<p>
</p>
<p>REA, not ED; see post #38.</p>
<p>REA is useful to Harvard (and YPS) in that it signals whether the given super-selective school is the applicant’s first choice, which can help them with yield calculations. For them, it gives most of the benefits of ED without causing students to hesitate as much as they would with binding ED.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but a line has to drawn somewhere. One cannot expect all the benefits (perceived or real) of applying early AND an application that could be dubbed FFAA as in Free For All Admissions. The schools are rewarding students who express a clear preference. </p>
<p>And, in additon to the admit bonus, one should not forget how nice it is to know the final destination before Christmas!</p>
<p>Full disclosure first: both D1 and D2 were accepted ED. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Visiting at any other time is fine–in some cases, much better since the school isn’t overrun with prospies. Waiting until acceptances are in to visit isn’t necessarily a money saver, because flights have to be booked at the last minute. Squeezing in lots of visits in that last month is better than not visiting at all, but not IMO as sane as spreading the visits out over a year or even more. </p>
<p>In the 3 years between when D1 (HS class of 2011) and D2 (HS class of 2014) went through ED, I’ve seen an enormous change in how students here on CC regard ED. It used to be that students would say they were in love with a school, hence they wanted to apply ED. Now, you can see post after post from kids asking which of two, three, or more schools they should apply ED. As others have said, they don’t really know yet what they want. They just want that perceived admissions advantage. Maybe the ED schools can figure out which students are really in love with their school. In some cases, they’ll turn down those students (in which case there’s no ED admissions advantage). In other cases, they might cynically accept those students with high stats (which would then put the lie to the idea that the schools want students who see the school as their top choice). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup–and not just in terms of knowing about ED/EA and pushing through the application. Both of my D’s had well-thought-out balanced lists of schools in place prior to applying ED. Any early applications (EA or state schools) were made before ED; the essays were written (or, in the case of D1 were supposed to be written ;)) before a parent would sign off on the ED agreement. We played devil’s advocate, listing all of the disadvantages of ED and of the specific ED school. </p>
<p>At the end of the Atlantic Monthly article on ED linked upthread, the author (the wonderful James Fallows–a Harvard alum, btw) suggests “Take the ten most selective national universities and have them agree to conduct only regular admissions programs for the next five years. No early decision, no early action”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that mine are done with admissions mishegas, I’d be curious to see the experiment :)</p>
<p>"There is a big difference between REA and ED for Harvard. A student accepted to Harvard has that acceptance in the pocket, but can freely apply RD to any other schools and programs and look for the best deal. "</p>
<p>There is a perception and then there is reality. H chooses to admit more early (the numbers went up close to 250 over a 2 year period) because they find that students they admit early are most probably showing up eventually (what is the big difference between 93% REA and 98% for ED schools?). They don’t see the same return among their RD admits at 74% or so. They are essentially cutting off 250-300 students from being admitted at all because the yield is being maximized by admitting lot more REA.</p>
<p>I have no doubt many are sowing their oats in other places during RD but eventually return to Harvard fold anyways which is why H is admitting more and more each year.</p>
<p>Harvard had REA then didn’t and recently went back to it. I am not a fan. I don’t know exactly what their reasoning was for going back to it.</p>
<p>I don’t think 17-18 year olds necessarily know what’s right for them and I do think many, many students are feeling pressured to apply someplace early. Partly just to be done, partly because they think their chance will be better ED.</p>
<p>I’m a huge fan of EA, because it does get student on the ball with filling out applications and good news is a huge relief and bad news or deferrals can be a wake-up call. My older son went out and got the outside recommendations I’d been nagging him about after he got two deferrals. I think EA is also good for schools - while they don’t lock in kids they certainly get a chance to woo them and for many schools they’ll be a first choice anyway, and the students won’t apply anywhere else anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see that as hypocritical in the least.</p>
