<p>Thanks for the quote showing that Lloyd also dislikes early notification for athletes, but, of course, that is currently up to the NCAA and its early signing periods, of which, the Ivies may participate. But, it still ignores the fact that his only stated rationale for disliking early admissions is because the **exclusively[b/] benefit the colleges, which is patently false. Early admissions do provide some benefits to some students. (Full disclosure: son was accepted ED last December.) Thus, his arguement is rather weak, IMO.</p>
<p>[q]...so just how does this benefit students in general?[/q] First off, students "in general" apply to state colleges, so it's a rather broad question. Second, it's not relevant, since, IMO, admissions to highly selective colleges "advantage the advantaged" anyway, whether in ED/EA or RD. As mini has pointed out, year after year, classes are comprised of ~50+% full pay students, which means top 1% of US income earners -- clearly the advantaged, only some of which are accepted early. This is not a result of early admissions, but the ability of the already advantaged to attend excellent high schools, with libraries and books, participate in ECs, (since they don't have to work to support their family), attend test prep, have good GCs, etc. </p>
<p>I'm willing to cyber-wager that most of the students who were formerly accepted SCEA/ED will now be accepted RD. Of course, a student who might have applied ED to P'ton, will now apply RD, and could throw in an app to H as well. But, if P'ton was really his/her first choice, student likely goes there an H loses on yield. </p>
<p>[q]So, the key question here is just how far can Princeton....use likely letters...?[/q] </p>
<p>IMO, they can't use them at all without undermining their own credibility. P said flat out that ALL applications would be treated equally and at the same time. Obviously, not true.</p>
<p>"I think it will make the admissions process far more fair and equitable," Tilghman, once an ardent defender of Early Decision, said in an interview after the meeting. "Early Decision was advantaging those who were already advantaged."</p>
<p>There were also concerns about minority students and those from low-income homes. "The decision allows the process to be more fair, by addressing every application at the same time," Rapelye said. </p>
<p>But, Rapelye added, signaling her confidence in the ability of Princeton to take a risk by abandoning Early Decision, "we're in a position of strength, and it takes courage....</p>
<p>Perhaps it doesn't take courage; it just takes a press machine to crank out great stories that the press will eat up.</p>
<p>fwiw: don't mean to pick on P'ton individually, since, again, I support early admissions for the right reasons, and besides anecdotes of kids gaming the system, I have yet to see any data demonstrating its harmful. The only statistical data was released by Dartmouth, and it only shows causality, but no correlation.</p>