"Colleges Set Limit On Early Admission"

Parent Cafe
21

<p>PhatAl:</p>

<p>The point is that Princeton specificaly said to the press that they would provide admissions letters to everyone at the same time, and, for this, they were lauded heavily. Now, they're saying.....well, me just might send out some early letters to folks (whether they be athletic, academic, or development stars). Reminds me of Emily Littella of SNL fame: "Never Mind."</p>

<p>Eagle: I definitely agree that ED has the appearance of advatanging the advantaged, but appearances don't make it so; there is absolutely zero real data to indicate it to be true, all other things being equal (RD). You may be correct in your assumption
[quote]
I am not so sure that student accepted early under the older policies would be accepted RD

[/quote]
, or I may be correct in mine (those academic stars and development kids will get in anyway), but we'll never know. But, if my hypothesis is correct, then ED just doesn't matter.</p>

<p>I'm persuaded by mini's comments on admissions, which is that Adcoms are well trained and educated professionals, who know exactly what they are doing, and do it well for thier own institutions. I don't believe randomness is a factor, but, again, it's a fact-free belief. Thanks for the quote tip.</p>

22

<p>I agree with eagle79. I posted on the full merit ride thread
[quote]
This is an interesting thread. I am a high school senior looking at colleges. I'm doing pretty well. I am planning on appying to four top tier national unviersities, a northern top masters school (usnews ranking category) and my local State flgship university (2nd tier national university). </p>

<p>I think you have to go with whatever stategy works for you. Momfromtexas is doing what worked for her. Good Luck. Whoever said "Money doesn't matter, is either rich or a fool". Cost is a large factor. I am applying for all the merit aid I can get. I don't want to be in hock up to my neck (or my parent's either). But if I can get a decent package from a top tier university, my parents and I wil consider taking on some debt. </p>

<p>I'm applying EA to the northern masters institution (to qualify for merit aid), my stats are well above their qualifications and I hope to get a pretty decent merit package.</p>

<p>At my in State U, I should be a "University Scholar", with at least a $10,000 scholarship. My dad jokes that if I go to State U, he'll give me a car. No debt neeeded here.</p>

<p>The point being I really would like a top tier university, but you've got to hedge your bets. After all the letters go out, we will have to examine each offer ( I hope to get at least one from the top tier institutions), but no ED for me. I have to consider the financial aspect. </p>

<p>I think in some cases ED disadvantages students with less money. CMU even states that ED candidates will be guaranteed their full need is met, all others no guarantee. Other top tier universities include all students in merit competition, although I'm not sure how open the process is.</p>

<p>So my heart is with a top tier institution, but my wallet is with momfromtexas. I hope whatever strategy every one chooses, that it works for them, and that they get multiple offers aceptable both in academics and cost.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Colleges and Universities can and do use ED to provide aid (more) as they see fit. I know CMU where I'm looking does this. Since I'm not applying ED there I feel I am at a disadvantage, but there's nothing I can do about it. Obviously, the schools that give prefential aid to ED applicants have a reason for doing so.</p>

23

<p>"It was to stop "deadline creep" from rendering the senior year irrelevant."</p>

<p>I wonder if most colleges are aware of how many students this affects. Many students are permitted by their high schools only incremental enrollment in AP's, for example, with actually the senior year weighted more heavily in AP's than the junior year -- resulting in loss of weighting credit for the GPA, loss of reporting on the exams, etc. Some h.schools have strict guidelines on AP's & even Honors classes -- putting a ceiling on those for each yr. Other schools have prereqs for AP's (which I support). No, AP's aren't everything, as we all know, but they could make a difference in some admissions results for some students. In our school some of the most interesting classes, & some unique classes, are offered only to seniors. These are the classes that allow them to "show their intellectual stuff" in ways that standard (or even AP) classes do not. They are senior electives only.</p>

24

<p>BlueBayou,</p>

<p>I guess we just disagree. I strongly suspect it is more than appearance and thus the reason that the schools are eliminating their ED policies. </p>

<p>I also believe that there is significant data to show that there is an advantage to applying early. Though I have not read the book many have cited the book, "The Early Admissions Game" by Chrisotopher Avery. I understand that the book is loaded with statistics that show that on average applying ED is equivalent to being given an extra 150 points on the SATs and an dextra 100 points if you apply EA.</p>

<p>So, I guess it really comes down to the level of proof you need, beyond a reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence.</p>

