Daughter got accepted, not sure I can afford it

calmom
Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:47:53 +0000

So, you don’t believe that ANY students are admitted ED and would not have been admitted RD? I do;

I think that number is quite small when applied to unhooked applicants; and that at a highly selective college like Swarthmore, the primary beneficiaries of ED are more likely to be strong candidates than weak.

Here’s why: I think that ED pools tend to be self-selecting, and it is not in the institutional interest of a school to tie up spots with borderline applicants. So they are going to choose from the top of the pool, not from the bottom.

Let’s say hypothetically we assign some sort of admissions index score to the student, for purposes of illustration. All applicants are ranked 1-9 based on a combination of factors, with 10 being highest.

Let’s just also say hypothetically that in the RD pool the median score is 5, but in the ED pool, the median is 6. Finally, let’s say that this school only accepts students with index scores in the 6-9 range, with a preference for students who rank 7 or above. (They accept less than 1/3 of applicants overall, so assuming an even distribution of scores, they don’t have to accept anyone in the bottom 2/3 of their applicant pool).

So based on this hypothetical, students with scores in the range of 7-9 are likely to be admitted whenever they apply. A student with a 6 is iffy – but that student would only make the cut ED if half or more of ED applicants were accepted, given that 6 is the median for the ED pool. So one would expect that, in ED, the college would admit all the 8-9’s, some of the 7’s, possibly defer some of the 6-7’s, and reject the 5’s and unders. The problem with admitting lower scoring students ED is one of information – in a borderline case, the ad com is going to want to see midyear grades, unless the applicant is borderline for some reason other than academic performance (such as high GPA, low test scores).

However, in the RD round, the college has to focus on yield – and that’s where 6’s might benefit, and 9’s might suffer. Why? Because the 9’s look like students who are likely to be cross-admitted to other school, and less likely to attend. So in that RD pool, the 6’s & 7’s are probably the most likely to attend. So the admission focus at that time might shift downward a little in the pool – or at least look for very overt signs of interest from the high end students.

Now, of course, if you assume that the ED pool is weaker than the RD pool – a median score level of, say, 4 – then the balance shifts somewhat.



there’s plenty of evidence that hooks–or rather, “institutional priorities”–exist, and all of the “unhooked” applicants still have to receive a decision.

Actually, for the most selective colleges, I think that it’s reasonable to assume that ALL of the admitted students fill some sort of institutional priority, ED or otherwise.

I don’t see how ED itself becomes an institutional priority unless the college is having difficulty filling spots. That is - if the size or quality of the applicant pool goes down, then ED is important – but as long as there is a rising trend, then it seems that the ad com has no particular reason to value the commitment of a weaker, unhooked applicant. (They KNOW they will be able to fill the class with stronger applicants).

I mean… do you believe the ED pool to be substantially weaker at Swarthmore than the RD pool? If so, why?