Harvard ends EA -- Says Program Hurts Disadvantaged

<p>That’s a pretty weak excuse. I went to a high school full of poor students in the inner city. I applied ED to a school, and my parents are not exceedingly wealthy or well-connected. It only takes a LITTLE research and interest into a school to find out about these programs. I’ll second that if students can’t find out or comprehend these programs then they shouldn’t be applying to schools like Harvard in the first place. </p>

<p>If anything it’s insulting for Harvard to assume that poor students aren’t exposed to these kinds of programs. I mean, do ALL poor people not have access to libraries????</p>

<p>Ending Early Admissions: Guess Who Wins? </p>

<p>By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: September 17, 2006</p>

<p>WHEN Harvard was founded in 1636, there were no other colleges in the American colonies, and it would become the model for many of those that followed. When it began requiring applicants to take an obscure test known as the SAT in 1935, Harvard started another trend. Two years ago, after it announced an aggressive new financial-aid policy, it helped push social class to the center of the national debate over higher education and forced two of its main rivals, Stanford and Yale, to follow its lead.</p>

<p>Harvard’s End to Early Admissions Intrigues Others (September 13, 2006) Last week, Harvard embarked on another effort to mold higher education in its image. Its interim president, Derek Bok, announced that the college would abandon its early admissions program, which for decades has allowed high school seniors to apply in October and get an answer — yes, no or maybe — in December, shortly before the regular deadline for applications.</p>

<p>Harvard officials argue that the program gives yet another leg up to well-off students, who don’t need to compare financial-aid offers from numerous colleges and who often attend high schools where counselors help put together applications. After the announcement, many people within education urged other colleges to take a similar step.</p>

<p>“We’re thrilled,” said Laurie Kobick, a college counselor at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va. “I think it’s going to make admissions better in so many different ways.”</p>

<p>What, then, might a world without early applications look like?</p>

<p>It would indeed go a small way toward leveling the field among applicants, researchers say. But it would also have an effect on colleges, and the biggest winner would almost certainly be Harvard, a fact that may prevent many other colleges — perhaps all of them — from mimicking Harvard this time. Any college that does so will risk losing some of its best applicants.</p>

<p>Early admissions programs, which date back to the 1950’s and now admit half of the freshman class on some campuses, are essentially a bargain between colleges and applicants. The college gives early applicants a small advantage, admitting some who might have been rejected had they applied later. In exchange, the students generally promise to attend the college if they’re admitted. </p>

<p>The colleges then save money on financial aid, because students accepted early have little leverage to negotiate a better package. Perhaps more important, admissions officers can populate a large portion of their freshman class without worrying that an applicant will end up being admitted to a more prestigious college and choose it instead. </p>

<p>The most prestigious college in the world, of course, is Harvard, and the gap between it and every other university is often underestimated. Yes, U.S. News & World Report ranked Princeton No. 1 this year, and colleges that emphasize teaching may well offer a better education than Harvard. But it still exerts a pull on teenagers that is unmatched.</p>

<p>A few years ago, a group of economists surveyed 3,200 top high school seniors at 500 schools across the country, asking them which colleges had admitted them and which one they would attend. With this information, the researchers could estimate how often students chose one college over another.</p>

<p>Among those who were admitted to both Harvard and Duke — sometimes called the Harvard of the South — and who attended one of the two, about 3 percent picked Duke, according to the economists’ statistical model. Only 11 percent chose Brown, perhaps the trendiest Ivy League university in recent years, over Harvard. Princeton and Stanford win only about 25 percent of their battles with Harvard. Yale gives the stiffest competition, winning about 35 percent of the time, which in politics would be considered a crushing landslide.</p>

<p>For any college contemplating the end of early admissions, the implications are plain enough. “There are a lot of people who apply to Yale early or to Princeton early,” said Andrew Metrick, one of the economists who did the study and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, “who might choose to go to Harvard if they got in.” </p>

<p>Dozens of other colleges would be even more vulnerable to losing their best applicants. Today, students often choose to apply early to a college where they think they have a good chance of being admitted, rather than to one that seems like a long shot. Understanding this, admissions officers are happy to admit so many students early. As Ellen Fisher, college adviser at the Bronx High School of Science, said, the officers often ask themselves, “Is this someone we might lose if we don’t take early?”</p>

