<p>As a formerly international student, I agree (surprise!) with Tokenadult.</p>
<p>Not only do many international students remain in the US and contribute to the US economy and diverse culture, but those who return to their home countries contribute (by and large) to a more pro-American political climate. Go to Asian countries and you will see a high proportion of high ranking political figures with US Ph.Ds. I once heard someone describe US Ph.D.s in the social sciences as the "lingua franca" of East and Southeast Asia, not just because those Ph.D. holders could communicate with one another in English but because they had undergone the same educational training. This is one reason why the State Dept. is pushing for more international students.
There are a few individuals who are completely alienated by their experience in the US but these are far outnumbered by those who get a more profound understanding of this country.</p>
<p>The standard that an international applicant must reach is usually far that what is expected of an American applicant. If American applicants wish to argue that they have been displaced by internationals, the counterargument, as implied by Tokenadult, is that they were weaker to begin with, and what they are arguing for is a lowering of standards.</p>
<p>curious - No student should be "forced" to go ED. What is the basis for that opinion?
However, for those students who know where they want to go and their families are comfortable with the numbers, why deprive them of that opportunity?</p>
<p>What I said was that the ED process forces one to pick a number 1, which of course it does. Of course, no one is forced to go ED. However, if, and it's a big "if," there is a significant admissions advantage to going ED, it certainly encourages kids to go ahead and pick one of their stretch schools and apply ED. The notion that the only kids who apply ED are the ones who independently decide that one school is the best of all possible schools is a bit naive. Behavior responds to incentives, always has, always will.</p>
<p>IMO the best system would be for the colleges to release enough data to demonstrate that there is no significant admissions advantaage to ED. Then I think ED would be fine.</p>
<p>Enrollment of international students at American universities should not only be maintained, it should be increased. Traveling in Asia I have seen the effects of American educated business people, educators, and health professionals. In this global age, and it is indeed that, the sharing of cultures (though we are quickly moving to mostly shared materialist values), is essential. What we need is more activity the other other way, that is American students in more international schools. I was interested to discover that a friend's (ethnically non-Chinese) grandson was working for a graduate business degree in Beijing.</p>
<p>Couple of months back, I read a news article about our Secretary of Education and group of university presidents visiting China to encourage more Chinese to study in the U.S. In one occasion, they faced the concern about “brain raid” and the Rice’s president defended the mission saying it goes both ways, mentioning certain university in China also getting students from their pool. It is an increasing competitive world. Top universities here will need world class students to remain in world class.</p>
<p>The China government has a new initiative to get Western students to come to school at China universities. No dummies they. That way you get the top in the world. That is what the US universities should aim at too. Who wants to reserve spots at schools in a protectionist mode that would eventually leave the US uncompetitive in the world market for talent?</p>
<p>Unless of course you believe that the 350 million people in the US produce more top talent/top students than the 2.5 billion in India and China alone....</p>
<p>There is economic benefit to the U.S. when international students, including those from less developed countries, get educated here. Many of them do return to their home countries, and are then in a position to apply there the knowledge they have gained here. Indirectly that puts less pressure on immigration. I'm tired of the perception that the U.S. is the land where the entire globe belongs (because it's the only place for real opportunity combined with liberal immigration policies). The global exchanges that are encouraged by dual access to University education reinforces the notion that there is a win/win from this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ED is sort of emerging as something that most of us would dispense with. Are there any defenders out there?
[/quote]
For students whose clear favorite is a realistic match school, being accepted ED saves a tremendous amount of work distracting from senior studies, and reduces the workload on other adcoms. I don't mean to argue that these pros outweigh the cons; I am undecided on that point.</p>
<p>All good points but to take a lighter view I can tell you that when I watch TV commercials they seem to make it clear that "ED is something that most of us would dispense with" if we could!</p>
<p>If I could change the admissions process, I'd make it so that no one (other than his/her parents, guidance counselor, etc.) could ask a high school junior or senior about college. College discussions would be fine, but only if they were initiated by the student. </p>
<p>And I'd investigate (and force reforms on) the College Board.</p>
<p>I appreciate the EA which provided flexibility for my kids. Either they were accepted by the school of their dream or a safety school, it decreased the anxiety for the family involved.</p>
<p>I'm curious (obviously) of those of you who oppose Early Decision, would you still be opposed if it was clear that there was no admissions advantage. That would seem to avoid disadvantaging poorer students and it would avoid putting pressure on students who had truly not made up their minds. Some students do make up their minds early and some colleges argue for it in terms of easing planning, so what would be the harm with that caveat?</p>
<p>I have seen it argued that economically disadvantaged students should get a prefernce in admissions similar to the preference granted to URM's. How do all of you feel about that?</p>
<p>It's already being done at many colleges when students are asked about their backgrounds (what hardships have they overcome, whether they are first-generation students, children of immigrants, and so on). Application fee waivers are a flag, and many colleges do a lot of outreach to schools not ordinarily on their radar screens. My S got a college-wide email urging students going home on spring break to visit their high school and urge students there to consider applying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have seen it argued that economically disadvantaged students should get a preference in admissions similar to the preference granted to URMs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, this has been argued eloquently by Laura</a> D'Andrea Tyson, a former economic adviser for President Clinton. I think it's a good idea. And I think Harvard, at least, is taking this idea into account. This year's final SCEA results for Harvard suggest to me, judging only from what results I've seen posted to CC, that Harvard's admission officers have a heightened awareness of which applicants exceed expectations for their socioeconomic level.</p>
<p>My sense is that you are right, but that it is fairly sporadic and that the degree of preference is of the same order of significance as, say, geographic diversity, to pick a catagory out of the air. Am I right? Have any of you actually seen data on this question?</p>
<p>The best place to look is at the UCs which have published a list of 'points' for various kinds of extra-academic characteristics. For other colleges, I doubt there is a way to find out whether overcoming poverty is more or less important than geographic diversity. My hunch is yes, but I could not prove it.</p>
<p>It's not only Harvard that has publicized its Financial Aid Initiative: so have Yale and Stanford, while Princeton keeps reminding all that it has the most generous financial aid package of all. The publicity generated by Harvard has substantially increased the number of applications for the last couple of years. We'll have to wait until April to find out how many more low-income studens were offered places.</p>
<p>I tried googling that and found the point system for U of Mich (which I think was declared unconstitutional) which gave equal points for URM and economically disadvantaged students.</p>