25

<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. (Princeton’s current program is binding, but Harvard’s 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 year’s freshman class was admitted early.</p>

<p>Some educators said that they were thrilled by Princeton’s 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 can’t 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>

<p><a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/19/princeton%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/19/princeton&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

26

<p>eagle79, I just wanted to make a quick post to say that yes, UNC does indeed have Early Notification - this is yet another admission opton used by some colleges and is similar in principle to the Early Action concept because the offer is non-binding and the student may apply elsewhere. I would think that it roughly corresponds to what other schools often call ID - interim decision. For example, Rice currently has three tiers of admission offers going - ED, ID, and RD all with their own terms. I think we can all agree that there are quite a lot of early options out there and, at times, it is hard to keep it all straight. In any case, UNC did end ED but, as you rightly point out, does offer EN.</p>

27

<p>Thanks to Carolyn, I recently came across this poignant passage from "College Admission: Failed Rite Of Passage" by Michael G. Thompson, written in 1990.</p>

<p>"The college admission process has no time limits. It has no clear starting point--in many schools it seems to be starting earlier and earlier--and it does not go on forever, despite what we may think. Early admission is fiendish in this regard because it offers two chances to fail. One of the saddest, most destructive aspects of early admission is to watch bright students go through the anxiety of applying early, fail to get in, and then have to repeat the process. Although they may end up being accepted, they spend most of their senior year in emotional turmoil."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.parentsassociation.com/college/failed_rite.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.parentsassociation.com/college/failed_rite.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

28

<p>deadline creep? hahahaha</p>

<p>an article in the local SoCal paper reported that a HIGH SCHOOL freshman, who has yet to play one minute of high school basketball, has already verbally committed to USC.</p>

29

<p>I wonder just how many "earlys" we need to describe this instance of athletic recruitment? Bluebayou, are you suggesting that athletic recruiting - that includes the use of non-binding verbal agreements - also be limited by stricter, overarching guidelines?</p>

<p>After reading several of the other CC threads dealing with this subject, I wonder who made the initial contact - USC scouts, the coach at Westchester, or the student's family. In any case, we all do know by now that athletic recruiting is a highly competitive game and aggressive recruitment is the name of the winning strategy. </p>

<p><a href="http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=585769#rank%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=585769#rank&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Goaliedad's posts are highly informative on the subject of the contractual validity of non-binding verbal agreements (nil) and binding letters of admission and intent. Even though this type of recruitment is not early admission, it is, nonetheless, worth asking in this case just how much of this is pure pr and whose interests are best served?</p>

<p>For those who can't access the article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Dwayne Polee Jr., a 6-foot-6 freshman guard, said Tuesday he has made a commitment to USC, even though he has yet to play in a high school basketball game and is only 14 years old.</p>

<p>Polee, expected to start as a freshman for City Section champion Westchester, said USC Coach Tim Floyd offered him a scholarship Monday and he accepted. Polee, whose father was a standout at Los Angeles Manual Arts and Pepperdine, has been spending time working out at USC on his own.</p>

<p>"I fell in love with it," he said. "It's close to home, they have a new basketball arena and I like Coach Floyd."</p>

<p>Polee's decision is non-binding, and he could end up changing his mind just as Taylor King of Santa Ana Mater Dei did. King committed to UCLA before his freshman season but will sign with Duke next month. Polee, however, said the USC commitment is firm and now he must take care of his grades over the next four years at Westchester.</p>

<p>Westchester Coach Ed Azzam said of Polee, "He's pretty good."

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-hsreport18oct18,1,4719830.story?coll=la-headlines-sports%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-hsreport18oct18,1,4719830.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

30

<p>
[quote]
are you suggesting that athletic recruiting...also be limited by stricter, overarching guidelines?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Quite the contrary. I support all forms of early admissions, if a college wants to offer them. In the case of private colleges, it's their money, and they make the rules to best support thier mission. In the case of the publics, ultimately the voters and tax payers make the rules thru their elected representatives on how best to serve their state.</p>

<p>My point was two-fold. 1) to point out that there are kids who fall in love with a school early on, and they don't waiver, although Polee certainly could easily change his mind and join Ben Howland in Pauley Pavilion (or name other high profile program) in four years. 2) To note that basketball players, and some other athletes, but not football nor hockey, can sign a binding NLI as early as November 8 their senior year.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In any case, we all do know by now that athletic recruiting is a highly competitive game and aggressive recruitment.....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sound like commercialization, no? </p>

