<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, this is your assumption, not a fact. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t HYP. Cornell will never have an acceptance rate that low.</p>
<p>
You’re basing your whole mathematical argument on assumptions. That alone weakens your argument enormously.</p>
<p>
You’re guessing this particular information now? You cannot provide a definitive source to back this claim up? Again, your argument is weakened and I fail to believe these guess/assumptions as credible claims.</p>
<p>
Once again, another claim based on an assumption.</p>
<p>How can we take your argument seriously if you fail to provide any sources that SPECIFICALLY support the claims you make? Just because you provide a source about the total number of students accepted from Cornell doesn’t mean that it’s safe for you to assume that more than 1/2 of those applicants were athletes/legacy applicants accepted through ED. You need to provide a source that definitively proves that 1/2 of those applicants were athletes/legacy applicants. If my argument was based on assumptions, would you take me seriously?</p>
<p>lazykid, I don’t think anyone really has a big disagreement with the assumption.
do you have any other analysis?
tell us
look at the link and the stats from cornell
my point about admit rates deals with the unhooked applicants that applied ed
look at the stats from cornell and give us your best estimate of the chance of an unhooked ed applicant. by any analysis, it comes up between 5% and 9% - just for that category - unhooked ed applicants that get in
thanks</p>
<p>Yunsang - tell us in your opinion, even rough estimate,
of the 250 athletes that got in, how many got in ed?
of the 750 legacy that got in, how many got in ed?
1100 total got in ed
you tell us about how many of the approximately 1100, using estimates or whatever, got in ED.
yes, about 750 is an assumption. probably higher.
statistical analysis and operations research do involve assumptions which do not defeat the reliability of the study.
if 75% of the ed admits were athletic or legacy, then the unhooked that got in ed (even in a weaker pool) were super stellar applicants who had a shot at many, even all of the top schools.
Give us a reason why you think this analysis, with the assumption, is not accurate.
Look at Wuchu’s post a few above this.</p>
<p>FWIW, at the CAS info session we attended this summer, the adcom stated, to the effect, that they generally did not defer ED applicants to RD, since if they did not clearly make the cut in ED there is basically no way they would make it in RD. The implication, for the subject of this thread, is obvious.</p>
<p>Other colleges at Cornell may operate differently.</p>
<p>@monydayd - good point
question, based on the above and the link from cornell, given that they take 250 athletes and 750 legacy overall
and about 1100ed total, do you think for the unhooked applicant it is easier to get in ed or rd
just looking for your opinion as you are a source of helpful information
thank you</p>
<p>To be honest I’m too lazy to do any arithmetic, because it’s not a big concern of mine, or my family. I personally take the adcom at her word, since it is identical to what an adcom at a top LAC told me about his school, and identical to what I’ve read others say, and identical to what a research study I found says. I’ve no reason to doubt it.</p>
<p>In the “A is for Admissions” book, a former Dartmouth adcom writes,</p>
<p>“If you are looking for a way to increase your chances of getting into an Ivy, one possibility is to apply early decision, or early action”.</p>
<p>Benefits to college she cites include: set standard for the incoming class, 100% yield, get a solid body of students who are excited to attend. </p>
<p>From some cruising around the web I did a while ago when this came up elsewhere:</p>
<p>Here’s Carnegie Mellon:</p>
<p>"Both Steidel and Elliott agreed that the advantage of early decision is that it allows admissions counselors to know which students want to come here the most.</p>
<p>“I would rather have kids who wanted to come here first than other kids who applied regular decision because they didn’t get into other schools,” Elliott said. “</p>
<p>Here’s a UC chancellor & author of an admissions book:
"The advantage of early decision for a college is that the college knows that each student who is accepted early decision will indeed enroll in the fall; there is no guesswork. Even early action eliminates guesswork for a college—most have learned that a student admitted early action, even though the decision isn’t binding, is more likely to attend that college than a student admitted during the regular decision cycle. The early application process appears to be an efficient way to match students who want a given college with a college that wants them, and it looks like everyone wins. But the answer is not that simple.</p>
<p>Critics of early decision (and to some extent, early action) point out that it has become something that it was never intended to be—an admissions strategy that increases the chances of being accepted to a selective institution. Some colleges have admissions rates two or three times higher for early applicants compared with regular decision applicants, and fill from one-third to one-half of their freshman classes from the early pool. As a result, the much larger pool of regular decision applicants ends up competing for fewer slots well after the much smaller group of early applicants has secured a place."</p>
