Harvard ends EA -- Says Program Hurts Disadvantaged

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
101

<p>
[quote]
Also, disadvantaged kids can't apply EA because if accepted they'd need to automatically accept any financial aid package they're given, which is not an option if they don't have about $45,000 to dispose of thoughtlessly.</p>

<p>Props to Harvard for hopefully starting a trend among universities that will start to level the playing field for underprivileged students!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's people like you who lead to stupid moves like this by university's like Harvard. You just don't take enough time to understand the system before you start mouthing off. EA. It's EA. Non Binding. It doesn't hurt ANYBODY. </p>

<p>Takes no MORE time to apply for...so I don't see how the argument that RD gives poor people more time to work makes any sense...</p>

102

<br>


<br>

<p>If you're going to call other people out for careless posting, keep your own house clean.</p>

103

<br>


<br>

<p>Establishment of EA/ED in the Ivy League was largely driven by Penn. Penn was the first and most enthusiastic proponent of ED as a way to poach some high-end kids from HYP by sewing them up early. And it worked. Penn's SATs and other stats have gone up and the school's ranking along with them. Other Ivys put in EA or ED as a way to limit the effectiveness of Penn's encroachment. If Harvard has started a new trend and the Ivys abandon EA/ED, I predict that Penn will be the last (if ever) to let go of it. It's been a good friend to them.</p>

104

<p>Harvard's move to eliminate EA/ED would show how much it still dominates other universities in selectivity. </p>

<p>In recent years, a number of other universities have been approaching Harvard's rates of selection and even rates of yield. I'm not sure if the bigger insult was in Yale's surpassing Harvard in selectivity 2/3 years running or Harvard finding itself close in selectivity to a wide range of other universities (Columbia, Penn, Stanford) and not so far from small colleges with little or no graduate faculties (Amherst, Pomona).</p>

<p>But watch how well this will work for Harvard. The hard core numbers, based on revealed preference, shows that more than 75% will pick Harvard over any other university. In a league of its own, the World's Number One Best Place. The relative selectivity of Harvard has to rise again. And somehow, yet to be seen, this move towards getting rid of ED/EA will be seen as a critical move in this rise of Harvard.</p>

<p>The whole process is bizarre and predictable.</p>

105

<p>There is one theory that what keeps Harvard on top are 1) its age and 2) its endowment, which is almost double of the next guy. Take those two criteria away and Harvard is on a par with or surpassed by more exceptional schools such as Yale, MIT, Princeton and even Columbia. What must irritate the Harvard people most are the upstarts such as Penn which changed the admissions game and increased its own status within the closed society of the Ivy League, and the youthful ones such as Stanford and Duke which have or will soon surpass Harvard in what it offers its students primarily in faculty and facilities. The loss of Larry Summers and the bureaucratic and political stalling of the Alston expansion plans expose the deep philosophical fissures along the Charles. In any event, there will always be a Harvard but because of competition, it will perhaps be not as imperious as it once regarded itself. </p>

<p>So how will the dropping of EA by Harvard play out? It has given itself a two-year grace period to see if it was to its advantage or not. Or it can extend it indefinitely. Only time will tell. Or as Chou En Lai remarked to Henry Kissinger when asked about the effects of the French Revolution on history, Chou replied, "It is too soon to tell."</p>

<p>Harvard was around long before both Chou and the French Revolution -- and will be around long after. However, it will no longer be the only game in town and will have to abdicate its crown, if it hasn't already. Harvard hasn't fallen; it's just that others have risen above and are surpassing. It keeps everyone humble and healthy.</p>

<p>All of the above is obviously IMHO.</p>

106

<p>People have been saying that Harvard will soon be overtaken or has already been overtaken for the past 40 years. They declared Harvard's influence on higher education to be over in the 1970s. U.S. News ranked Stanford #1 for several years in early 1980s, with Harvard in the third place. Harvard still has a commanding lead over Stanford today, which is not any narrower than in 1980s.</p>

