Harvard drops SCEA; Princeton drops binding ED; when will Yale follow?

<p>"YALE HAS MADE a non-binding decision on early action: In a meeting last week, the school's board chose not to follow Harvard and Princeton in eliminating its early admissions program. But President Richard Levin tells the YDN: "That's not a final decision." Oh, the stress of college admissions.</p>

<p>The wavering at Yale is somewhat suprising, since Levin has long been critical of early admissions and, in 2002, sought approval from the Justice Department to drop the program along with other schools. Perhaps the YDN could explain what accounts for the newfound apprehension...."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514637%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514637&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>maybe this persuasive argument from the west coast:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/opinion/27etchemendy.html?_r=2&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Contributors&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/opinion/27etchemendy.html?_r=2&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Contributors&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>HARVARD’S and Princeton’s recent announcements that they will soon end the early admission programs they now use to choose part of their freshman classes have garnered a great deal of attention, including editorials urging other institutions to follow their lead. It is a shame that the publicity, so abundant in its praise, has been so short on facts and clearheaded analysis. </p>

<p>There are two very different kinds of early admission programs offered by colleges and universities. Binding early admission contractually requires students who apply early and are accepted to attend the college that admitted them. Nonbinding early admission programs do not require admitted students to commit until the admission season ends in the spring. Students can meanwhile apply to other colleges in the regular round and make their decisions after they hear the results of those applications. Harvard, Stanford and Yale, for instance, have non-binding early programs; Princeton’s early program is binding.</p>

<p>One complaint about early programs is that students accepted early do not have the opportunity to compare competing financial aid packages — they are locked in to attending the college that has already accepted them. This is a legitimate criticism of binding early admission programs, but it simply does not apply to non-binding programs. Students accepted in nonbinding programs can and do compare aid packages from all the colleges to which they are admitted.</p>

<p>By far the most common criticism of early admission programs is, to quote the presidents of both Harvard and Princeton, that these programs “advantage the advantaged.” Critics point out that admission rates are somewhat higher in the early round than in the regular admission round. They assume that the pool of early applicants is disproportionately wealthier than those in the regular round. The conclusion seems inescapable: the wealthy are benefiting from the higher admission rates of early programs.</p>

<p>This reasoning is faulty, however. Consider an analogous situation. If you look at the pool of people who file income tax returns in January, you’ll find that a higher percentage get a refund than those who delay until April. Does this imply that the I.R.S. is giving an unfair advantage to those who file early, that filing early increases your chances of getting a refund?</p>

<p>Of course not: the I.R.S. refund standards are identical whether you file early or late. The difference is that those expecting a refund are more likely to file early, while those who owe money are inclined to wait. The pools are different; the standards are not. Those filing early are in no way “advantaged.”</p>

<p>There is nothing about early admissions, in itself, that gives an advantage to those who apply early. It all depends on whether the university imposes lower, the same, or higher standards to the early pool. Nor can you infer the standards by simply comparing admission rates in the early and late pools.</p>

<p>The admission rate is determined by two things: the standards applied and the qualifications of the applicants. If the early pool is, on average, more qualified, then applying precisely the same standard will result in a higher rate of acceptance.</p>

<p>At Stanford, we actually apply somewhat higher standards to our early pool, since we do not want to accept students early unless we’re confident they would get in during the regular round. This is reflected in the SAT scores for these students: they average 40 points higher than those of students admitted later. It is not, however, reflected in our early acceptance rate, which is indeed somewhat higher than in the regular round. </p>

<p>No doubt some schools give an advantage to early applicants. If so, they are advantaging those applicants; if not, not. The problem, in any event, doesn’t lie with early admissions programs but rather with the standards applied.</p>

<p>How about the assumption by critics that early programs are predominantly used by the wealthy? At Stanford, 36 percent to 40 percent of the students accepted early apply for financial aid; in the regular round only slightly more, 40 percent to 44 percent, seek aid. But even if our early pool were disproportionately well off, those applicants would not, as we have seen, get an admission advantage.</p>

<p>The final charge made by critics of early programs is that they increase the frenzy of the college admission process. This is certainly not true for those students who are clear about their first-choice college: they can apply to that institution early. If they get in, their admissions worries are over. If they do not, they can then submit applications to other schools, but are in no worse shape than if there were no early admission program.</p>

<p>Without such programs, many students who now apply to a single college will feel compelled to apply to 10 or more in order to be confident of an acceptance. This will increase the overall number of college applications, and that in turn will probably increase — not decrease — the pressure felt by all high school seniors going through the process.</p>

<p>Indeed, early admission programs were originally intended to decrease that pressure. Done right, the programs do not give any advantage to those who apply in the early round, and students who are uncertain about where they want to go shouldn’t feel that they must apply early.</p>

<p>The best way to decrease the frenzy of the admission season? Have colleges universally adopt nonbinding early admission programs, and then apply the same or higher standards to the early decisions as they do to the regular round. It’s a solution that’s fair for the students and practical for the colleges. </p>

<p>John Etchemendy is the provost of Stanford University.</p>

<p>i, for one, don't find the provost's argument terribly persuasive. i'm more persuaded by hard numbers like those offered by avery et al, and occasionally by admissions offices themselves:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2006100301010%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2006100301010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>After requesting numerical breakdowns for differences in the early and regular decision pools last week, the Office of Admissions and Financial Aid released specific statistics to The Dartmouth on Friday.</p>

<p>These statistics for the members of Dartmouth's Class of 2010 reflect strong numerical disparities between the early and regular decision pools.</p>

