<p>I'm international, so please understand my poor English...
I would just want to question the decision of Harvard to
remove its SINGLE CHOICE EARLY ACTION plan. Harvard officials
explicitly stated that the reason for this decision was to give more
options for the families to compare the financial aid packages, and
thus to choose the better deal. </p>
<p>But I just realized that the early policy of Harvard was only SCEA, not
the binding ED.
And so... although an applicant get accepted to Harvard through SCEA,
they would have been able to compare the financial aid package with
other schools.</p>
<p>And thus there was no reason to remove the SCEA policy, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I just don't get it...cuz I'm dumb...would anyone explain?</p>
<p>They didn't remove the SCEA program to give families the chance to compare packages. They removed the SCEA program because they felt that it was giving an advantage to wealthier applicants.</p>
<p>yes, but that still wouldn't make sense Eli. Early programs supposedly help wealthier applicants, because it is they who can afford to bind to a school, regardless of the financial circumstances.</p>
<p>however, if it is non-binding, early action would not discourage poorer applicants from applying and seeing what type of offer they receive</p>
<p>I second Harvardman. Eli, your statement shows a flaw when you consider the fact that SCEA is NOT BINDING, and thus there are no significant reasons why the wealthier people are given advantages through SCEA.</p>
<p>The whole idea is that wealthier applicants are within more advantageous socio-economic situations which disproportionately give them access to taking advantage of Early Action programs. Poorer applicants often go schools which have many more students and not enough counseling services to help guide them through the process. Admit it, even if you are wealthy and/or go to a school that has excellent resources, applying Early Action/Decision (even though there are two key differences between EA and ED programs) is a much easier process. </p>
<p>The whole issue about whether EA gives an applicant an advantage of not can be debated, no matter how much admissions offices assure that there is little to no advantage to applying as such. With one deadline - applicants are given more time to understand the process, weigh their options and in the end are still able to compare financial aid packages, even though poor applicants technically have their education paid for them by Harvard (60,000 and below). I believe it's still a worthy experiment, but if Harvard sees quality applicants (and in turn wealthy applicants) going to other top tier schools rest assured the program could return as soon as 2009-10.</p>
<p>Yes, Yes, I know. I'm not saying I make perfect logical sense. But sometimes reality doesn't make perfect logical sense. And the reality is, a disproportionate number of wealthy privileged prep school students were getting admitted early. Harvard noticed this trend and decided it was significant enough that they had to stop it. I realize that it doesn't make sense. Poor people DO have the exact same opportunity and ability to apply SCEA, and it doesn't hurt them financially. But for some reason, what was true in theory did not come out to be true in practice. So Harvard did something about it.</p>
<p>the idea behind harvard's decision is that low-income and disadvantaged students sometimes fail to distinguish between early action and early decision, so they don't apply early. also, these same students are not adequately advised on the logisitics of applying early because they do not have nearly as many resources.</p>
<p>I agree with Metric. Perhaps the reason why poorer applicants were unable to use their SCEA option to their advantage was because it was a complicated system that benefitted the more savvy. With one application deadline, people have an equal ability to understand the process, instead of the early application process that was manipulated by the wealthy applicants</p>
<p>Perception makes reality. Sure, in reality, the poor applicants had the same chance as the wealthy applicants to apply early. But they weren't able to perceive it and therefore an inequity was formed.</p>
<p>Is it that hard to understand the nature of Early Admission policy? What resource would they need to help'em to understand the fact that YOU NEED THE SAME REQUIREMENTS (GPA&SAT I&SAT IIs)BY NOV.15TH RATHER THAN JANUARY. Is it that hard to understand? I have no intention to make some people feel bad...but the reality seems so strange to me...</p>
<p>of how early programs actually work. And now Princeton (which had ED through this year) has conceded that too. And those two colleges are to be commended for going to a single-deadline system that puts all applicants into the same applicant pool, with a deadline at the usual NACAC regular decision deadline time of the year.</p>
<p>I'm not rich (my family lives on ~$20k/yr). I will give you the reason I applied - not to Harvard, but Caltech & MIT - regular instead of early. (And yes, I <em>was</em> smart enough to figure out what RD, EA and ED were!)</p>
<p>Basically, I did not know until fairly late in my high school career that I might be able to attend a top university; college was completely off the radar until about halfway through 10th grade because we (my family) just had no clue that college could be affordable. It was another year yet before I started looking beyond the local (ie within a 1 hour drive) universities and considered the possibility of universities far from home, and elite universities. I discovered CC around that time and realized that I was <em>way</em> behind in terms of achievements compared to other students applying to top institutions. I had developed a kind of affection for Caltech, and decided I'd try my best to get in. My SAT scores (in particular, math) were clearly low by Caltech standards, and by the time I received my October scores - which showed a very large improvement and put me solidly in the range of Caltech/MIT in all areas - it was too late to switch from RD to EA. Furthermore, there were some cool things that I got into over the past semester which I would have time to write good essays about by applying regular. I think my app is much stronger than it would have been if I'd applied early.</p>