<p>Harvard still has by far the best students and the best faculty by most objective criteria, and this is self-perpetuating. The faculty don't come to Harvard because it's old and rich unlike you claim. They come because Harvard has the best research environment. </p>

<p>You can dream on about Harvard's fall, as they did in the 1980s.</p>

107

<p>Meh. EA takes a lot of work and extra time. Lazy admissions folk...? Don't be toooo quick to dismiss that idea. Harvard's current statement is incongruous with it's earlier defense of EA.</p>

108

<p>ske293, again opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one. About your comment about the faculty, all is relative with regards to "most objective criteria" and "best research environment." MIT, Stanford, Yale and CalTech get more than their share of "best" researchers in the hard sciences, moreso I would guess than Harvard. Engineering? Most might think of the above as well as Cornell, Columbia and five state universities before Harvard. Math? Princeton, of course. Economics? Chicago, Stanford and Wharton (Penn). Political science? Princeton, JHU and Georgetown. Undergraduate research opportunities? Princeton, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, top LACs and Duke all compete very nicely with Harvard's "environment." Post-graduate research? Harvard has been eclipsed by MIT, Stanford, Washington U, CalTech, Berkeley and JHU in several fields. Where does Harvard continue to hold its own among the competition: business, education, medicine and law. But it's hardly first in its class anymore. </p>

<p>Was also intrigued by the comment: "Harvard has a commanding lead over Stanford today." Facts and figures, please. Not wild assumptions. As for the reference to "best," the Harvard brand name may indeed imply that to be true, but please, that is simply not a viable statement. Caveat emptor. </p>

<p>The Harvard standard of "best" rests with its age, money and fading influence. It will perpetuate that association because that is what gives it its cachet and recognition, which to some is a priceless comodity. But to others, it comes with a very high price at the expense of everything else. The old saying that "money is power" is still appropriate -- and the Harvard money gives it its power and also its haughtiness, seen especially with its dropping of EA. </p>

<p>So ultimately, why did Harvard drop EA? Simply because it is Harvard.</p>

<p>Again, all is IMHO.</p>

109

<p>"The hard core numbers, based on revealed preference, shows that more than 75% will pick Harvard over any other university. In a league of its own, the World's Number One Best Place."</p>

<p>Doesn't this statement fail to account for the myriad excellent students who don't apply to Harvard in the first place? Surely some of the people filling the EA and ED slots elsewhere have talent. Or does their lack of interest in Harvard ipso facto indicate that they're not Harvard material?</p>

110

<p>Sure there will be many who would rather go to a local school because of money, loyalty, proximity to home and family, some very special connection. </p>

<p>But most will want to go to Harvard if they could. Harvard knows this and probably wants to make this point a bit more clearly--as if everyone needs a reminder that Harvard is number one without even a close number two to compete with. Just ask the next guy you meet in Inner Mongolia and he will disabuse you of this notion. "Harvard? Oh, yes, that is the great university in America. I don't know where it is but it must be very big. Maybe its a whole city."</p>

<p>Harvard must be frustrated this fact that other places are creeping up on it and must be wondering what is causing this. It can't just be the shift to the digital age (H has lots of talent there) or students love of great teachers (how many students really take advantage of this in their very busy lives). A bigger factor is probably that far more students are focusing on going to the most elite professional schools (when picking someone for the top medical school, it matters less if they went to Harvard than if they did really well in a difficult curriculum among other smart students).</p>

<p>Still the main problem for Harvard has probably been ED (later modified to EA and SCEA). Harvard has had enough of it. </p>

<p>To use an apt metaphor, it is showtime. Harvard has called the game and is asking the players to show their cards. Think of it as a big poker game in Vegas that is being watched on TV and there is a big pot for the winner and a smaller pot for the runners up. </p>

<p>I think in this "game" the winner will win by a big amount. Harvard will be pleased with reasserting its supremacy. Those of us who are not gamblers may be less impressed but the 18 year olds and their parents in the US and abroad will see things differently.</p>

