<p>"Harvard Colleges admissions office will announce whether it will bring back an early admissions program within the next several months, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons 67 said in an interview earlier this week.</p>
<p>'By the time spring comes around, well have to have made a decision,' Fitzsimmons said.</p>
<p>Harvard decided to eliminate its non-binding early action program in 2006. At the time, College officials stated that the early admissions programregarded by many as an advantage in the admissions processdisproportionately benefited affluent students, who were more likely to have access to resources that could help them prepare their applications for an early deadline."</p>
<p>Translation: There was never any strong justification for Harvard dropping early action. It was Derek Bok’s idee fixe and an attempt to exercise grand moral leadership, except no one followed. No one feels passionate about it, and not having Early Action complicates life in the Harvard admissions office somewhat.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong: Princeton was right to end its Early Decision program, and Virginia was admirable, too. If having Harvard on the podium with them helped them make that decision, then than you, Harvard. But I think Early Action cures 98% of the problems with Early Decision, and it’s enormously popular with applicants, including many low-income applicants. There was a third choice besides abusive ED programs and waiting until April for everyone (except several hundred – and counting – applicants who for whatever reason you felt like accepting earlier), and Harvard and Princeton would have been more effective leaders if they had emphasized that.</p>
<p>They absolutely should NOT bring back either early program. The Early Action program (at ANY school) gives students an advantage in the admissions process. Why should one applicant pool have a higher rate of admissions than the other? It shouldn’t, especially if all of the applicants are equally qualified.</p>
<p>I understand that some schools have higher application requirements for Early Action students so that all of those applicants are well-qualified. But Harvard is such an elite school that they really can’t raise the bar any higher for applicants.</p>
<p>Also, Early Decision is just a scam by colleges to increase their yield. Harvard already has an 80% yield rate, so they don’t need to worry about locking their applicants into paying Harvard $200,000.</p>
<p>In short, there is no legitimate reason for ED/EA to exist at Harvard.</p>
<p>I don’t follow your logic on how it gives students an unfair advantage. Even if it did, early action isn’t binding, so everyone could theoretically apply early which would cancel out any advantage. Schools similar to Harvard that have early admissions, like Yale and Stanford, say that applying early doesn’t improve your chances at all. The higher admissions rate is misleading due to the acceptances of recruited athletes, legacies, a stronger overall applicant pool, etc. </p>
<p>I think it’s very unlikely Harvard would go to ED, and I don’t see how EA hurts lower-income students or anyone else, so there’s no legitimate reason for it not to exist at Harvard.</p>
<p>As a relatively low income student who aspires to harvard, EA would not hurt me. It would help me because if I applied EA and didn’t get in, I’d focus on other schools I’m considering for RD and would no longer be obsessing about harvard. It would be a huge mental burden off my back, whether I got accepted or not.</p>
<p>Applying Single-Choice Early Action does not increase the likelihood of being admitted to Yale. Historically, the rate of admission among early applicants has been higher than the overall admission rate because many of our strongest candidates, from a wide range of backgrounds and interests, apply early.</p>
<p>Is there an advantage to applying early?
