<p>Brown’s ED applicants dropped by 4.5% from last years numbers, only to hit a record high for RD - and, indeed, total applications.</p>
<p>Any thoughts about why this happened? It doesn’t seem to be ED; Dartmouth and Columbia fared well with the same system. Very curious as to any insight.</p>
<p>The economy. People need to compare offers.</p>
<p>4.5% falls within normal variation, particularly given the consistent increases in applicant numbers over the last several years</p>
<p>that being said, the economy may certainly have played a role. brown's drop is primarily driven by the PLME program, which requires an 8 year committment to the school. this is obviously a much tougher proposal during hard times</p>
<p>Yup, my understanding is a huge portion of the drop for ED was fewer PLME applicants.</p>
<p>Another reasoning is that people were probably less likely to go ED places they perceived as not having as much financial aid resources (a reputation Brown has, but I don't think it matches reality) due to the financial crisis.</p>
<p>I actually think that Brown should go to all admissions being binding, but that's another issue.</p>
<p>It would make sense that many students who might have applied ED to Brown this year are instead applying RD just to hedge their bets about financial aid. </p>
<p>I know that my husband I would not have let our child apply ED to an expensive private school like Brown this year. It is the school that determines what the family's financial "need" is, and tapping into home equity and similar measures to meet our full EFC -- much less any "gap" -- are just not possible in this economy. So we would still let him apply RD if Brown were his dream school and maybe we would luck out and get enough financial aid to make it feasible for him to attend. But we would also insist that he apply to several other schools -- especially schools with overall low COAs (our State universities) and/or schools that we know that we could afford with likely merit aid.</p>
<p>The ED and RD numbers seem all over the map this year -- some schools way up, others down. Since a trend is not determined by just one year, I doubt we can read much into those statistics.</p>
<p>My recollection is that Brown's ED numbers rose a lot between 2006 and 2007 -- is it possible that 2007 was an off year, and that this year is more comparable to 2006?</p>
<p>As for the increase in RD -- obviously going to the Common Ap helped, but I think that increase is just crazy. </p>
<p>So, modestmelody, you think all admissions should be binding? How interesting. I might have agreed with you several years ago, but everything I've learned about financial aid and merit awards changed my mind. I think Brown would lose a lot of great applicants if it was all binding.</p>
<p>I'm perfectly fine with losing applicants. I think gaining applicants is a dangerous trend towards eroding our educational philosophy and culture. Too many people these days are applying to tons of top schools and hedging their bets as opposed to applying places that truly match their goals and desires.</p>
<p>In the 1950s President Wriston wrote internally that Brown should stop accepting students who do not make Brown their top choice, and I personally think that's brilliant. I don't care even if it would short-term make Brown take students who seemed less capable and if it resulted in a drop in prominence, overtime, I think there would be such a tremendous positive effect on the community and a strengthening of our values that we'd be a more effective institution. Penn, if I'm not mistaken, moved to taking a huge percentage of their class early for similar reasons and it's worked out very well for them.</p>
<p>I think Brown should have ED binding, and an RD process that's slightly accelerated that allows you to apply to other schools but you must withdraw your application and attend Brown if you get in.</p>
<p>To deal with the Financial Aid issue, I think there should be far more transparency in the process and we should place a methodology online, behind a password for any applicant to use which will immediately produce a minimum guaranteed aid contribution should you be accepted to Brown, which could potentially become higher with a more thorough investigation of your financial situation and specifics.</p>
<p>But I guess this is not the thread to discuss this... </p>
<p>It's just an idea I've been thinking about. We spend so much money on PR, admissions counselors, processing 25,000 applications for 2500 acceptances for a class of 1500-- it just seems to make sense that we can get 10,000 high quality applicants who want to come to Brown because of what Brown is and select 1500 of those students to be a part of that community. I'm a strong, strong proponent of university identity being critical to success and I have serious concerns that student application practices is eroding campus culture to tour guide quips as opposed to ingrained values.</p>
<p>ModestMelody's opinion seems very thoughtful. Using binding-only admission would drastically reduce the size of applicant pools (they should do it for all elite universities, it would streamline the entire process) and simultaneously ensure that these students absolutely wanted to attend the school in the first place, which just makes for a happier student body.</p>
<p>Penn and Columbia both fill almost half of their classes this way (45%), which definitely has something to do with Penn's high retention/graduation rate. Most people genuinely want to be there.</p>
<p>I think the college experience would improve tremendously if binding admissions were instated.</p>
<p>But I'm assuming schools have more goals than just to create identity, or even to provide an undergraduate experience? Like getting rich kids in so they can afford to bolster their endowment? I would DIE AND GO TO HEAVEN if Brown were accepting us based on how much we love it/him/her, but I guess there are many other considerations as well, no?</p>
<p>(I have insane amounts of Brown memorabilia. And I live half the world away. But who's counting? No, seriously. Is anyone counting? Please?)</p>
<p>Wait, so Penn and Columbia have earlier binding RDs?</p>
<p>No, Penn and Columbia do not have binding RDs, they just take a higher percentage of their class ED than most schools do.</p>
<p>Brown is need-blind, and only in cases of extreme wealth where a student can be considered a "development" case (just as a student from extreme poverty is) will they ever look at money. Maybe one or two kids a year get into Brown in part because Brown views them and their family as potential future big money donors. Most of the time we just depend on legacies and hope that their "Brown family" is now more likely to donate, just like anywhere else.</p>
<p>That view of the process is very cynical, Dudboi, and isn't really accurate.</p>
<p>Brown's larger goal is to be an excellent undergraduate research institution. Part of that, as far as I'm concerned (and generally the administration recognizes this), is maintaining a unique identity and culture that is a draw to top students and faculty.</p>
