<p>As popularized by an article in the Wall Sreet Journal a few years ago, this is the practice arguably engaged in by some schools of protecting "yield" by rejecting or waitlisting highly-qualified candidates who, the school suspects, are likely to be accepted by - and to prefer - other schools higher up the academic food chain.</p>
<p>The school often bases this judgement on past experience, or on demographic data, showing that if admitted, students with a particular profile will likely decline the offer. So it makes the strategic judgement to reject the applicant before the applicant can reject them! (Revenge of the "safety" schools!)</p>
<p>A few schools admit to engaging in this practice, while others deny it but are widely suspected of doing so.</p>
<p>The "Revealed Preference" study released last year demonstrated the existance of the phenomenon (without referring to it as "Tufts Syndrome") by showing that at least one elite had a practice of rejecting or waitlisting certain people with very high SAT scores who, it suspected, would opt for one or more of that school's competitors, given a choice.</p>
<p>I was and remain highly critical of Harvard's decision to go along with this so-called "compromise" and have so stated many times at another site that focusses more frequently on general issues in admissions. I wish Harvard had retained "Open EA".</p>
<p>I understand the hostility such a move would have engendered under all the circumstances, but believe that if Harvard had stuck by its guns and taken on the "ED" swindlers head on, the whole deal would have come tumbling down like a deck of cards.</p>
<p>THIS represented the high-water mark for the hard-liners:</p>
<p>And THIS was the wimp-out posture a short while later, after Levin pleaded with Harvard to help him out of a tight spot, and he presumably promised to get Stanford to go along too. The "resticted EA" option surfaced thereafter, and HYS all siged on. Maintaining good relations with its rivals, and avoiding what might have been a bitter "war" - trumped the perceived benefit of simply doing what was right and saying hang the consequences.</p>
<p>MIT, Georgetown, Chicago, Notre Dame, Caltech and many others have "Open EA." Harvard was formerly the leading proponent.</p>
<p>Under "Open EA" an applicant can apply early to as many EA schools as he/she wants. </p>
<p>What it has in common with "restricted EA" (HYS only, at the moment) is that an admit need not attend, and can apply RD elsewhere.</p>
<p>What "restricted EA" has in common with "binding ED" is the common characteristic of limiting applicants to a singe early application. This device has the intentional, anti-competitive effect of slicing up the pool of top applicants, and making it difficult - if not impossible - for them to play one school against the other. The goal is to resrict what the schools call "poaching" - ie, "stealing" applicants that another school considers its "property." </p>
<p>This is sort of the way the NFL draft works.</p>
<p>Resticted EA is the functional equivalent of "binding ED'" since most top students want to apply early in order to increase their odds of admission, and in either case are prevented from applying to two or more schools. The alleged "virtue" of "restricted EA" - that its not binding, and that admits can apply RD elsewhere - is more theoretical than real, since the odds of admission from the RD pool are far, far lower.</p>
<p>Dartmouth isn't "restricted ED" though. You can apply to Dartmouth ED along with a billion schools EA. I didn't do this, but I remember they basically said this right on the ED form. This is much different than Princeton, which prohibits you from applying anywhere EA through their Single Choice Early Decision policy.</p>
<p>Princeton and Brown refuse to allow their ED admits to apply EA elsewhere. The whole screwed up NASAC policy on this topic is under review.</p>
<p>Early application "guidelines" promulgated by the group that are, in effect, being flouted by Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and Brown in one way or another are "guidelines" that are in trouble!</p>
<p>Of course the "tolerance" of schools like Dartmouth has its limits: if they want you, you are forced to enroll, even if you got into, say, MIT or Georgetown EA and would rather go there.</p>
<p>There are some EA schools that are so p-i-s-s-e-d about this one-way advantage for ED schools that they, in turn, are thinking about refusing EA applications from anybody who has applied to an ED school.</p>
<p>What Harvard considered doing (but decided not to) was to simply ignore the claimed "superior right" of the ED schools, which some people (including me) saw as not unlike the pre-Civil War "Fugitive Slave Act."</p>
<p>Don't you find it unethical of harvard to accept a student who has signed a contract with another school to attend? It seemed pretty egregious to state in that crimson article (can you find it?) that they would ignore the ED decisions of other schools and go it alone. Why would they want a student who would break his/her word like that. I don't understand it? For the yield? for student choice? give me a break. And it seems an about face from Fitzimmons' previous quote in the crimson: </p>
<p>"Indeed, he has gone so far as to say that Harvard would revokeif it had tothe early action admission of a student otherwise bound by an early decision admission to Yale if the applicant tried to wiggle out of his early decision commitment in order to accept a place at Harvard.</p>
<p>The reason? By attempting to enroll at Harvard and forsaking his or her early decision commitment to Yale, such a student would be demonstrating bad character declares Fitzsimmons." - May 23 2003</p>
<p>I personally don't think there should be early anything and I wished president levin had balls to go it alone like he proposed a few years ago.</p>
<p>There are two schools of thought, of course, depending on whether you think blackmailing kids into sinding "binding ED" agreements is "ethical" in the first place.</p>
<p>There are many who feel these anti-competitive agreements are not only unethical, but illegal.</p>
<p>The argue for forcing the issue by refusing to grant them "full faith and credit" was precisely this - that it is immoral (and ought to be illegal) to act as an indirect enforcement agent for a contract that is ITSELF immoral and illegal. Fallows at the Atlantic Monthly came close to endorsing this view.</p>
<p>As I say, the analogy would be to the "Fugitive Slave Act" and the Dred Scott decision.</p>
<p>In the end, the accomodationist view prevailed, however narrowly.</p>
<p>As a practical matter, anyone wishing to attend an elite is virtually <em>forced</em> to sign an ED agreement, since the alternative is to reduce his or her odds of admission by upwards of 75%</p>
<p>A "Hobson's Choice", mensa, is no choice at all.</p>
<p>The athletic rivals are definetly Princeton and Harvard</p>
<p>Princeton v. Dartmouth football is always the last game of the year and is the rivalry game especially from the Princeton side. They love to beat Dartmouth (probably because Dartmouth has the best football team historically in the league - not the last 5,6 years though). Harvard is always a rival because they are closest, but in all honesty they don't care that much about Dartmouth. Their rival is Yale.</p>
<p>Academics first and foremost Dartmouth and Princeton. They are the two most similar schools in the Ivy League (most conservative, most undergraduate focused relatively similar enrollment).</p>
<p>Dartmouth is kinda the school that defies boundries however - you guys are right. They were originally in a football league that played the Big Three (Amhertst, Williams and Wesleyan) but were too good for that league. They then basically started the Ivy League with Harvard, Yale and Princeton. One theory behind the leagues name was that it was these four schools which was called IV league (roman numeral four for the number of teams). Obviously, the Ivy League didn't become official until the mid-20th century.</p>
<p>Nonetheless - I'd say while Princeton is generally more prestigous than Dartmouth, that they are Dartmouth's rival.</p>
<p>To the rest of the world, Dartmouth competes with Brown first, Williams and Amherst 2nd, and Wesleyan... not in the least. And Princeton ...dream on...</p>
<p>Mensa where do you go to school? Brown and Dartmouth are probably the two most different schools in the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Amherst and Williams we may compete with for applicants, but the differences between a school of less than or about 2000 students and a school of over 4000 makes it hard to say they are rivals (except for maybe applicants as has been the argument) Institutionally, there is no doubt in my mind that those schools are not Dartmouth's rivals.</p>