No, not really. Other than the fact that if you are deferred you get a second chance, there isn’t an advantage to applying early. If anything it could hurt you because you’ve got a bunch of kids that likely have MIT as their first choice and all of them are probably quite brilliant. EA applicants are more self-selective.</p>
<p>IMO, the only advantage to applying early is that it gives the applicant an opportunity to introspect and be better organized for Regular Applications.</p>
<p>I don’t think that Harvard should bring back its Early Action program - not because of perceived advantages/disadvantages to applicants (I agree with silverturtle in that for EA there are no advantages), but because of the mechanics of the admissions process. </p>
<p>If Harvard brought back EA, it would face the much debated philosophical question about deferral. Does Harvard, like Yale, defer a large portion of its applicants? Or does it take the Stanford route and reject many of them in the REA round? Certainly there are many who are passionate for both sides. </p>
<p>Furthermore, it seems advantageous for Harvard to be able to compare all of their applicants for several months before deciding who will constitute their new freshman class. They certainly don’t need to increase their yield rate via an Early program. In one round, they can make all their offers and financial aid packages at the same time. With their high yield rate, I fail to see a compelling reason for Harvard to restart their EA program. </p>
<p>Just my friendly input, but I don’t think that bringing the Early Action program back is necessary.</p>
<p>A SCEA like Yale or Stanford would be a good thing, in that it would spread out the admissions review season, and allow them to be more deliberate. It also has the potential to slow the increase in the number of applications to all schools (if you get into a top choice EA, maybe you send out a couple RD apps, not a dozen.)</p>
<p>Harvard might be concerned that it is losing a significant number of exemplary students who fall prey to the idea that if they apply early somewhere, they’ll have a better shot at getting in. Schools with ED programs manage to snatch up many students who could have settled for better, but are instead bound by the ED agreement. If Harvard offers such a program (EA or ED), even if there isn’t any real advantage to applying early, they’ll get those top-tier applicants who might have been otherwise mislead. Furthermore, even students who have applied and been accepted to a non-binding early program may be less inclined to apply to Harvard afterwards (some people slack off and their applications won’t be as good, some will have unconsciously reinforced that early school as their first-choice even if it isn’t, etc. etc.). Harvard is just looking out for itself. ED and EA are utilized because they’re good for colleges not students, and if nobody else plays fair, I doubt Harvard will feel so inclined either.</p>
<p>To be honest, the whole system just sucks and there is no reasonable way to correct it. And that’s why fewer and fewer kids get to go where they want.</p>
<p>“ED and EA are utilized because they’re good for colleges not students”</p>
<p>Colleges like ED for locking in money (from full list payers) and top talent. EA doesn’t do schools as much good; it will tip a few students to them, and lighten the RD workload a bit.</p>
<p>Students love ED and EA (when there’s an acceptance!) for reducing stress after Dec. 15, knowing they have a good place to go.</p>
<p>“And that’s why fewer and fewer kids get to go where they want.”</p>
<p>With seats constant (or decreasing at some state schools) and increasing applicants, fewer kids get their first choice. We’re just coming off the peak of the echo boom, so there will be somewhat fewer applicants for a while (to all schools combined), unless internationals continue increasing in numbers.</p>
<p>Ugh. People keep saying that applications will be going down, and there’s absolutely nothing to support that. There is a very small 6-7 year trough in the number of high school graduates, that at its low point is about 3% below the peak a couple of years ago. It is likely to be completely offset by international applications and by a steady increase in the percentage of high school graduates who go to college.</p>
<p>In any event, that’s macro across American society. But whereas fourth-tier colleges in New England – where there are lots of colleges and decreasing population – may have a problem, Harvard’s year-to-year applications increase has dwarfed any underlying changes in population. Whatever is happening at the population level, or with international applications, Harvard and its ilk are attracting more and more applications, because they are both the best academic option and the best financial option for huge numbers of students, and way more people are aware of their prestige and reputation than was true a generation ago.</p>
<p>“there’s absolutely nothing to support that … a very small 6-7 year trough in the number of high school graduates … likely to be completely offset by international applications”</p>
<p>Hey, we agree! </p>
<p>“a steady increase in the percentage of high school graduates who go to college”</p>
<p>It’s actually not steady, it’s declining.</p>
<p>I’m just being picky about “And that’s why fewer and fewer kids get to go where they want.” ED and EA don’t change the number of seats, therefore not number of kids that get to go where they want.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that the percentage of high school graduates going to college is declining? I haven’t seen anything to suggest that. I will grant that my phrase “steady increase in the percentage” was ambiguous, because the rate of increase may have been slowing (I don’t know). But at least through 2009 everything I have seen indicated continuous year-on-year increases, and especially among Hispanic kids, who are the fastest-growing population group.</p>
<p>We agree completely on ED/EA not changing the number of seats or the number of kids who get to go where they want. I think the percentage of kids who get to go where they want has declined precipitously over the past generation, because more and more kids have been induced to want the same brand names. Of course, the absolute number of kids who get to go to, say, Harvard, remains pretty constant from year to year.</p>
<p>“because the rate of increase may have been slowing”</p>
<p>Yes, this is my technical refuge. But with state budgets shrinking, and some states cutting college seats, the percentage of happy kids will clearly drop. :(</p>
</p>