Who says ED/SCEA do not reward the early bird

Parents Forum
1

<p>Here are the percentages that represent a candidate’s higher odds to be admitted in the early round than in the RD round. Yep, almost FIVE times at Harvard. And a lot different from the bonus odd at the neighboring MIT. </p>

<p>2017 Higher ED/EA Chances
230% Brown
341% Columbia
219% Cornell
344% Dartmouth
490% Harvard
254% Penn
336% Princeton
268% Yale
138% MIT</p>

<p>And ranked from the bigger reward to the smaller</p>

<p>2017 Higher ED/EA Chances
490% Harvard
344% Dartmouth
341% Columbia
336% Princeton
268% Yale
254% Penn
230% Brown
219% Cornell
138% MIT</p>

2

<p>MIT has me convinced that EA is not a bonus there. The other schools though…</p>

3

<p>ED, & SCEA numbers include recruited athletes, which can comprise a high % of the total early acceptances at colleges that field a lot of sport teams.
They also include many legacy and faculty offspring , and DA kids, all of whom do get an extra “thumb on the scale”.
That leaves very few early slots for non legacy, non recruited , non DA kids.
So SCEA and ED ends up “rewarding” early applicants who can afford to pay full freight or applicants with “hooks”.
That leaves out most applicants.</p>

4

<p>Also the people that apply ED/SCEA are more likely to be the most qualified of them all, explaining a higher acceptance rate.</p>

5

<p>It is fair to assume that all the usual explanations have been repeated ad nauseam. Yes, there are athletes, development cases, and must have academic stars. The rest of the “splaining” falls flat, at least if one wants to believe the seminal study by Avery et al on the higher qualifications of the early pool that debunked that version. Or unless wants to believe that the lower statistical power of the pool is totally watered down by athletes and trust fund babies. </p>

<p>But let’s “buy” the higher admissions for better qualified student hypothesis! But then a FIVE TO ONE ratio at Harvard? And how does that ratio compare to MIT? Or should we believe that MIT would change if they were to adopt the SCEA model? </p>

<p>Is there a bottom line? Yes, no matter how one slices it, the ED/SCEA is the absolute best weapon for candidates … the very rich ones and the very poor ones, and plenty of folks in between. Regardless of the reasons why the ED/SCEA stats are distorting the overall admission numbers, the members of the Class of 2018 should jump at the opportunity.</p>