<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>