<p>I knew this post would raise questions. The obvious answer is; do not do it, as it is against admissions policy…period.
I would like to know how many people think the policy should be revamped? When applying to schools with less than 10% acceptance rates why should one not be allowed to apply to two schools early? It seems the policies are in place to favor the schools… not the applicants.
Let’s say a student has the highest grades, SAT, EC’s, volunteering etc. and they apply to an elite college ED. Their dream school. All ducks in order, but still denied for no conceivable reason. They then must apply RD to other schools in order of preference. Now, let’s say their three top choices deny and they go to their safety. Everyone says that’s ok, that’s where they belong,and they will do great. That’s bull. Why should this kid that did it all and then some through high school be denied because EARLY policies are so restrictive.
One will want to flip the coin over and say “if they show that well, one of their top choices will admit them.” With top schools admitting only 10% of applicants and having to meet quotas, it is very likely one may not be admitted to their 4 top choices. Applying EARLY does give one a better chance of acceptance,the numbers prove that.
No wonder many children sweat the process. I am happy to say with complete honesty that my daughter is not one of them.
I am posing all this because I would like to get a consensus on the subject. It seems thatthere are many with good points of view on the subject. </p>
<p>
Uh, yes. Why would you think otherwise? They are competing for some top students so why not tip in their favor?
Why should colleges have ANY early admission policies? They do it to lock in top students.</p>
<p>@cptofthehouse Many public schools are highly time sensitive concerning scholarships as well. Nearly all of the publics our D applied to required the application be in before November 1st. to be considered for merit scholarships.</p>
<p>I agree with @Erin’s Dad – you’re talking like these policies are there to benefit someone other than the school that has the policy. That’s like assuming that stores have Labor Day sales for the convenience of the customers, rather than to get you to come buy their stuff when you otherwise might not have left the house.</p>
<p>Many believe that ED and SCEA unfairly favor those who don’t need to compare different schools’ financial aid offers. Perhaps the better question for you to ask is “should schools have early action/decision policies at all?” If the schools’ goal is to find out which students are sufficiently committed to the school that they’ll bind themselves to go there if accepted, they could just have an ED II policy (submit app at the same time as RD, but it’s binding). That would allow students to compare financial aid offers with their RD schools. However, I’m sure there’s some benefit to the schools to having the early applications coming in, or they wouldn’t still have those policies.</p>
<p>Op,
Is the second school EA or SCEA? At our HS, both the student and the parent signs off if they are applying to a SCEA or ED school that they understand the rules and will abide by them. Not sure if the GC also signs a note to the college stating that they understand as well. Basically, nothing really happens to the student but the GC and their HS can be blacklisted from any SCEA or ED acceptances in the future. This is the way that colleges try to control the blatant disregard for the rules from occurring. So I would think that most GCs will not allow the filing of both. And you are required to go thru the GC to file transcripts and GC LORs.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t really have any problem with ED or SCEA policies. It’s your choice to opt into them, if you feel that it is too restrictive for you, whatever the reason may be, then don’t do it. You don’t get something (the advantage of ED) for nothing, you have to give up something in exchange (the ability to apply to other schools early). @lkgrg17, I think you are mistaken in your premise. You seem to think that just because a kid “did it all” in high school, they deserve to go to a high level school, which isn’t true at all. Plenty of kids do it all and don’t go. There is no academic “price of admission” to go to these schools. Viewing it as a trade (I do a bunch of stuff with the understanding that this will get me into an elite school) is a road to disaster and heartbreak. </p>
<p>Deleted</p>
<p>Op,
I may be misremembering the details, but Both Harvard and Princeton elimated their early action policies in attempts to level the playing field between wealthy and poorer applicants (so that they could weigh FA packages). Other schools did not follow them. I believe it affected H & P stats and also maybe they felt that top students were going to other colleges who had kept their SCEA or ED polices in place. Thus h and p recently reversed back to having SCEA.</p>
<p>The way I viewed is similar to post #25. Learning and doing your best is the prize, not getting into these schools.
One puts too much faith in these schools.</p>