Why applying late in the cycle is considered bad?

jurislaw

There seems to be this consensus: applying on late January/early February equals lower chances to get in.

The rolling basis process is real, many schools start accepting people as soon as the application window opens, therefore affecting the seats available. Yet many applicants don't hear back until early spring, actually some numbers even suggest that most applicants send their applications starting January.

https://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/its-early-youre-early-this-whole-damn-place-is-early/

Is it safe to compare the timing with the admission rate? Couldn't this be simply a causation/correlation flaw, just because lots of people get in by applying early on, it could be due to the fact that the most qualified applicants apply early in the cycle and as a consequence are more likely to get in.

I heard a dean of admission -from a competitive school- say that if you don't get in there is a reason why, and timing really doesn't matter.

jurislaw

Any thoughts on this?

MissChanandler

Your thought about better applicants just applying earlier isn't quite correct, because admissions predictors compare the results of candidates with the exact same numbers who apply at different points during the cycle. So a 160 3.5 who applies in October has (generally) better results than a 165 3.5 applying in say February. The other thing is scholarships- even if it's true that application timing has no effect on whether or not you're admitted, there is a limited amount of scholarship funding and if you apply after a big chunk of it has already been given out then you're less likely to get as much as you might have had you applied earlier.

Leah M B

@Rtwrtw08 I think it just depends on each school and how they handle it. I wouldn't be surprised either if the quality of the students applying earlier does tend to be a little better. Those are mostly going to be the ones who have been preparing, working on essays early, making plans and knowing to pull the trigger as early as possible. I could see a case that, besides having similar numbers, earlier applicants may tend to be the more organized, focused sort with better essays.

But that's not all. They also have to play a guessing game of what quality of students will be applying. Spivey mentions in his blog that last cycle may have been harder than average on late applicants. Both quality and quantity of applicants was increased last year. Many schools made early offers to strong candidates not realizing that they were going to have many strong applicants to choose from. UC Irvine definitely seemed to have that issue. From what I heard, their early ASW (I think in Feb or March) was packed. As one very small data point, my numbers were solidly above both 75ths and I got WL there applying in February.

I think schools probably make early offers to particularly strong candidates in order to woo them. An early admit with a large scholarship is going to be very appealing to many applicants. It gives the applicant more time to check out the school, be wooed even more at ASW and time to negotiate the scholarships. Time is a big factor in the admissions process; applying late in January and February gave me only a couple of weeks for some schools between receiving my admission and the deposit deadlines. By the time I was admitted at another school, I only had literally 1 day to send in an application for a fellowship. That makes for a very stressful and harried decision making process. I also think many schools do the rolling admits and early offers in order to alleviate their own stress; early offers also means fewer people to sort through when it gets closer to deadlines.

So all that said, though it is true that with strong numbers you will likely get some admission offers by applying late, the data have consistently shown that early applications fare better than late ones. And as @MissChanandler said, predictors control for things like variation in numbers. What statistics have shown is that applicants with the same exact numbers have a higher likelihood of being admitted (and with larger scholarships) than candidates with the same numbers that apply later.

jurislaw

@MissChanandler said:
Your thought about better applicants just applying earlier isn't quite correct, because admissions predictors compare the results of candidates with the exact same numbers who apply at different points during the cycle. So a 160 3.5 who applies in October has (generally) better results than a 165 3.5 applying in say February.

That's a good point. Still numbers are not always everything, we don't know for certain if early applicants are more prepared as Leah mentioned:

@"Leah M B" said:
Those are mostly going to be the ones who have been preparing, working on essays early, making plans and knowing to pull the trigger as early as possible. I could see a case that, besides having similar numbers, earlier applicants may tend to be the more organized, focused sort with better essays.

In terms of scholarship money yes, your power in negotiating $$ decreases later in the cycle because there's people ahead of you who got first.

Leah M B

@jurislaw Sure. But again, the data have consistently shown that you have a better chance at acceptance applying early rather than late. Sometimes things happen, like for me last year, and late apps are your only choice. But if we're not discussing that and just the broader admissions process, there is pretty much consensus that early apps bode better than late apps. While the dean you spoke with may be the expert on their school, the schools each handle admissions in their own way. Your chances aren't nil in late January and February, but they are noticeably less than October - December.