<p>I heard that over 50% of students who applied early have now gotten in, so I’m guessing that those applying regular will need higher stats then those who applied early. gah, oh well, guess I should just put the deposit down to another college.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that depend on how many people apply later? And on what the yield is for early applicants vs. regular applicants?</p>
<p>Don’t you think GT (or any college) would be a little conservative early, hoping to relax things a little bit later? Otherwise, you’re shooting yourself in the foot by having to raise standards as you go.</p>
<p>No, because you have to consider that the people who apply early are probably more qualified than the people that apply later. </p>
<p>Who are the people that apply early? Well, many of them are the kids that have spent the last 4 years planning their college education. They studied hard for the SAT and took it a bunch of times, they’ve watched their GPA like a hawk, and they’ve planned out their EC’s. They probably wrote their college essay over the summer and had multiple English teachers review it. When applications opened, up, they had their application submitted in the first few hours to 10 different schools. That might be a little extreme, but you get the idea of the type of people applying in the first round to colleges - they’re organized, on a mission, and have researched schools that are a match.</p>
<p>In the regular decision round, you still get some of those extreme Type-A students (some, but not as many as in the early round), but you also get a large number of students that fall into the “I didn’t get into ______ so now I need to apply to Georgia Tech.” or the “Well… I should probably apply to a college or two to get my parents off my back.” or the “I got into my reach school. Let’s see if I can get into an extreme reach by applying to GT.” All of these signal that the applicant is probably not the 2400 SAT / 4.0 UWGPA type. They could be, but they’re less likely to be than the group that applies early. </p>
<p>So in the end, I think you see less top students in the RD round and more unqualified students. So I wouldn’t let the acceptance % in the ED round deter you from applying RD. </p>
<p>It would be interesting to see GT’s averages for ED and RD applicants. I’m willing to bet that it’s a very noticeable difference. Probably a 100 point or more SAT difference.</p>
<p>that’s pretty good. 100 points less? That would be awesome, right now my sat is right with the (ajc) printed average (1436 ~ 1440 m&cr) as well as my GPA ( 4.06 gatech weighted) I was thinking it would go up to at least 1550 and to a 4.1/4.15 GA weighted.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that it would be easier to get in. I’m saying that the ED applicants are probably of a higher quality and therefore have a higher acceptance rate than the RD applicants. So don’t let a high ED acceptance rate scare you off. </p>
<p>Your odds are the same ED and RD since GT is applying the same standard.</p>
<p>SAT isn’t everything I got in with a 650 math 630 CR and 590 W with a 4.2 Ga tech weighted, 3 AP classes with a 4 in US, 4 in psych, and 3 in world. However, I feel I wrote one hell of an essay.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to imply that. SAT score is an objective value where I can throw out a number and it has meaning in terms of differentiating applicants. I could have used GPA and it would have been the same. If I tried to describe the difference in terms of EC quality, for example, it would have taken many more words and would have been less clear.</p>