<p>If so-called student athletes can make a binding comittment the first week of November, why not academic students?</p>

31

<p>Actually boards of trustees and IHE administrators make the key decisons regarding admissions policy. The current guidelines to limit ED were adopted precisely because there is a consensus among those admission experts - who work for public and private IHEs - to uphold their respective missions - that it is necessary to take steps to reform ED practices. Indeed, the move to set limits is a pragmatic, concerted attempt to salvage ED as a viable option in the interest of students and colleges. </p>

<p>Athletic recruiting is highly competitive and there is always the danger that the thin line between recruiting in the name of college spirit etc. and crass commercialization and exploitation of the athlete will be crossed. Hence many reformers' concerns that athletes be protected from rapacious recruiting practices. For one thing, college student's have to preserve their amateur status and NLIs are one way to do that. I would also note, that participation in the NLI program is much more than a tacit recognition that athletic recruiting is complicated and loaded with potential pitfalls. So, just because athletic recruiting is said to fall outside the current reform debate on ED really is just the recognition that there is another context for this type of admission reform already in place. FYI, there are a plethora of overarching guidelines and limits to define best practices in this arena - NCAA and the Ivy League to name two examples apart from the NLI program - on this see:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3101457#post3101457%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3101457#post3101457&lt;/a&gt;.) </p>

<p>
[quote]
To note that basketball players, and some other athletes, but not football nor hockey, can sign a binding NLI as early as November 8 their senior year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please take careful note of the wording of the OP - the NACAC's limit on how early a college should offer ED is set at Sept. 15 of the applicant's senior year, so as things stand right now the terms of NLIs are, and have been, well within this limit.</p>

<p>Do the parties involved ever contravene established good practices - rhetorical question here - of course they do - or at least bend the rules as much as they think they can get away with - and pr media hype is often involved. This is the real world after all and that is why admission reform (and reformers) and guide-lines for best practices establish criteria protect the interests of the students and institutions in question.</p>

32

<p>Well timed for this particular CC debate, this Inside Higher Ed article - related to the "Early Admissions Loophole" article previously posted - addresses the complex problems related to big-time college athletics, best practices, and reform:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/31/ncaa%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/31/ncaa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
For much of the past decade, and especially in the five years since Myles Brand became the first college president to lead the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the sports group has focused its efforts on passing rules aimed at ensuring that athletes in big-time sports programs get a meaningful education.</p>

<p>How successful those efforts have been is a matter of some debate: NCAA officials believe they’ve made serious progress, citing the association’s new system of punishing academically underperforming teams and the steadily rising graduation rates for athletes in Division I. Some faculty leaders aren’t so sure, arguing that on too many campuses, a wide gulf exists between the academic credentials and classroom experiences of athletes and other students.</p>

<p>But if NCAA officials and their critics disagree about how effective the academic reforms have been, they concur on one point: Getting a grip on academic issues may have been the easy part, compared to the much more difficult challenge of trying to wrestle the financial situation in big-time sports to the ground. As the costs of Division I sports programs have escalated at two to three times the rate of their colleges’ other spending, and institutional subsidies to sports programs grow apace, NCAA efforts to pass legislation to control costs have run into a buzzsaw of campus opposition and a bigger problem: potential violations of federal antitrust law. What to do?</p>

<p>On Monday, Brand and other NCAA leaders, in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, unveiled the association’s answer: A report by a task force of 50 college presidents that calls for individual campus presidents — in conjunction with their governing boards, faculties and others — to “take reform home:” to step forward and ensure on their own campuses both the financial integrity of their sports programs and the fuller integration of sports programs with the rest of the campus.</p>

<p>“The solution is at the campus level — institution by institution — and under the leadership of presidents and chancellors, institutions must stress accountability in fiscal matters,” Brand said in his speech.</p>

<p>As is his custom, Brand was, even as he called for reform, overwhelmingly bullish on the state of college sports. (The fact was not lost on many of those in the room that his speech came as a deadline looms early next month for the NCAA to respond to a Congressman’s critical questions about whether college sports continues to deserve its tax-exempt status.) “There is no crisis in intercollegiate athletics,” he said. “Some would argue that intercollegiate athletics, because of its enormous popularity, is at the height of success. Stadiums and arenas are full, and new facilities are coming on line; viewership is increasing. Indeed, college sports is doing remarkably well.” ...</p>

