<p>How do Early Action programs (both restrictive and unrestrictive) hurt low-income applicants? If accepted, the applicant is not bound to that school; he/she is free to attend another school if that school provides a better financial aid package.</p>
<p>I can see why Princeton did away with its Early Decision program to help low-income students, but how was Harvard hurting low-income applicants with SCEA?</p>
<p>idk, maybe because the SCEA only lets you apply 1 place early. but i dont see how in the world EA could be harmful to anyone</p>
<p>The biggest problem is that many less affluent high schools have extremely limited college counselling staffs. At many of these schools the counsellors cannot get it together to submit the students transcripts in time for EA/ED deadlines. So the students quite literally CANNOT apply early.</p>
<p>A second, and less absolute, problem is that they have no one to coach them on where to deploy their early app. Since this is a strategic move, it is pointless to do it (particularly if it requires climbing a mountain just to make it happen, as noted above) if you have no idea of where it is reasonable.</p>
<p>What Harvard seems to be really saying is that they consistently find a lot more applications from appealing lower income students in their RD than in their EA pool. So they are concerned that they have too few slots left for these students once they have completed their ED admits. One response is to eliminate EA. The other is to really do what they claim- only admit early those who they would definitely admit RD. If this claim were really true, then eliminating EA could not have any effect on who gets in. If it is not true, then the alternate solution would be to reduce the numbers admitted early. Cut it to say 10% of the entering class, and reserve the remainder of the slots for RD.</p>
<p>It isn't an opinion that EA is harmful to the disadvantaged. It is a fact. Very, very few disadvantaged students apply EA. Since most of the time, EA takes a larger % of appllicants, leaving less spaces for those applying regularly, any group of students not applying EA are getting the disadvantage. It has been suggested that the colleges adjust for this discrepancy by only accepting the truly stellar, wanted students early and deferring the rest into the regular pool to be decided together, so that EA accept numbers would be lower than RA numbers, but the colleges do not want to go that route. That would take care of the EA programs if they institute this more selective policy, in my opinion.I think they are adverse to that because it may impact their admissions numbers. Too many kids take umbrage at being deferred EA and would take a comparable school that accepts them regularly if deferred--say Yale over Harvard, Princeton over Yale, etc. Also when accepted EA, many kids simply do not send in other apps, thereby, ensuring that they will come to the EA school. By making EA competive, the schools themselves are going to have to compete with each other, something they do not want to do, especially if affects their yields unfavorably. In fact, Harvard is even hedging about dropping EA, and I am willing to bet that they reinstitute it if they lose too many kids to their very few direct competitors when they totally EA.</p>
<p>What's the cause and effect relationship between wealth and decision to apply early? Is there any at all? I don't think so. There may be a correlation, but I have yet to see any causation.</p>
<p>Schools can only accept so many students early. With the exception of deferred applicants, the early and regular pools are separate. There generally isn't 'less space' for regular decision applicants. If anything, there's more because from sheer a number standpoint the universities accept more in the second round.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do Early Action programs (both restrictive and unrestrictive) hurt low-income applicants? If accepted, the applicant is not bound to that school; he/she is free to attend another school if that school provides a better financial aid package.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pinkytolip,</p>
<p>I concur with Afan and cptofthehouse. In and of themselves, EA programs are not harmful to low-income or disadvantaged applicants. Rather, its the effect of EA programs (i.e., a confusion or lack of understanding for various Early plan options) that creates a detrimental situation. If all students from all socio-economic groups were provided with the same high level of college admissions counseling, the disadvantages of EA programs would be lessened but this would be a pipe dream. </p>
<p>When Princeton and Harvard chose to suspend their Early notification programs, they were attempting to do the right thing by leveling the playing field. Their decisions are easier to make because they have the distinction of being viewed as two of the most elite colleges in the country. The tremendous leverage they wield gives them both the opportunity to re-center educational values, as well as to realize minimal repercussions to their decisions. Unfortunately, it is fairly certain that the vast majority of other schools who have EA/ED programs will not follow suit. To do so would diminish what these colleges are seeking, e.g., improved prestige/stature, higher rankings from ranksters (as Lloyd Thacker of the Educational Conservancy calls them), increased alumni donations, etc. If these highly selective (but not elite) schools are to make sacrifices, they will want to know that all others of their competitors are doing the same again this may be a pipe dream of an expectation. Harvard and Princeton are simply positioned well to act as they have, not unlike how Bill Gates is able to make altruistic gestures to fight diseases in third-world countries. A billion dollars to Bill Gates isnt going to put much of a dent in his bank account.</p>
<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>Actually, there have been a number of studies done to support the relationships between affluent families/students and their strategies to apply early to colleges. Without getting into a debate on causal relationships and statistical correlation, its evident that Harvard and Princetons decisions were based on what they viewed to be an inequitable situation. Shirley M. Tilghman, Princetons president, noted that early admission advantages the advantaged. She stated that although they have tried hard to create more diversity in their pool of early program applicants, they have not succeeded and concluded that a single admission process is necessary to ensure equity for all applicants.</p>
<p>The best book I have read relevant to this topic is The Early Admissions Game, written a few years ago by a couple of professors from Harvards Kennedy School of Government and a former associate dean of admissions at Wesleyan University.
