solid, non “hooked” (URM, athlete, legacy) applied ED? Stronger applicants tend to push their chances because if they apply to say, 10 schools, the chances are that at least 2 top schools will accept them. If they really still wanted to go to Cornell then, they would choose Cornell at their own will. They feel privileged enough to have a choice.</p>

6

<p>@antiflamer - are you saying that most recruited athletes at ed schools don’t go ed?
try talking to the coach of any sport team at your school or cornell
look at how many cornell accepted last year, if most of the athletes went ed, and even 1/2 to 3/4 of the legacy admitted went ed, then there is not much room left for the unhooked kids ed
this is using cornell’s own numbers
why is this wrong?</p>

7

<p>It is certainly remarkable that CC posters inquire about these kinds of things, but one has to really be careful of the speculations that they make about things that they don’t verify first.</p>

<p>

What basis or foundation do you have of this actually being true? How exactly do you know the mindset behind athletes when they’re applying to college and how do you know that the legacies wouldn’t really care about honoring their legacy advantage? A sophomore that I know attends Cornell right now that I am very close with has a younger sister who applied to MIT for ED last year, not Cornell. She ended up going to Cornell via RD because she was deferred from MIT. </p>

<p>

How do you know these numbers represent half of the remaining ED spots left over? The point that athletes/legacy applicants have an advantage over unhooked applicants is certainly true, but what makes you think that they occupy more than 1/2 the ED spaces? You require a definitive source that helps validate this claim, because otherwise your point is moot.</p>

<p>

Again, the key term “may” also suggests that this is not a definitive point. Even if you claimed that Cornell does indeed take the second highest number of athletes, where is your source? </p>

<p>You need sources to confirm each and every aspect of the argument that you’re trying to make here. Speculations/Assumptions are not going to allow you to win here.</p>

8

<p>When did i ever say recruited athletes don’t generally go ED? Trust me, even in ED, after accepting so many academically lackluster candidates, no matter what their hooks are, they would want academically strong students to buffer the drop in average scores/statistics. They have their own means of standing out in the ED pool.</p>

<p>Speaking from personal experience: I am unhooked. I applied ED. I got in because of my academic strength. My acceptance isn’t entirely representative of Cornell admissions on the whole, but it goes to show that getting an “Unhooked” but academically strong applicant isn’t as hard as you make it out to be. In reality, it is actually much easier for such applicants to excel in ED.</p>

9

<p>perhaps i should reword my original post to avoid confusion</p>

<p>"^ have you considered the possibility (more like reality though) that maybe not that many academically solid, non “hooked” (people that are not URM, athlete, legacy but have excellent academic records and ecs) applied ED? Stronger applicants tend to push their chances because if they apply to say, 10 schools, the chances are that at least 2 top schools will accept them. If they really still wanted to go to Cornell then, they would choose Cornell at their own will. They feel privileged enough to have a choice. "</p>

<p>That would account for the seemingly low # of seats available for non-hooked applicants and its connection to admission difficulty for non-hooked applicants. The unhooked pool itself is much weaker to begin with as well, so they don’t accept as many people as you expect from the “unhooked” pool.</p>

10

<p>you do realize that at the orientation the rep said multiple times when people asked that ED is easier due to the fact that you are showing the highest level of commitment to the university</p>

11

<p>@antiflamer, all good points by you
perhaps you are in fact a very strong applicant that would have gained admission at many schools, including HYPS through regular applications.</p>

12

<p>Don’t assume all athletic recruits and legacy candidates are below the norm in SATs, GPA, etc. and getting in only because of that status.</p>

13

<p>no one would ever assume any such thing.
the question indeed is what % of the 250 and 750 (1000 total) athletes and legacy got in ed? If it is even as much as 75% which would appear reasonable, then there are not many spots left for the unhooked ed when they only take about 1200 ed a year.
this is the issue at hand.</p>

14

<p>^ like i said, there are probably not that many well qualified non-athlete non-URM non-legacy ED applicants anyways</p>

15

<p>well, I looked closely at the numbers from the provost letter in the link.
[Class</a> of 2014 Experiences Record Low Acceptance Rates | The Cornell Daily Sun](<a href=“http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/04/12/class-2014-experiences-record-low-acceptance-rates]Class”>http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/04/12/class-2014-experiences-record-low-acceptance-rates)
If you total up the athletic admits and legacy admits, and estimate that 75% of that total # got in ed, which seems reasonable, then getting into cornell rd is probably a little easier than ed if you have no hook at all.
the numbers are from cornell, so i say they are actual numbers.
this is just my opinion. I’m not really 100% sure.</p>