<p>Modest --</p>
<p>Your proposal to implement binding admissions policies to all Brown applicants isn't a bad idea at first glance, but I suspect that the strength of Brown's applicant pool would seriously whither under such a proposal. This is not because Brown would become any less attractive, but due to the fact that high school students and their parents will naturally want to leave their options open until May.</p>
<p>After all, if you could really get 10,000 applicants for whom Brown was their absolute first choice, wouldn't Brown already be receiving close to that many ED applications every year?</p>
<p>In general, I'm not a fan of binding processes, precisely for the reasons that seem to be favored on this thread. Limiting student choice, particularly during the messy and confusing admissions process, can be a bad thing -- both academically and socially.</p>
<p>Besides, your proposal would go against the Ivy common notification date, and I don't think Brown would be interested in dropping out of the League anytime soon, despite the significant pressures that are being placed on the structure of the League by Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.</p>
<p>Again, I haven't though out my idea entirely, it's still very much an inkling in my brain, but I'm ok with losing quality of student in the short term and limiting choice. I think that if Brown is truly unique (and I think we are) and we truly have a powerful, clear identity and culture, then we can survive this kind of change. Sure, people want to keep their options open, but how does a binding RD round stop that? I'm not saying you cannot apply other places, I'm saying that if you get into Brown you have to attend Brown and withdraw your app or reject your admissions elsewhere. Apply to the same small set of schools you would have otherwise but make it clear and unmistakable that Brown is your priority.</p>
<p>I'm not convinced its practical, but I am convinced that it's effects would be extremely positive and worth a considerable amount of grief. The question is how much grief would this cause, and that I'm not quite sure.</p>
<p>Why would Brown want to limit themselves to students who consider Brown their first choice. They would surely lose out on many great applicants. Brown does a great job recruiting the top students they admit. The fact that Brown was not their # 1 school in Nov does not mean they would not pick Brown in May. If Brown only accepted students who identified strongly with the Brown culture the students would be too similar. Diversity of thought and culture is what makes a college great. I do agree that the current system is not working so keep thinking up new ideas modestmelody.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, people want to keep their options open, but how does a binding RD round stop that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because, by definition, if they are accepted they will have to matriculate?</p>
<p>But Cayuga, all that's doing is changing when students prioritize their school choices, not eliminating it. It doesn't even remove the ability to apply multiple places, it's just a statement that by sending in your application at Brown you're saying of all the place you're applying to, if you got accepted to Brown you'd come to Brown.</p>
<p>tennis-- I agree, the current system isn't working. I'm just not sure that Brown is going to be "limiting" too far by eliminating people for which Brown is not their first choice. Instead, I'd say we're currently flooded with capable applicants but lost in a sea of applicants are Brown students. I think we do a great job of attracting high quality, capable students, and I'm sure that underneath that, there are high quality, capable students who are Brown students (it really is quite different), but whether or not we can find the 2500 Brown students out of 25,000 applications, 20k+ are probably capable, I'm not sure.</p>
<p>I guess this thought first came to mind as a way to save money-- how can we streamline admissions job while simultaneously choosing students who will help to strengthen Brown's culture. I actually think that Brown's culture would not produce a swath of students who are similar-- I see this at Brown right now. There is widespread buy-in with the Brown academic and intellectual culture across a highly diversified (as much as any school is) population. I don't think that our educational philosophy attracts only similar students, rather, it attracts students who value similar learning processes. The same way a school with a heavy core attracts students who feel that will allow them to engage in their own personal liberal learning goals, so too does an open curriculum. Both have appeal across a wide spectrum of prospective students.</p>
<p>I think Brown should just take all qualified ED people. XD</p>
<p>what are the numbers for RD?</p>
<p>modestmelody - The main problem with your all-binding-decisions proposition is that it would prevent a lot of people like me from applying. Brown is by and far my first-choice, and believe me, I really,really,really,REALLY want to go to Brown. But, even if accepted, I have to consider that my family makes $30,000 a year, and I have two siblings, one of which probably be attending college two years from now. If financial aid isn't phenomenal, then I can't go. Period. Does that mean that I shouldn't even be considered for admission because I refuse to make a binding decision that could seriously screw my family over?</p>
<p>Nope-- like I said in the initial post, it would require extreme transparency in Financial Aid. We'd have to guarantee a certain level of aid as you apply based upon information you enter right in with the application.</p>
<p>FWIW, we do have a guaranteed aid policy at the income level of your family so you should already know the minimum package you'll receive. Also, as someone who has a sibling in college right now, I can say that our EFC was literally cut in half when she entered school two years later and Brown covered the difference no questions asked.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Brown should have ED binding, and an RD process that's slightly accelerated that allows you to apply to other schools but you must withdraw your application and attend Brown if you get in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So unless Brown is 100% your first choice, you shouldn't apply at all? You can be extremely passionate about a school and still prefer another school just a tiny bit more.</p>
<p>I think the Oxbridge system (where students must pick either Oxford or Cambridge to apply to) would work well for the Ivy League. It would cut down on applications and more qualified students would be admitted. But then colleges would lose out on their beloved ridiculously low admission rates. Oh, the horror!</p>