Reference: <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/AVEEAR.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/AVEEAR.html</a></p>
<p>It isn't so much that EA hurts low income applicants by definition as ED does. The fact of the matter is that more low income applicants are also disadvantaged in ways other than income, most pointedly in home and school support. Most kids who apply EA have parents, school, and peer pressure making them very aware of the situatation. A case in point would be my own boys, who would not have even thought about college by the beginning of senior year and would have procrastinated to the bitter end in apps, limiting their options had they not only gotten a kick in the backside at home, but had their counselors and teachers reminding them, colleges visiting regularly at their school, and the general murmur among students mentioning words like early action to get the danged thing over with so senioritus can set in. When you go to a school where the counselors are overwhelmed with problems like keeping kids from dropping out of high school, dangerous family situations, and the home life is empty of any college references, where few of the students go to college, even fewer to colleges that are not open admissions where you can just walk in and sign up for courses, early admissions is not on anyone's burner, much less the front burner where it needs to be in order to be an option. You do have to get on the ball the year before in order to make the decisions and have your test scores, teachers refs in line to comfortably apply EA. You have to have some idea where you want to apply. It may take the GC or teachers of such a school to dig out that hidden gem of a student that should take a shot at a selective school, most often well beyond the due date. A number of such kids do not even make the application deadlines for RA because it takes a while to get into this process with adult guidance for many kids, especially those who are not in the college prep environment.</p>
<p>Also if you are applying with definite financial need, it is a much more complex process. Financial safeties are not as easy to find as admissions safeties, because many schools that are an auto admit are very low on funds, and even an excellent student may not get a full ride or close to one. Such schools often will not take disadvantaged background into consideration at all since they get so many kids in that category, and go by stats only in awarding money. So putting together that list is pretty tough to do. It is also an overwhelming step to apply to top schools like HYP when you are in that situation. Many do not know that it is easier to get a full ride or close to one from a highly selective school when disadvantaged, than from a local, private school that takes just about any warm body that can pay.</p>
<p>Whatever, the reason, the facts are on the table. Fewer financial aid applicants, particularly those with high need apply early action. Far fewer. </p>
<p>And yes, there is less space for regular applicants, when there is an active EA program in place. The numbers alone tell us that. Harvard one year accepted 19% of their early applicants and only 7% regularly. 63% of those freshmen enrolled were accepted early. You can see how few spots were even left later by those numbers. And though the colleges like to say that the early birds were better qualified, an analysis done by the authors of "The Early Game" showed otherwise. Even taking out the special applicants, such as legacy, development, URM and athletes, the early pool had lower stats. It's just psychologically easier to accept sterling applicants when you have all that room in the class than when you have seen all of those great apps and you are down to few spaces. Except in school where a deliberate attempt is made to limit early action acceptance, this factor come into play every time.<br>
I just gave Harvard as an example. In many schools with less selective criteria, the gap is even more egregrious. I doubt those schools will drop EA because it is a crucial part of their admissions strategy. There is a higher % of kids who apply early who are full pays, and a higher yield among those kids which reaps big benefits in giving the EA kids a bit of a boost. It is the actual numbers, not the theories that drive this EA trend for the colleges.</p>