<p>There are caveats to Harvard’s dominance. Every year, about 20 percent of the students it accepts turn it down, evidently deciding that prestige is not everything. If early admissions were to go away, some high school seniors would still find themselves able to resist the lure of a Harvard acceptance letter. </p>

<p>Already, M.I.T., Stanford and Yale allow a student who was accepted early to apply elsewhere, opening themselves up to competition from Harvard. These colleges, or others, may well decide that the larger good of a fairer admissions process is worth the cost. “There is no question about it: early admissions advantages the advantaged,” William R. Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s dean of admissions, said. “It’s truly tilted.”</p>

<p>Officials at Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Princeton and Yale, for their part, suggested last week that they had no immediate plans to make a change. They all have more to lose than Mr. Fitzsimmons does.</p>

<p>^^^^^And here's the link mentioned in the article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Los Angeles Times editorial:</p>

<p>Veritas in College Admissions
Harvard hopefully leads the way in ending early admissions.</p>

<p>September 16, 2006</p>

<p>THERE ARE A FEW DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS in the college admissions game. Yes, the children of the very wealthy, known in the trade as "development" cases, do get preferential treatment in the hopes that their parents will endow a building or two. Yes, academic standards are often relaxed (or ignored) when it comes to admitting athletes in big-money sports such as football and basketball. And yes, so-called early admissions policies allow universities to improve their standing in national rankings but are unfair to minorities and low-income students.</p>

<p>There's not much hope of righting the first two injustices anytime soon. But Harvard University struck a powerful blow against the third this week. Starting with the class seeking entry in fall 2008, Harvard will end early admissions.</p>

<p>Under this process, the deadline for applications is October or November rather than January. By December, high school seniors usually know if they've been admitted. Many colleges (though not Harvard) insist on an "early decision" system, meaning that those accepted must commit to enrolling.</p>

<p>For the colleges, this is a way of increasing their "yield" — the percentage of admitted students who actually enroll. Rightly or wrongly, the yield is seen as a measure of a college's quality; if most admitted students choose to enroll, then the school must be desirable. In a backhanded way, early admission also contributes to another key indicator of college quality, selectivity, or the percentage of applicants who are accepted. With early knowledge that it has filled a good portion of its freshman class, a school can afford to be highly selective with later applicants.</p>

<p>Students at schools with active college counselors are more likely to take advantage of early admission or to know it exists. And students who need financial aid often don't apply early because they want to be able to compare aid packages from different colleges. That's why early admission cases are overwhelmingly from high-income families.</p>

<p>In some ways, it's even unfair to the students who take advantage of it. Rather than taking the time to search for the college that is the best fit, they must decide by early fall which school they want to focus on. The college application stress starts months earlier than it should.</p>

<p>As one of the nation's most prestigious universities — some even put it on par with the great institutions of higher learning in California — Harvard can afford to ignore its position in national rankings. Others aren't so lucky. But if enough big-name universities follow suit, dumping early admissions could become a sign of prestige. That would put higher education on higher ground.</p>

<p>^^Link:
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-harvard16sep16,0,5232627.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-harvard16sep16,0,5232627.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>From the NY Times article. </p>

<p>"Among those who were admitted to both Harvard and Duke — sometimes called the Harvard of the South — and who attended one of the two, about 3 percent picked Duke, according to the economists’ statistical model. Only 11 percent chose Brown, perhaps the trendiest Ivy League university in recent years, over Harvard. Princeton and Stanford win only about 25 percent of their battles with Harvard. Yale gives the stiffest competition, winning about 35 percent of the time, which in politics would be considered a crushing landslide."</p>

<p>I'd pick Duke, Brown, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale over Harvard in a heartbeat!!! I'm so jealous of the people who were accomplished enough to be able to make that choice...</p>

<p>I’m still not seeing any compelling reason for why early admissions is inherently a detriment to the poor.....</p>

<p>"I’m still not seeing any compelling reason for why early admissions is inherently a detriment to the poor....."</p>

<p>(1) Early admissions programs confer a tremendous selection advantage upon those who participate.</p>

<p>(2) Poor students are much less likely to participate in early admissions programs.</p>

<p>From recruiting in inner-city areas in NYC, as an undergraduate, I was appalled at how these schools - including very highly-regarded ones (minus places like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, of course) - had NO idea what early admissions was. SCEA at Harvard, just like any other early admissions programs, have homogeneous pools - they are rich, white and in very well-regarded schools with fantastic college counselors.</p>