<p>an older magazine article:</p>
<p>"The real question about the ED skew is whether the prospects for any given student differ depending on when he or she applies. Last fall Christopher Avery, of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and several colleagues produced smoking-gun evidence that they do. The authors analyzed five years’ worth of admissions records from fourteen selective colleges, involving a total of 500,000 applications, and interviewed 400 college students, sixty high school seniors, and thirty-five counselors. They found that at the ED schools an early application was worth as much in the competition for admission as scoring 100 extra points on the SAT. For instance, a student with a combined SAT score of 1400 to 1490 (out of 1600) who applied early was as likely to be accepted as a regular-admission student scoring 1500 to 1600. An early student scoring 1200 to 1290 was more likely to be accepted than a regular student scoring 1300 to 1390. </p>
<h2>The equivalent of a 100-point increase in SAT scores makes an enormous difference in an applicant’s chances, especially for a mid-1400s candidate. Indeed, the difference is so important as to be a highly salable commodity. A gain of roughly 100 points is what The Princeton Review guarantees students who invest $500 and up in its test-prep courses. The Avery study’s findings were the more striking because what admissions officers refer to as “hooked” applicants were excluded from the study. These are students given special consideration, and therefore likely to be admitted despite lower scores, because of “legacy” factors (alumni parents or other relatives, plus past or potential donations from the family), specific athletic recruiting, or affirmative action. "</h2>
<p>"Below this formal structure lies a crucial reality, which Penn is almost alone in forthrightly disclosing: students have a much better chance of being admitted if they apply early decision than if they wait to join the regular pool. </p>
<h2>For instance, when selecting its class of 2004, which entered college last fall, Yale admitted more than a third (37 percent) of the students who applied early and less than a sixth (16 percent) of those who applied regular. The most extreme difference among major colleges was at Columbia, where 40 percent of the earlies and 14 percent of the regulars were accepted. Amherst accepted 35 percent of the earlies and 19 percent of the regulars. Hamilton College, in upstate New York, took 70 percent of the earlies and 43 percent of the regulars. At the University of Pennsylvania 47 percent of early applicants and 26 percent of regular applicants were admitted. "</h2>
<p>“Years ago many children of alums were not viewing Penn as their first choice, so they didn’t apply early,” he said. “We said we were willing to give them a measure of preference, but only if they were serious about coming.” It made sense, he added, for Penn to extend the policy to applicants in general: if they are extra serious about Penn, Penn will make an extra effort for them. “We’ve been very direct about it,” Stetson told me. “Everybody likes to be loved, and we’re no exception. Everybody likes to see a sign of commitment, and it helps in the selection process.” Bruce Poch, the admissions director at Pomona College, in California, is generally a critic of an overemphasis on early plans, but he agrees that they can help morale. “It’s worth something to the institution to enroll kids who view the college as their first choice,” he says. “Fewer people are whining about transferring from Day One. They turn out to be a lot of the campus leaders.” This was part of Penn’s strategy in pushing its binding ED plan. “I would say that these days eighty percent of our students view Penn as their first choice,” Lee Stetson concluded. “You can’t overstate what that does for the mood of the campus.” </p>
<p>“It does something else as well, which is understood by every college administrator in the country but by very few parents or students. The more freshmen a college admits under a binding ED plan, the fewer acceptances it needs from the regular pool to fill its class—and the better it will look statistically. That statistical improvement can have significant consequences.”</p>
<p>From the Avery et al, paper:
“There is a common belief, validated in this paper, that selective colleges favor early applicants in admissions decisions.” </p>
<p>And here is a link to that paper:
<a href=“http://ericchaing.org/files/Avery_2001_WP.pdf[/url]”>http://ericchaing.org/files/Avery_2001_WP.pdf</a></p>
<p>Now, some of this is old. Could everything be different now? Yes, but more likely in degree than as an absolute matter IMO. The comments by the two adcoms I heard were not old at all. Could their comments be incorrect? I suppose.</p>
<p>But I don’t care much. I am inclined to take their word for it. After all, I am not looking at the total content of those applications, to see what happens to equally strong applicants in both cycles. But they, unlike me, are in a position to do so.</p>
<p>Great post mony dad, interesting analysis. thank you for your effort
question is this, if cornell takes about 1100 ed and a total of about 1000 legacy and athletes (ed and rd), what percentage do you think of that 1000 got in ed?
