<p>This is so funny! I also loved this passage:</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, review of the admissions process is inevitable, especially at major private schools. (Harvard is the GQ of academia, remember?)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard ED is not binding, so the article is nonsense. </p>
<p>Harvard is claiming its "disadvantaged" (code word for selective non-asian minorities) applicants simply are incapable or unwilling to understand Harvard's ED process, or worse are incapable of contacting a 3rd party to explain it to them.</p>
<p>Most early programs are binding however, so it's not entirely nonsense now is it. It's hard to learn about something, or ask for help, if you don't know it exists and your support system (school, parents, and counselor) don't know about it and don't understand it. That's the case at many rural and under priviledged schools.</p>
<p>My kids' school is neither rural nor under-privileged, but it is one that rarely sends students out of state to colleges. As a result, it spews a monumental amount of MISinformation about "schools up north." It is hard enough to seek information that one may not know is out there, but it is even harder to know when to suspect that one's guidance counselor is just flat out misinformed. I think the misinformation is especially great where it comes to understanding the different types of early applications.</p>
<p>This is a matter of increasing concern. Harvard Admission Director Fitzsimmons frequently laments that in the state of California there is only 1 guidance counsellor for every 1,000 students.</p>
<p>ARE STUDENTS ADMITTED EARLY ACTION OBLIGATED TO ATTEND HARVARD?</p>
<p>"No. Early Action is a non-binding, early notification program. A student admitted Early Action has until May 1, as do all admitted students, to accept his or her spot in the entering class</p>
<p>(source Harvard undergrad admissions: Applications Policies and Procedures, Q & A)</p>
<p>Who would expect a potential Harvard applicant to actually be able to readily find this information, something a reasonably bright 6th grader with computer access could generally find out in about 3 minutes. Oh wait, the "disadvantaged" either have no computer, or no access to a computer (as they are so rare), or don't know how to use one -or presumably do they have a postage stamp and an evelope or a postcard to send in for the same information, or lack transportion to bring it to the post office. Oh ok then those guidance counselors (the one's each handling 1000 students) - would generally find this too difficult to figure out.</p>
<p>I guess the terms "has until May 1st" itself is ambiguous and it actually may confuse many applicants, who otherwise would be willing to compare regular decision financial packages from competing schools. They would only have from December 15th, Harvard's early action decision date to figure this out.</p>
<p>This must explain why so many of the disadvantaged are not applying to Harvard under the current early admissions plan</p>
<p>The problem is, of course, much more serious at ED schools, where a financial aid award must be considered in a vacuum, without information from other schools to which the applicant might be admitted.</p>
<p>Citation X, we all know that. It is irrelevant to the discussion of other schools following Harvard's lead. Princeton was binding.</p>
<p>Lowering the Ivory Walls: The Soap Opera, by ASU. Sponsored by GQ.</p>
<p>CITATION X,</p>
<p>I think that actually the fact that Harvard is SINGLE CHOICE early action has much to do with the dis-continuance of the SCEA program. I know several kids who are torn now between applying to Harvard and other schools "early" for fear of losing a chance at Harvard to a large scholarship at another school. Because of the "single choice" requirement, they are forced to choose Harvard over the safer, financial-aid-offerring schools EA.</p>
<p>The discussions right here on CC are adequate demonstration that many committed applicants to Harvard are misinformed about various aspects of the preparation and application process. Worse still is the unknown number of would-be applicants who could be very strong students at Harvard who never apply because their local sources of information are so bad. (Thanks, nceph, for clarifying that point.)</p>
<p>The Harvard EA program permitted ample time to compare offers.</p>
<p>The real question is why in the first place would Harvard want applicants either too (mentally challenged, non-resourceful, dumb, limited, illiterate, incapable, confused, spaced out, or disorganized) - that they cannot fathom Harvard's early admission program.</p>
<p>It is not rocket science</p>
<p>Citation X, I must say, as a student working for admissions for the past year and a half, overall, the SCEA admits have mostly been from wealthy backgrounds and/or from schools that have fantastic college counseling programs. </p>
<p>Very rarely will a student will apply SCEA from an inner-city public school where almost no one goes to college, and those are the types of students to whom Harvard wants to reach out. Most of these students would be "unhooked" as well. </p>
<p>However, during the RD round, because SCEA admits comprise a full 40% of the slots, most admits would be students who have fantastic hooks, such as national awards, etc., which students from inner-city schools or schools without a tradition of sending students to college would never know about. It's not their fault that they didn't know about RSI, TASP, ISEF, Intel, Coca-Cola Scholarships, etc. These communities are pretty stagnant in that there is really no information going around and students do not know where to start in terms of starting the college application process.</p>
<p>Compare that to suburban towns or NYC, my hometown, where college prep begins at a very young age with extracurricular activities, being placed into gifted programs, etc. </p>
<p>Clearly, it is not "rocket science" which candidate would be more attractive when it came down to the wire - the kid who did amazing stuff compared to the kid who did not have comparable stats. The committee's vote would go to the former.</p>
<p>I just wanted to add that it's not simply a matter of underprivileged kids getting no information about admissions, and then failing to take the initiative to do their own research. In a lot of cases, there's active MISinformation being given to the kids, often from highly respected sources like guidance counselors, teachers, and parents. If your counselor or your English teacher tells you that they know for certain that early admissions is binding, or that Harvard just doesn't take kids from your school/town/rural county, or that you won't get financial aid from State U if they find out you applied to Harvard EA...well, it's reasonable for kids to take apparent experts at their word. And YES, there are many, many GC's, teachers, etc. out there telling kids this much and worse. Making a big splash in the news by announcing that the app process is being made simpler is a good way to combat all those misled kids.</p>
<p>... that, and also the kind of outreach efforts such kids as xjayz are involved in.</p>
<p>Down the road, recruiting efforts will be doubling and redoubling in order to ferret out promising students in corners of the country where elite colleges seldom maintain a presence.</p>
<p>One other note in support of Harvard's decision:</p>
<p>Yes, Harvard's program was EA and non-binding. However, many schools DO have binding early programs, and Harvard was stepping forward to set an example that it hoped other schools would follow. Look at what happened- just weeks later, Princeton ended its Early Decision program, as did UVA. Both were binding. Over time, it's possible that ED could be a pretty rare program, rather than the norm.</p>
<p>Byerly is absolutely correct. We are currently reaching out even more and planning out the best way to utilize the extra time not having SCEA for the Class of 2012. It's quite exciting.</p>
<p>xjayz - will you be attending the Cambridge Admissions Conference?</p>
<p>I do not believe so; I have not heard of this conference.</p>