<p>The NCAA’s ability to attack the problem at the national level is seriously hampered, the task force said in its report, by federal antitrust laws that have been used in the past to fight other NCAA efforts to control colleges’ costs. In 1999, for example, the association paid $54.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought by a category of assistant coaches whose pay its members had voted to restrict. Although some legal experts have suggested that the NCAA seek an exemption to federal antitrust laws, the task force concluded that the prospects of such an exemption “is weak.”</p>

<p>Institutions would also balk at broad efforts to tell them how they should spend their money, the task force concluded. “It is no more reasonable to establish national policy through the NCAA for how athletics dollars are allocated than it would be to drive academic budgets or program decisions for each campus through mandates from the American Council on Education or the various academic associations with which institutions are affiliated,” its report said.</p>

<p>What the NCAA can do, Brand and the task force argue, is to arm campus leaders with the best possible financial information to guide their decision making, using a new accounting system under which sports programs would be required to report financial information to the NCAA using a common set of definitions aimed at teasing out more precisely what colleges spend on sports programs. For the first time, the reports would include capital expenditures and athletics departments’ “indirect” share of costs, for such things as energy and security, that might be borne by the institutions. Campuses would have to get independent, third-party verification of the “accuracy and completeness” of the data they submit.</p>

<p>That new system, combined with a set of other financial reporting requirements, would arm presidents with clear, concise and comparable data with which to make informed and thoughtful decisions. But then they must use it, the task force said, with the goal of ensuring that athletics expenditures fall into line with other spending on campuses. “Presidents must use these data to align athletics budgeting with institutional mission to to strengthen the enterprise,” the task force wrote. “In effect, this is where presidential leadership and institutional accountability take hold.”

[/quote]
</p>

33

<p>Don’t mean to pick on or discuss the complexities of college athletics, since I am personally a big fan…but:</p>

<p>Thacker and the EC wish to eliminate early admissions, as well as standardized testing. But, to his credit (as you have pointed out asteriskea), Thacker’s position is consistent in that he also decries early athletic recruiting.] </p>

<p>More importantly, some (many?) on this board share his view on one or both points. Leaving the SAT discussion to another thread...To those parents/students who believe that elimination of binding ED and/or early admissions entirely is a good thing, do you also believe that the NCAA should eliminate binding letters of intent prior to April 1? If not, why should a coach be able to stock a team in the fall, but the maestro or history department chair has to wait until the spring?</p>

34

<p>The following is an abridged version of an interview with Janet Rapelye that appears in the October issue of the PAW. It is a bit long but worth reading.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What has been the initial reaction to the early-decision announcement?</p>

<p>There are many people who have seen the merits of early decision and have liked the program, and I understand why they like it – I liked it, too. But we had outgrown early decision in terms of what we were trying to achieve in the class. This doesn’t solve everything, nor should it. The majority of college counselors are actually very happy that this is happening. Some counselors are dismayed that this is happening, because those were good college counselors who were able to help their students through this process in a wise way. But that’s a very small percentage of students out there, and keeping a program just for those students didn’t seem to be a choice that made sense for us. So I think the folks we’ve heard from initially feel either very strongly for or very strongly against. And I think our alumni – some are in favor and some are not. I hope that we are able to answer their questions about where their concerns are and allay some of their fears that might be there – I am quite convinced that we will be able to enroll the very best class for Princeton, and send a message to the outside world that we care about equity and fairness.</p>

<p>Will this affect the recruiting of athletes?</p>

<p>I’ve been asked about athletics this week, and it was something that we gave quite a bit of thought to. We have 38 Division I sports, and we care about the recruitment of those scholar-athletes; we want the very best scholar-athletes to come to Princeton and not go to our competitors. The vehicle we’ve been using for many years is the “likely letter” … I’ve had already this week a number of conversations with the athletic director’s office and with [athletic director] Gary Walters [’67], and I’m meeting with the coaches tomorrow [Sept. 21] because I think that it’s very important that I meet with them right away. The reason is that I want to make sure that they understand that this was a decision that was right for the University and that we want to do everything we can to support the coaches in their recruitment efforts. And while I know that this is a change, there may be some silver linings here and we will work very hard this year to find new ways of communications, should we need them. The advantage is that we have a whole year to plan for this, and we are going to work hard to use that year wisely. We want our coaches to be successful. Keeping early decision just for one area – this was a much bigger decision than that. I am well aware of the challenges that go with this decision for the coaches.</p>