<p>The most drastic difference in representation between the two pools is in minority matriculants; 19 percent of matriculants from the early decision pool are racial minorities, whereas 40 percent of those accepted in the regular pool are considered minorities.</p>

<p>Thirty-eight percent of matriculants admitted to the Class of 2010 through early decision are receiving need-based financial aid, compared to 57 percent of regular decision matriculants. </p>

<p>Nine percent of students accepted early are the first in their families to attend college. In comparison, 14 percent of students accepted from the regular decision pool are first-generation college students.</p>

<p>I think you blame the device more than the operator. The burden lies on the admissions committee (though I do agree that early decision is an unfair practice). Recruit more, admit less, change to early action, whatever, but can you really blame the actual date of the application for everything? That's sort of hand waving if you ask me.</p>

<p>Rallying to Levin's new position, bulldog?</p>

<p>not exactly. But I don't think that Harvard's move was anything more than a PR stunt, timed so well after its USNews drop. Meritocratic admissions will have to start with Byerly Hall, not early action.</p>

<p>So you think Harvard was in a panic about being #2 in USNews? </p>

<p>Was Princeton also so panicky about their chances of holding onto #1 for the 6th straight year that they followed Harvard's lead? </p>

<p>And was Yale so happy to be #3 again - staving off MIT, Penn and Duke - that they decided to play a pat hand?</p>

<hr>

<p>I don't think we're talking about "meritocratic" admissions ... we're talking about "diversity" - economic, ethnic, geographic etc.</p>

<p>I think you're sort of right, except for the Princeton part. Princeton's ED policy really was detrimental. And of course they played the obseqious servant to harvard with a quick "me too, me too!" </p>

<p>Yale and Stanford will stand on the sidelines while Harvard realizes that with the exception of the AD's demise, nothing will actually change with its new policy.</p>

<p>Oh there will be a number of changes, I think, although I'm not sure what they will be. </p>

<p>Frankly, I think Levin will eventually find it embarrassing enough to be disregarding the moral, anti-early admissions stance he took in 2002 and will come around. But I'm sure he is anxiously hoping to get away with "observing the experiment" for a year, and meanwhile take advantage of the situation to trim back Harvard's common admit edge a bit, and pump up his own yield rate further. </p>

<p>Who knows: hanging onto its early program may accomplish an even more important objective - giving Yale an edge over Harvard and Princeton in football recruiting! Lord knows, they're desperate to try anything on this score!</p>

<p>The switch from binding ED to SCEA was a ten-strike for Yale, yield-rate-wise, and I'm sure Levin is loath to abandon it.</p>

<p>A Dartmouth columnist seems to agree with you, bulldog, that its all just a public relations trick to get Harvard's name in the paper, and that regardless of the merits of the issue, Dartmouth should refuse to go along just to show it has an independent foreign policy - uninfluenced by the Collossus on the Charles. Strikes me as an odd way to set policy!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2006100302010%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2006100302010&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Says President should have the courage of his former convictions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-earlyadmit.artoct03,0,681130.story?coll=hc-headlines-editorials%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-earlyadmit.artoct03,0,681130.story?coll=hc-headlines-editorials&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It is a public relations trick. It will have no impact on diversity. In fact, for the reasons I laid out above, it will actually make it more difficult for colleges to attract a diverse class.</p>

<p>hardly a "public relations trick." while it may, incidentally, be good for PR, it's also very risky and likely bad for competitive standing. (this is why you see the lower ivies still clinging to SCEA/ED.) for courageously putting principle over self-interest, H&P <em>deserve</em> the good PR they've gotten.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=33557%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=33557&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>sort of pales in comparison to the felons on the Harvard football team.</p>

<p>and what exactly does this have to do with the OP? nothing?</p>

<p>Which "felons" were those? Ony one Harvard guy even got arrested, and he got off when the witness wouldn't testify.</p>

<p>Neverthelees, he got kicked off the team</p>

<p>There were two Harvard other kids who got into an argument with a bus driver. No arrests, But they got suspended from the team anyway.</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see what happens at Yale. </p>

<p>Presumably they are reluctant to appear to be following Harvard's lead in this as in other matters, and President Levin will appoint a committee to study the situation, with its report due the week after the Harvard game.</p>

<p>I believe that this will actually hurt Yale. Now kids who would have applied to Harvard EA or Princeton ED will apply early to Yale, causing Yale's early acceptance count to skyrocket. Howver, these kids aren't really interested in going to Yale, they just will apply b/c it is an Ivy, while they would prefer Pton or Hvard.</p>

<p>On the other hand ....</p>

<p>Yale (and possibly Stanford) will get first crack at the pick of the litter - "feasting on the early-bird specials" as one wag put it - and will have 90 days of exclusive negotiating rights to its early admits.</p>

<p>I assume surveys are being undertaken, and computer models run, to see which is the most advantageous approach for Yale to take. </p>

<p>This unique opportunity to trim its common admit losses to Harvard, and to open a common admit lead over Princeton, must be tempting.</p>

<p>"All except Polhemus were charged with breach of peace in the second degree and criminal mischief in the third degree. Polhemus was charged with breach of peace in the second degree." </p>

<p><a href="http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-yalefight10051-nite.artoct04,0,2948219.story?coll=hc-headlines-sports-college%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-yalefight10051-nite.artoct04,0,2948219.story?coll=hc-headlines-sports-college&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I seriously doubt this will result in their suspensions. All minor misdemeanors and Polhemus seems not to have been involved.</p>

<p>Stanford should can their policy while we don't look like total followers.</p>

<p>At least Etchemendy took himself out of the running for the H-bomb presidency.</p>