16

<p>^ like i said, there are probably not that many well qualified non-athlete non-URM non-legacy ED applicants anyways</p>

<p>the ones that are qualified or close to qualified (given the ED bump) filled the rest of that 25%. There just weren’t too many of these types applying.</p>

17

<p>so the unhooked that got in and filled what few ed spaces were remaining were the best of a pool not as strong as rd? could be right.
I was looking at it in terms of % - meaning that the rd admit rate may be higher than the unhooked ed admit rate.</p>

18

<p>Just think about it. The college won’t penalize you for showing more interest and binding yourself by applying ED than say RD. Ultimately, it’s up to you to appeal to the admissions board. Don’t let numbers cloud your judgement and common sense, when those numbers don’t give you the full picture anyways. Perhaps the strength of the “unhooked” ED pool got close to that of the RD pool, but applying ED could not have made their chances worse. This is especially true this year, when the ED pool is smaller and acceptance rates for ED is higher than last year’s.</p>

19

<p>i did some calculations with a few minor assumptions and it does seem that getting into cornell ED for an unhooked applicant is substantially more difficult than for an unhooked rd applicant. my only question is can’t what you just said be applied to all ED schools? so really, they are all distorted. </p>

<p>and i think i agree with the statement by antiflamer that less qualified applicants apply ED, so the acceptance rate after factoring in hooked applicants is still distorted by a substantially different level applicant pool.</p>

<p>but i also agree that applying ED cannot possibly hurt you. that is silly to me. i don’t think i would’ve applied ED if i knew i was going to be penalized for it lol.</p>

<p>also, i remember seeing in this thread that georgetown’s ED acceptance rate is lower than it’s RD acceptance rate, which is kind of mind boggling. and doesn’t georgetown care a lot about sports and thus has a lot of recruited athletes (at least for basketball)? weird</p>

20

<p>this is the basic thing we are talking about: Cornell gives us the amount of athletic recruits and legacies they accepted and the # admitted ed in last year’s class. If we “assume” that most of the athletes are ed - which knowing many athletes is kind of obvious, and even 3/4 of the legacy admits are ed, then for those that got in unhooked, they just about got in with a 5-9% chance of getting in. i wonder how many ed applicants to cornell who got in know this?? the ones that got into cornell ed unhooked probably had a good chance at every other school.
here is the stats from cornell in the letter at the bottom of the link:
<a href=“http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/04/12/class-2014-experiences-record-low-acceptance-rates[/url]”>http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2010/04/12/class-2014-experiences-record-low-acceptance-rates&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Is it true that rd is easier (not ed) for the unhooked)?</p>

<h2>do the math with just a few minor assumptions like wuchu did and the answer is that RD is definitely easier for the unhooked.</h2>

<p>"Wuchu
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cornell '15
Posts: 259</p>

<h2>i did some calculations with a few minor assumptions and it does seem that getting into cornell ED for an unhooked applicant is substantially more difficult than for an unhooked rd applicant."</h2>

<p>I agree with you. It is just upsetting that they say in their info sessions that ed gives you a slight boost. the fact, using their very own numbers from the provost letter, shows that after athletic and legacy accepts (which probably total about 80% or more of the ed accepts) there is very little room left for the unhooked applicant. </p>

<p>about ed having some less qualified applicants that are not hooked, maybe so, but there are so very few spots left for the unhooked in ed, that the ones chosen, on average, are probably super qualified. it really would not surprise me if the unhooked acceptances during early decision are applicants that could have been in contention at HYPS type schools. a lot of the unhooked applied ed to cornell to get an edge over rd,
fact, however, is that if they got accepted they were probably amazingly qualified because after the recruits and legacies, etc, there are very few spaces left ed.</p>

<p>athletics: I don’t have stats for you, but my guess is that second to Stanford, Cornell because of the many athletic programs at the school, recruits the most athletes. </p>

<p>this is the basic thing we are talking about: Cornell gives us the amount of athletic recruits and legacies they accepted and the # admitted ed. If we “assume” that most of the athletes are ed - which knowing many athletes is kind of obvious, and even 3/4 of the legacy are ed, then for those that got in unhooked, they just about got in with a 5-9% chance of getting in. i wonder how many ed applicants to cornell who got in know this??</p>