<p>My alma mater has ED. My offspring’s alma mater has SCEA. I think the former is far more unfair than the latter. EA is more fair than SCEA.</p>
<p>In ED, you can get out of it if you don’t get enough fin aid. However, you have to back out before you get other offers. With EA you can wait and see the other offers you get. SCEA keeps you from applying to a lot of the big $ merit scholarships. Regular EA doesn’t. That is really important to some people. </p>
<p>I’ve known kids who applied to as many as 5 colleges early action–Georgetown, UChicago, MIT, Cal Tech and others. One of my kid’s friends did this and got into all of them, including all of the above, in December. He decided to do that rather than apply SCEA to Harvard. The results meant he did not apply to any safeties. More importantly, IMO, he did not reduce his classmates’ chances by applying to some of the LACs that ranked below these in his personal preferences. (I don’t care what LACs say, when there are only 250 students in a class, the LAC is not going to accept 12 from the same high school.)</p>
<p>I think H is well aware that its restrictive policy stops kids from applying BOTH to Harvard early and to some of the big merit $ scholarships, which often have early deadlines for consideration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it’s ok for Harvard to get a signal whether they are the applicant’s first choice so to help them with yield calculations, but it’s not ok for some other school to get a signal that their school is the applicant’s first choice to help THEM with yield calculations? What’s the difference? </p>
<p>If someone ED’s without really loving the school, that’s on them. Stop blaming the school. Schools don’t force anyone to apply ED, or to apply anywhere.</p>
<p>PG, </p>
<p>You’re ignoring the fin aid portion of this. With EA and even SCEA, you can compare offers. With ED, you can’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other schools are free to implement REA/SCEA as well. Note that Tulane offers both EA and SCEA; presumably, the latter allows applicants to signal that Tulane is their first (or close to first) choice, rather than just a potential EA safety.</p>
<p>ED has significantly more tradeoffs that the student (particularly one needing financial aid) needs to make.</p>
<p>Yes, the one downside of ED is that it isn’t a smart strategy if you need to compare FA offers. The charge that ED “favors rich kids” is a real one with some meat behind it. The charge that ED isn’t fair because some kid in Short Hills decides to apply ED to Northwestern to try to lock it in even though he really despises Northwestern and would rather be at Yale but he’s willing to “settle” isn’t a real charge, IMO. No one put a gun to that kid’s head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea of waiting til April 15 to know if you’re in, then spending money to book expensive last minute flights and do a grand tour in two weeks to make a decision by May 1 sounds insane to me. I recognize it’s not possible for everyone, but man, screening out colleges before applying seems like a better strategy.</p>
<p>EA is more advantageous than ED for the student. I can’t think of a situation where it would be the reverse.</p>
<p>One statistic that I’d love to see is the ED/SCEA acceptance rate excluding recruited athletes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At schools which consider “level of applicant’s interest”, ED may be the strongest signal of interest there is, if such a school is the applicant’s clear first choice and the applicant is ok with the ED tradeoffs. REA / SCEA also gives such a signal, though perhaps not quite as strong, but with far fewer tradeoffs for the applicant. EA has advantages for the applicant without tradeoffs, but does not send any signal with respect to “level of applicant’s interest”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is pretty simple. Harvard wants the policy that helps its decision the most and, at the same time, hurts its peers the most. That is the prerogative and benefit of being the 800 lbs gorilla. Simply stated, the standard EA does not help Harvard at all. When they had the policy, there was a deluge of applications and it did not do anything to facilitate the decisions and support their yield ambitions. When they later dropped the early applications altogether, it forced other schools to follow suit, and it did not work that well for Princeton. Also schools such as Duke had to rely extensively on the usual crutches such as massive WL admits. The stats of the “changing” years are telling. </p>
<p>Finally when Harvard abandoned the single admission --with that ever so hypocritical argument they used-- they had done the sought-after damage and established themselves solidly at the top of the pinnacle in the NorthEast. </p>
<p>The above is, however, through the lens of the school. It is hardly the same lens to be used by students. The long and the short is that astute applicants, be it uber rich or devastatingly poor, benefit from the early applications, and especially from the restricted type. Obviously, the high middle class that is too rich for a Pell grants and did not save enough to cover the tuition bill is forced to “compare” packages or dream of those elusive merit aid packages. </p>
