<p>felipecoco.......UChicago admits like 40% or <, not 50%.</p>
<p>And something tells me this is just another "progressive" publicity stunt. Why wouldn't they just go open EA? As if poor kids and minorities can't figure that out? They didn't like the negative press that surrounds early rounds with vastly higher admit rates, so they are trying to push other selective schools off the edge with them. Combined with the Laurence Summers debacle, the stiflingly politically correct atmosphere, and that horrid traffic, this pushes me more towards Yale (Taliban man or no) and UChicago as far as my decision and applications go.</p>
<p>I don't have any opinion on this issue yet since I see credibility to both sides of the debate and I think that we just have to wait to see what happens. Anyhow, I wonder where our beloved and omniscient Byerly is at this fine hour in Harvard's history???;)</p>
<p>drummerdude, this year chicago admitted 36%... but the stat I had (the year I forgot, it was a couple years ago) happened when they admitted 50%, so I was just trying to be consistent... but ur right, this year it was a lot lower.</p>
<p>Regarding ur second comment, I just think that Harvard is attracting a lot of neg. publicity to itself over this past year, and this is an attempt to counter that. Between football stars raping their gfs, students who plagiarize novels, a president who is not PC, fall in USNWR... they needed something positive. I think this is it, but I don't think they'll succeed. Either way, I think the Harvard brand will prove too strong to get affected by these things...</p>
<p>He's probably out at some big alumni bash celebrating, having supported the decision all along. I'm picturing the party a la great gatsby, just because :)</p>
<p>If Harvard or a similar school has an SCEA policy, then that student, if satisfied with the aid package, wont have to apply to 10-15 schools. (As was my case and many others around my area). If they are not satisfied, then they can apply to other schools and either go to a school thats offering more aid or use the financial aid offering from this second school to make the SCEA school change its financial aid to keep the student. This was the very scheme a friend of mine used to get Harvard to give her more money. She applied and was accepted SCEA, then applied regular to Yale and a few other schools who offered more money. She then went to Harvard and explained her sitution and they caved.</p>
<p>So SCEA will actually help applicants. I see no reason for why SCEA would hurt a disadvantaged applicant because of the fact that they still have the Regular Decision to compare financial aid packages.</p>
<p>i think it's ridiculous that the people at harvard believe this decision will reduce stress. i think it will have the opposite effect b/c kids who want to know their decision early will have to wait plus the ones who would feel safer applying scea would now feel intimidated by the approx. 22000 aplicatns against whom they must compete.</p>
<p>Has Byerly not weighed in on this one...or did I just miss his post?</p>
<p>One concern I have about this new policy is the non-athlete "likely" letters...such as the one's that have come out in the past few years in February and March. This "informal" marketing tactic...without a definite notification date...could produce even more stress than it currently does, if Harvard feels a need to use it even more extensively when the SCEA policy is eliminated.</p>
<p>"You can't equate percentage of acceptance to difficulty of acceptance."</p>
<p>I did not equate those two. It's well-known that the early applicant pool is academically stronger than the regular pool. However, it is also true that early applicants are accepted at a higher rate because the school assumes (correctly) that these students are more likely to come if accepted and thus will help increase the yield. This may not be as important at Harvard (but even there the early pool had >90% yield while the regular pool's yield was in the high 70s), but other schools that are scared of losing their admittees will give extra preference to the early applicant pool. That's really the only way Yale, Princeton, and Stanford can keep their yield close to 70%, and lesser schools over 50%.</p>
<p>What I'm saying is that the early applicant pool does enjoy substantial preference, even when they get deferred to the regular pool. You have to concede that.</p>
<p>harvard's decision is flawed on so many levels:</p>
<p>1) getting rid of EA will actually increase the "college frenzy" because now you'll have to complete multiple apps rather than filling out ONE application early and waiting to see if you got accepted (and if you didn't get accepted, then you come out even since you have to complete more apps for the january RD deadline anyway).</p>
<p>2) EA has no impact on those who need to compare financial aid packages because EA isn't binding.</p>
<p>3) people applying EA have already figured out what college they want to go to, so the argument that "you need your senior year to figure out what college is right for you" doesn't apply to them.</p>
<p>4) the argument that disadvantaged kids can't understand the difference between EA/ED/REA is completely untrue at best and offensive at worst. both the common app and the harvard supplement come with information about what those programs are! just because you're disadvantaged doesn't mean that you don't have access to this information or that you're incapable of comprehending the differences between them.</p>
<p>5) the argument that EA favors rich people makes absolutely no sense. if the admissions officers are biased during EA, there's no reason why they'd be more fair during RD. moreover, even if the applicants who apply EA are generally rich and affluent, harvard says that they are need blind - that works both ways. need-blindness means that you don't discriminate against either the poor OR THE RICH. if rich applicants are qualified enough to get in, then there's no reason why they should eliminate EA just because the statistics turned out that way.</p>
<p>You are just repeating the same arguments. You are assuming that disadvantaged students have devoted the same time and energy to thinking about their college choices and will be requesting their Harvard application materials in their junior year. That's not true at all. The problem is not that EA people need more time to decide, but that disadvantaged people haven't had the chance to even think about it. </p>
<p>It sucks for the people who's had the chance to carefully plan their college admissions strategy since their freshman year in college, but that's not the point. The point is making sure that people who fell behind have a chance to catch up.</p>
<p>It's all very simple:
1) rich students are more likely to apply early action.
2) early action people are more likely to be preferred even in the regular round, even if you correct for differences in academic credentials
3) thus, rich students are more likely to receive preference, even if you correct for differences in academic credentials</p>
<p>Harvard's decision is trying to eliminate this disparity. Whether it will actually work is another matter.</p>
<p>Saying that poor kids have a higher chance of not knowing about Early Action is like saying </p>
<p>I. Poor kids are likely to have lower grades and SAT Scores
II. We should abolish grades and SAT scores as factors in the college process.</p>
<p>It's simply ridiculous.</p>
<p>Also abolishing EA is basically saying:</p>
<p>I. EA gives a chance for some people to find out about their decision earlier.
II. Harvard used to claim that applying early confers no extra 'edge' over applying RD but is merely an early notification system.
III. But they will remove EA because it somehow gives wealthy people an edge, more than simply an early notification date.
IV. Thus disproving their statement in II.
V. Thus, Harvard is either lying or dumb.
VI. We know Harvardians are generally intelligent
VII. Thus, statement II is a lie.</p>
<p>I gotta admit that I am with those who don't understand Harvard eliminating EA.My D applied EA in November (not Harvard) received her acceptance in Dec and her stress level reduced considerably.</p>
<p>We then had time to leisurely visit the schools she was accepted into and compare financial offers before she made her final decision.The school she applied to EA stressed that it gave you no advantage.In fact they said that the only students that they accept under EA are the ones the admissions committee was sure they would accept under RD.</p>
<p>So, to me the whole EA program was a win for the student involved in it.</p>
<p>I can certainly understand if Harvard was eliminating ED.That is an entirely different ballgame.</p>