<p>Since the likely letters can be sent out Oct. 1, before action would be taken on an early-decision applicant, will things be changing much?</p>

<p>We have been issuing likely letters between Oct. 1 and the early-decision deadline. How it worked in the past is those students would submit an early-decision application and then they would become an early-decision applicant, and they would get their final decision in December… They would get their likely letter in October or November and would have a likely indication that they will be admitted, and it’s a very strong letter to have. They would then get their ‘admit’ letter at the end of March or early April when we send all our decision letters. This is actually how most of the football recruits have gone through the process, because they are recruited heavily in the month of January. Football has actually been operating like this, so this will probably affect football the least overall. What it means is that the coaches will then have to have conversations with students that have a likely letter, if the coaches are hoping and expecting that student to enroll. What’s different is that [before the change] they would get an early-decision decision, and the commitment was there.</p>

<p>Are the likely letters a strong commitment?</p>

<p>In the likely letter, we say that as long as you continue to perform at the same high level – the only reason I would not send [an official notice of admittance] would be if they were not achieving their high school goals. But short of an academic failure, we honor that. It’s up to the student to honor their side of the academic commitment.</p>

<p>What’s the biggest concern of the coaches?</p>

<p>That the students don’t have to make a commitment to us. And so even with a likely letter, they could still get a call from another coach at another school who perhaps could persuade them to turn their head. And I think that’s the worry – but I have great confidence in our coaches that they will continue to make this appealing place an appealing offer to that student.</p>

<p>Are likely letters also sent to students who are not athletes?</p>

<p>Likely letters can be used for other students, and in fact that is very much a part of the language of the Ivy agreement. Because we have been using early decision, we had not been using likely letters in that form in the past. But it’s very likely we’ll consider that seriously moving forward.</p>

<p>In what types of areas?</p>

<p>I think we have institutional priorities – [such as] a terrific student or a scholar. I think what we want to avoid, if we go down that path, is, in two or three years, sending as many likely letters as early-decision letters, and then we’ve defeated the whole purpose. … Likely letters could be used for many reasons you want a student to think seriously about Princeton University – a great violinist, [or] a particular talent in the creative arts.</p>

<p>Are likely letters an exception to the stated goal of considering all applicants at same time?</p>

<p>Likely letters allow us to recruit Division I athletes who are being sought-after outside of our league. We know what the Ivy standards are, but the standards and timetables for other leagues are tremendously different than ours, and we don’t have any choice over that. If we want to enroll a Division I tennis player being recruited by a bigger league or a scholarship school, we can’t wait and say, we have a different deadline and you must wait. The only way that we can make that student [know we are] quite serious about him or her is send a likely letter. Our competition isn’t just the other Ivies. Our competition for scholar-athletes is often outside the league.</p>

<p>How will students be able to communicate that their first-choice college is Princeton – and is that important?</p>

<p>Students at any point in the process can tell us that Princeton is their first choice. As we move into this new one-application deadline process, I imagine there will be students who will tell us that Princeton is their first choice, and has been their first choice for a long time. The question, does it make a difference, is a good one, because in our pool with so many thousands of fabulous students, I’m not sure it’s ever made that much difference. In early-decision they were able to state that by saying they were filing early decision. We weren’t always able to take [all] the strong students; in fact we were only taking a small proportion of the early-decision candidates, even though all the candidates told us we were their first choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epaw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_101106rapelye.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_101106rapelye.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

35

<p>How about rolling admits? Yes they are the ultimate in freedom of choice, but, in my state kids apply very early to one of the publics in order to get a dorm room. Once they are accepted, they get some pressure, albeit gentle, to stick with that school. Maybe rolling admits should be even earlier, so that a number of students have a safety in pocket well before the frenzy starts.</p>

36

<p>Cangel, I am quickly finding out that every IHE is different - ideally rolling admission should be, as you said, the ultimate in flexibility. With this system it is a given that the applications are read and reviewed as they come in and that a decision will be made on a case-by-case basis - first come, first serve, if you will. Some colleges, however, opt to notify applicants within a month or two of applying and still others that accept applications under a rolling-admission policy send out decisions all at once. If this institution is using the dorm housing card to exert pressure (gentle or not) on prospies to make a firm commitment to attend - this might be a strategy to undermine and defeat students' intent to use it (and rolling admissions) as a safety. In the case of rolling admissions, the early bird obviously does have an advantage - more spaces still available waiting to be filled - but, I can't help asking: how early is earlier?</p>