<p>There is absolutely nothing romantic or altruistic about the various types of EA/REA/ED. Some schools have to rely on non-binding and open application and hope that the subsequent yield will not be catastrophic.</p>
<p>ED can work well with certain kinds of students but admittedly they are those with hooks who are either home runs for full FA or who don’t need FA. </p>
<p>With ED a school can, early on, comfortably flesh out their freshman class with a base sample of the diversity of kids they want and need to have in their community, much like an outline which then eventually leads to a final paper.</p>
<p>RD admits fill in the blanks, the yield is a major edit, and the waitlist is a final edit. </p>
<p>I do believe it’s a tool for both the school and the student - IF the student knows precisely why they are using ED, and IMHO it should not be “just for best chances.” For ED a student should have a feeling of exactly what they are bringing to that preliminary “community outline.”</p>
<p>“EA is more advantageous than ED for the student. I can’t think of a situation where it would be the reverse.” </p>
<p>It depends upon the situation. I’ve seen schools with both ED and EA. Students who apply ED to such schools have a better chance of getting accepted than those from apply EA, in many cases. That you are giving the commitment to attend upon acceptance is giving the school something it wants, a near certain yield for this group of students. So it makes sense that ED, most of the time, gives a greater benefit to a student in terms of chances of getting accepted. A number of schools out and out say that ED gives you a better chance at acceptance. One doesn’t always find that statement for EA. In fact, a number of schools were denying that EA even gave a bump up–usually untrue when the stats and admits were closely examined, but it did not seem like it was deliberat in some cases. ED usually has no such doubt attached to it. </p>
<p>So the benefit of ED over EA is that ED usually has a deliberate, distinct advantage in admissions. Also some schools (CMU) will give preferntial financial aid packages to ED students. Such schools may not guarantee , nor do they meet full need, but will do so for those accepted ED.</p>
<p>Another possible benefit is that it’s truly game over with an ED acceptance. A friend of mine found it a great relief not to have to think about college apps at all for her two kids, as they both were accepted ED. It made for a very happy holiday season, and the end of all college app business. With EA, one can and often will continue the process. Often, one will not get fin aid and merit awards until spring with an EA acceptance. None of my kids got any awards with theirs. So, a final decision cannot be made until that is done. Those who apply ED get the whole kit and kaboodle pretty much done with the accept, including an estimated aid package, and if you can swing it, that’s it. </p>
<p>Xiggy, I don’t understand why when Harvard decided to do away with any early programs, Princeton and Yale felt the need to follow suit. One would think that the attractiveness of having an early option at those other two schools would garner more apps to them, and if their admission programs were ED, they could have snatched up and kept some of Harvard’s "share. Most kids I know who apply to that trio of schools, just want to get accepted by any one of them and would go for a bump up in an instant. However, Harvard is certainly sitting in an eviable position with that 94% yield figure in SCEA accepted students. That is close to many if not most ED yields.</p>
<p>This discussion makes me wonder what an all-EA college world would look like. Apps go in by Nov 1, answers come back before the holidays and students have 4 MONTHS to decide where they want to go. 4 months of colleges wooing accepted students, 4 months to make visits and do overnights and sit in on classes…that might be really neat. I won’t hold my breath, but for students it might be awesome.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re full pay, SCEA is the worst system of all. It has nearly all of the lock-in effect of ED through December but doesn’t provide much, if any, improvement in one’s odds of acceptance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What lock-in effect does SCEA have, since it is non-binding? The main tradeoff is that the applicant is limited in other EA applications; the applicant is not committing to attend if admitted to the SCEA school like s/he would if admitted to an ED school.</p>
<p>Some schools do consider SCEA as a means of signaling that the applicant is more highly interested in the school. Tulane is such a school: <a href=“http://admission.tulane.edu/apply/instructions/[/url]”>http://admission.tulane.edu/apply/instructions/</a></p>