If it is anything like 75%, then getting in ed unhooked is between 5% and 15% depending on the exact numbers.</p>
<p>Again, I am too lazy to do arithmetic, plus I am not looking at these applications to determine that they are all comparably qualified.</p>
<p>ok, thank you for the info in your post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know where your assumption comes from - that all athletic recruits apply ED. I personally knew a kid from my high school who was a heavily recruited athlete, and he applied RD to all schools he was recruited to. He had like 1800 SAT and top 25% class rank, but ended up getting into Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth RD. (He goes to Harvard now) </p>
<p>Rather than engaging in pointless speculations, I urge you to apply ED to Cornell if you really are set on increasing your chances of getting into Cornell.</p>
<p>You guys can all hold on to your own assumptions. Ｅｎｇｌａｎｄ, Ｉｔ’ｓ ｎｏｔ ｐｏｓｓｉｂｌｅ ｆｏｒ ｕｓ ｔｏ ｐｒｏｖｅ ｔｈａｔ ｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｏｆ ｏｕｒ ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔｓ ｉｓ １００％ ｔｒｕｅ. Ｉｆ ｙｏｕ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｔｈｉｎｋ ａｐｐｌｙｉｎｇ ＥＤis harder, then go for RD. It’s your choice. Ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌｉｔｙ ｉｓ ｔｈａｔ ａｌｍｏｓｔ ｅｖｅｒｙｂｏｄｙ ｏｕｔ ｔｈｅｒｅ, even the school staffs and reps themselves (and in A for admissions, even the admissions board executive), agree that ED ｗｏｕｌｄ ｓｕｂｓｔａｎｔｉａｌｌｙ ｉｍｐｒｏｖｅ ａｎｙｂｏｄｙ’ｓ ｃｈａｎｃｅｓ. Just like school choice, don’t over-analyze.</p>
<p>Ｉ ｄｏｎ’ｔ ｋｎｏｗ ｗｈｙ ｍｙ ｆｏｎｔ ｉｓ ｗｅｉｒｄ.</p>
<p>everyone keeps talking about legacy. isn’t that if a parent of yours graduated from there and now you have a greater chance? if that’s it, then really, how many legacies can there be? not many</p>
<p>@riadapki - read the link above from cornell showing the # of legacy admits (750) at cornell - it is about 25% of the class, how many of those 750 got in ed is the question </p>
<p>@lazy, good point, heavily recruited athletes get in with even way lower stats than that, my school had a 3.0 / 1640 out of 2400 go to Stanford and play football. For recruited athletes for major sports, the numbers are not super important. that has been the case for ever.
at the admission session I went to at Cornell last year the person said that most of their recruited athletes go ED. it makes sense so the coaches can lock up their teams.
i was just asking if anyone out there has any ideal of how much of the 1000 or so total athletes and legacy got in ed. nothing else. if it is a large number of the total of the 1100 total admitted ed, then it makes getting in ed for the unhooked super competitive.
maybe the assumption is wrong
yet doing the math, with even 75% of the 1000 athletes and legacy going ed, still makes it super difficult ed for the unhooked.
thank you for your input on this</p>
<p>actually, there can be a lot of legacies. Think about it – if every alumnus has 2 children with someone that isn’t an alumnus, they’d have 2x the number. But the reality is that this doesn’t happen for a lot of reasons – that and not many legacy applicants are very strong candidates.</p>
<p>England you are only relying on that point over and over again. You are basing a lot of that argument on assumption.
"i was just asking if anyone out there has any ideal of how much of the 1000 or so total athletes and legacy got in ed. nothing else. "
Nobody knows and nobody bothers to know. That’s because they listen to the admissions representatives themselves, since they’re the ones that make the decision. They are probably not liars.</p>
<p>Trust me, Cornell ED is one of the easiest/best EDs out there (in terms of increasing your own chances of getting in, in comparison to RD).</p>
<p>ok antiflamer, you are right. won’t argue with you.
I did listen to the cornell admission rep who could not have been clearer when she said that almost all of their recruited athletes were considered in the early round.
the stanford rep that came to my school said almost 40% of their total admits during a program called single choice early action were athletic recruits. I know Stanford is an athletic power, but just offering the statistic.
can we end this thread?
p.s. we don’t have to speculate about the number of legacy or athletic admits - cornell gives it out every year</p>
<p>My S applied ED (no hooks, 2190 SAT, GPA OK but not great, tough academic private school, 7 APs) and did not get in ED nor deferred to RD. I just think the competition from so many applicants (including hook-ers) because of the sheer population and everyone applying to 10 schools each has thrown some conventional wisdom off about what it takes to get in. My S was disappointed but will do fine at another U in their honors college for much less cost (that i’m pleased with!).</p>
<p>^ What school did he apply to?</p>