<p>epiphany - excellent point there - and, yes, this is extremely to the point because the prime argument to limit early, early admission is to curtail deadline creep. Will the use of likely letters subvert these efforts? I hardly think so unless the IHE's in question unwisely crank out too many, too early and imply that the letter gives a firm "yea" rather than a more or less discreet dangling carrot "wink, wink" - that is why the likely letter is the perfect vehicle to exploit as a loophole. Likely letters are neither fish nor fowl and as such they do play a role in the total admission strategy picture - in the context of the end of ED, however, these missives will no doubt take on a much different role and, as such will come under intense scrutiny - if abused down the road, they might become subject to "limits" (hopefully self-imposed by the respective IHEs). </p>
<p>As for adcoms knowing what they are doing - well, the whole notion of admission reform is predicated on the fundamental idea that the system as a whole works and works well - it just needs tweaking. Faith and confidence in the admissions system is absolutely necessary and I don't think that anyone has put that in doubt. Adcoms do put the interests of their institutions first when they put students' apps in yes, no, defer piles - and rightly so or the whole of idea of "fit" and "selectivity" would be irrelevent. Do adcoms make mistakes or do they have to make painful, close calls - of course they do, but that, in the wider scheme of admissions reform, is moot. Do ED programs benefit both colleges and students? Well, it seems evident that more and more colleges are beginning to cast serious doubt on this on whether or not colleges and students benefit enough to justify continuation of the programs. No one can deny that for exceptionally mature students who have a strong sense of self and their college goals, early decision programs do offer a legitimate way to alleviate stress and get it all over with early- so they can get on with their work and concentrate on having a productive and positive senior year. Sorry to say, that on the parent-student side of the equation, in this day and age when competition for a "brand name" IHE is rife (and btw, that would include some exceptionally fine state institutions such as Berkeley, U. Va., University of Wisc. Madison, and UNC Chapel Hill to name just a few) the push for having one's cake and eating it too-instant gratification has subverted ED/EA programs. On the instutional side, data or no data, we parents simply have to take it on faith that institutional leaders are taking deeply measured steps to assess how they want to guage the issues at hand.</p>
<p>that said, the issue of admission reform and the limits on what colleges may and may not do (that includes all the varieties of early decision and early notification etc.) is highly nuanced and does not lend itself to any one simple solution or answer. Each IHE has to come to grips with its obligation to act in the public interest and the same time serve their institution's financial and academic interests - this is the hallmark of the American system of higher ed and it is this system that gives us the luxury of such a wide, varied, and unrivalled choice. In order to preserve the integrity of the system and safeguard equitable access to that wide array of choices there is a patent responsibility to evaluate and re-evaluate the present system and implement reform and that includes setting appropriate limits.</p>
<p>FWIW:
[quote]
Many competitive institutions have had early decision programs some of which bind admitted applicants to enroll for decades. (Princetons current program is binding, but Harvards is not.) In theory, the programs allowed some students who were set on a first choice to find out early and to allow colleges to start shaping their classes. In the last 10 years, however, more and more students have applied early and colleges have admitted larger and larger shares of their classes that way, adding to the frenzy and the worries about equity. At Princeton, almost 49 percent of this years freshman class was admitted early.</p>
<p>Some educators said that they were thrilled by Princetons announcement. Lloyd Thacker, founder of the Education Conservancy, a group pushing for reform of the admissions system, said he now expects other institutions to follow. I would be surprised if there were no other similar announcements. These schools have too much in common in terms of mission and expectations of the boards. What is leadership for one is likely to be seen as leadership for another.</p>
<p>Thacker acknowledged that the motives for colleges to keep early admission programs are far greater at less competitive institutions, which cant count on most accepted students enrolling. But he also said that many institutions pay attention to Harvard and Princeton. We need to lend prestige to a new way of doing things, he said.</p>
<p>At the same time, Thacker said it was important for admissions reformers to push on a variety of fronts so colleges not ready to do away with early decision could still make real changes. He said that institutions might re-evaluate their use of standardized tests, shift merit aid to need-based aid, or stop cooperating with those who produce rankings.</p>
<p>Not everyone is going to step in the same footprint, but we can still find a similar path, he said.
[/quote]
</p>