<p>The original rationalization made sense. Ivies could never recruit decent athletes if the athletic scholarship schools (Stanford, Duke, etc.) extended them offers in early November and asked for immediate "commitment" letters, but the Ivies could only say "wait until December 15" or "wait until April 1" and then <em>maybe</em> we'll admit you.</p>
<p>Extending the concept to other desirable students is a more dubious proposition. There is no reason to believe that top students, talented URMs, etc will all be snapped up if the Ivies don't finesse the nominal December 15 and April 1 admit dates.</p>
<p>The competitive pressures are great, however, and the thinking is that if you want the best "recruits" - whether athletic or otherwise - you have to after them. Stats show that in college admissions, as in love, he who asks first sometimes gets.</p>
<p>The trouble is that with "likelies" as with all addictions, its hard to stop one you start. The other schools can - and do - fight back, and the trickle of "likely letters" to non-athletes has become a torrent. At some point, the April 1 common admission date will become obsolete. </p>
<p>Unless something happens that I don't know about, this is the direction we are heading. April 1 will be meaningless, and we will have, in effect, "rolling admissions" to the elites.</p>
<p>There is nothing inherently wrong with this, except that competitive pressures may cause schools to keep one-upping each other - looking to nail down the recruits earlier and earlier,</p>
<p>Just look: many colleges are starting to mail their propaganda to jr. high students now!</p>
<p>There were benefits for all - including students - when everybody abided with the letter and spirit of the aqreement to send admit letters on April 1.</p>