<p>Don't families whose income is <60K get a free ride? Wouldn't you know this if you were poor?</p>

<p>“(1) Early admissions programs confer a tremendous selection advantage upon those who participate.</p>

<p>(2) Poor students are much less likely to participate in early admissions programs”</p>

<p>-This is not an answer. Saying that poor students are less likely to participate does not say WHY or HOW they are in any way disadvantaged in early admissions. This problem seems to have less to do with income than a person’s research of the schools to which he is applying. </p>

<p>The only nearly-valid reason I can see for saying that it has to do with income is that students aren’t granted the freedom to “shop around” financial aid offerings. Most of the schools in question, however, meet 100% of students’ demonstrated need; so it would seem to me that the financial aid decisions for poorer students wouldn’t be vastly different among the schools. </p>

<p>“From recruiting in inner-city areas in NYC, as an undergraduate, I was appalled at how these schools - including very highly-regarded ones (minus places like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, of course) - had NO idea what early admissions was. SCEA at Harvard, just like any other early admissions programs, have homogeneous pools - they are rich, white and in very well-regarded schools with fantastic college counselors.”</p>

<p>-All this says to me is that the students you saw were not taking college research too seriously. Honestly, it’s very easy to learn about ED, EA, SCEA, etc. People are making it seem like this is the most difficult cpncept in the world to grasp. This is BASIC college admissions information, along with taking standardized test, getting recommendations, etc. Does a lack of wealth really stop a student from going to a library and researching colleges? If a person has the drive to learn (about college admissions), then he can and shall do so.</p>

<p>“Don't families whose income is <60K get a free ride? Wouldn't you know this if you were poor?”</p>

<p>If you took the half hour to research the school to which you were applying (Harvard), yep, it wouldn’t be that difficult to learn.</p>

<p>I have seen threads right here on CC, right here in this Harvard Forum, alas, which might dissuade a poor applicant from applying to Harvard SCEA. Even more misinformation abounds in the offices of high school counselors in many of America's public schools. Not all places are as focused on these issues as the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states (as I am quite sure, having traveled all over the country and having lived in various regions). Harvard now makes it unmistakably clear that all applicants to its undergraduate college will be evaluated in the same batch, with an application deadline comparable to that of most elite colleges around the country (and later than Stanford's RD deadline). From here, it's an EMPIRICAL question what will happen as the result of the change, and it's kind of silly to argue endlessly about it on theoretical (well, really, anecdotal) grounds, when the actuality of what will happen will be available to observe in just a few years.</p>

<p>“From here, it's an EMPIRICAL question what will happen as the result of the change, and it's kind of silly to argue endlessly about it on theoretical (well, really, anecdotal) grounds, when the actuality of what will happen will be available to observe in just a few years.”</p>

<p>Is this not what Harvard itself did in abolishing the program, saying it harms the
“disadvantaged”? If there is an EMPREICAL answer to the question of HOW early admissions harms poor students, I would like it. This is, and has been my underlying question. If there is no answer, then I shall continue to question the stated motives for the abolishing of the program.</p>

<p>I'm late to the conversation here but I did write something up on my blog. It's several hundreds words of commentary on the harvard business so I won't barf it all out, here's a link: <a href="http://www.samjackson.org/college/2006/09/17/harvard-drops-ea-class-of-2012-panics/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.samjackson.org/college/2006/09/17/harvard-drops-ea-class-of-2012-panics/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>here's my conclusion from there:

[quote]

So my conclusion? Harvard, citing inequality, ends Early Action. This gives them good publicity and good karma, and is the right thing to do. Other schools watch and wait. Nothing affects me since I’m applying this year. College Admissions just as fickle as ever.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's great to know that Harvard is really working to destroy the class stereotype for the school and not as a publicity stunt. </p>

<p>Go Harvard!!!</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Not any more.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/86/07G08/index.xml?section=topstories%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/86/07G08/index.xml?section=topstories&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Thanks for posting the link, Hanna, indicating that Princeton looks at the matter the same way.</p>

<p>This is great news. Progressive things are happening.</p>

<p>I've been waiting a long time for this to happen.</p>

<p>Let us hope Shaw at Stanford follows suit.</p>