<p>The part I am curious about is how getting rid of all the early decision and action programs will translate into a big boost for Harvard, and how quickly it will happen. How will Harvard's action be followed by others and with what consequences for the whole ranking system. Will US News have to find a new way to do its rankings?</p>

<p>That alone would make this worth it. Everyone is bored with the same set of ranking year after year. Let's have a little surprises. Then CC will have more interesting discussions about which college is better than Harvard or why Harvard sucks.</p>

111

<p>The top students at S's high school showed little to no interest in Harvard, so anecdotally I can attest that there are definitely kids for whom Harvard is not their dream school. Also, one of the first people S met at his "lesser" Ivy was a brilliant girl who had turned down admission to Harvard. Not only hadn't she cared for the atmosphere there when she visited, but she said that friends who attended had admitted to her that they didn't like it much but were there simply because it was Harvard. Of course, this does not mean that H. isn't one of the best universities in the world. It certainly is. But it isn't necessarily viewed as absolutely THE best anymore. I think previous posters are correct when they say that other schools have indeed crept much closer, such that there are more people who are gutsy enough to say no to Harvard.</p>

112

<p>TheGFG: I don't understand when you mean there are "more people who are gutsy enough to say no to Harvard." The yield rate has always remained hovering around 80% and a percentage point here and there.</p>

113

<p>Harvard's endowment is not that impressive when considered per student. Yale and Princeton's are higher.</p>

<p>In terms of its ability to attract NMSC-sponsored National Merit Scholars, a metric always used by academics as the gold standard for merit-based selectivity, Harvard's desirability among the top students has been dropping dramatically over the past five years. It used to have a very, very clear edge in NMSC-sponsored Merit Scholars as a % of its incoming freshman class. Now, Yale has a slightly higher rate. Harvard is still one of the top ones, but relative to what it once was, it has seen a major decline.</p>

<p>In terms of overall acceptance rate, Harvard's has been second best for two of the past three years (behind Yale), and in terms of producing Marshall and Rhodes scholars, Yale produced 7 last year (3 Rhodes, 4 Marshalls) while Harvard had only 2 (0 Rhodes, 2 Marshalls), despite the fact Harvard is much larger.</p>

<p>Hopefully Harvard's elimination of EA won't accelerate these trends. But I have a feeling that if Harvard wants to attract the best students, it needs to take steps to improve its lagging undergraduate quality of life (including both academic and social life), not reform its admissions procedures. Since these trends are reflected in the graduate programs as well, not just undergraduate, this will take more than a "band-aid" fix.</p>

114

<p>Here goes the Yale troll, posterX, yet again...</p>

115

<br>


<br>

<p>I always find it strange that "not liking Harvard much" is such a common experience among anonymous third-hand sources, yet so much rarer among Harvard students and alumni describing their own lives.</p>

<p>Perhaps the lesson is that if you are an unnamed friend of a friend, you're likely to be unhappy at Harvard, and you're wise to choose another school.</p>

116

<br>


<br>

<p>wrong. while princeton's endowment-per student is higher than harvard's, yale's trails both.</p>

117

<p>Dividing up the endowment by student is pointless because endowments don't affect students directly - they affect an institution as a whole. Regardless, you'll likely see Harvard's endowment eclipse Princeton's per student ratio as it is much easier to make money with more money in the first place.</p>

118

<br>


<br>

<p>generally speaking, yes, but there's nothing you can do with $25 billion than you can't do with $12 billion. i'm not aware of any investment vehicle that has a $13+ billion min buy-in.</p>

119

<p>F.scottie, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education 2006-2007 Almanac Issue, page 33, which I have in front of me right now:</p>

<p>LARGEST ENDOWMENTS PER STUDENT</p>

<p>Princeton $1.663 million
Yale $1.354 million
Harvard $1.331 million</p>

120

<p>i have seen different (recent) numbers, but will gladly defer to COHE.</p>