<p>This is all just my experiences, and of course I won't know whether I get into one of my top choices for a few more months. However, I think that situations like mine are probably far more common than students who can't figure out what EA, ED and RD are.</p>
<p>Perplexitidutinous' is a story that is the key to why I believe Harvard is trying to experiment with eliminating it's EA program. Some people simply need more time. I personally find this kind of debate on CC to be a little lop-sided because the people who read these forums or post here on a regular basis are the above-average college admissions-savvy types. What happened to the senior year? I realize that people do work hard to apply to these elite colleges, but there is still a lot of room for growth and time to think things out while you're in senior year. One may thing that a month and a half is little time for things to change, but I'd be hard pressed to find someone whose tastes for colleges hasn't changed somewhat in that time, or who hasn't benefited from another quarter's worth of excellent grades. Senior year still absolutely counts and I personally feel that some people lose that focus in the rush to apply everywhere early.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that by giving up it's Early Action program on the pretense that the change will make the process fairer to all applicants, Harvard looks like the school most committed to truly selecting the best applicants regardless of money. The move puts pressure on other top schools (aka Princeton) to give up their binding programs. The reasoning may be flawed, but the end result is to ensure the maximum number of applications to Harvard.</p>
<p>I'm also sure Harvard doesn't like the current US News & World Report rankings.</p>
<p>At many public schools in lower middle class or poor neighborhoods there are so few college counsellors that it is not possible for students to apply early. The college office simply cannot get the transcripts out in time. So students from those schools are shut out of the early admissions process, even if they know all about it and would like to use it.</p>
<p>Harvard essentially said that it cannot help itself but to apply lower standards early. If it early admissions standards were really the same as RD, then it would not matter when someone applied, their chances of acceptance would not be affected. In that case, the poor students who cannot apply early would not be disadvantaged. Harvard concedes this is not the case, and rather than try to change this feature, they scrapped the whole early process.</p>
<p>The more cynical suggest that Harvard, with the highest RD yield, had an ulterior motive. As long as students apply elsewhere early, get in and go, then they never get to choose between college X and Harvard. By hoping to lead a movement away from early admissions, Harvard may benefit by getting applications from, and offering admission to, a large share of students who currently apply early somewhere else. Harvard assumes it will enroll the vast majority of those it admits, so it has a lot to gain if early admissions goes away.</p>
<p>those people who said EA does not help wealthier people MAY be right, but Harvard doesn't think so, and here's why: they say that wealthier kids generally know more about the EA process, and are more likely to apply.</p>
<p>Harvard's position is and has been that in their EA program does not discriminate against less affluent APPLICANTS. </p>
<p>I believe Bok's position is that the "less affluent" are disadvantaged because many of those who may be qualified for Harvard never even consider applying to Harvard - EA or RD.</p>
<p>XJAYZ's comments support this.</p>
<p>As do Harvard's own comments about increased recruiting in what they consider underrepresented areas.</p>
<p>How is EA invovled in all this?</p>
<p>Harvard seems to be saying that since their EA admits are going to be admitted anyway ED, they are wasting an enormous amount of time with the EA round, time which could be better spent improving the quality (however they define it) of the overall applicant pool by finding, recruiting and attracting more less affluent candidates to apply.</p>
<p>Thus it the existence of the EA program and its drain on overall resources that disadvantages the less affluent, not the decision making process used therein.</p>
<p>the logic behind it, at least how I've heard it over the four or five articles I've read on the decision, is the wealthier applicants are more likely to submit early action applications because they already know they'll be able to accept the decision when it comes, while poorer applicants have a better chance of putting off their application until regular admissions. Since Harvard feels as if they can't be absolutely sure they do not give preferrence to EA applicants over RD applicants they felt as if it would be best to eliminate it. The competition between tier one colleges also contributed to the decision. Princeton agreed (and is also eliminating it), while MIT and a couple of other Boston universities are keeping a close eye on the new process, although MIT specifically doesn't look like they'll change their EA policy anytime soon.</p>
<p>Well, its not perfect logic that Harvard eliminated EA, but c'mon, you must admit that it is mainly affluent students who apply EA. The only downside to this is that people can't find out early and reduce stress. IF Harvard gave NO preference to early applicants though... I feel the decision is illogical. Otherwise, if they give any preference I believe EA should be eliminated. Also, Harvard's probably doing this for their yield rate no doubt. Can't be too happy as second, I mean their decision came out like a week after the rankings did. Coincedence, no connection! :)</p>