<p>"And if UVA increases its enrollment of a less affluent student body, this does not automatically qualify it as a better school."</p>
<p>True that. We really gotta sit down and think if having 50 more poor kids is worth losing 200 quality kids.</p>
<p>The benefit of ED, IMO, is not only do you get to recieve your decision early but by committing yourself to a school, it makes sense to believe that it would also give you an admissions boost. And if it is only people of higher incomes who are applying ED, then it is only them recieving the "benefits" of ED. So by eliminating ED you let everybody compete for admission on the basis of their merits and financial situations are not of any concern for the applicants upon submitting their applications. But I do understand the concerns shown by people on the board</p>
<p>As far as why I would think increased enrollment of less affluent students would be beneficial to a school: If I were rich/poor I would not want to go to school with people who, for the most part, grew up like I did (rich/poor). Does this make the academics of the school better? I cant say it does. But then again academics are just part of the learning experience one gets at college.</p>
<p>When will UVA switch to the common application, Dean J?</p>
<p>I am not quite sure what you mean by "loving" UVa. Hopefully, the University will win against Amherst, Chicago and Brown because either kids perceive it as a better school or parents consider it a better value. I would think the University would do quite well in head to head competition against these other colleges when it comes to in state applicants. With OOS, I think the University has some work to do, given the cost differential is small. My D, who was admitted into the Echols program this past year, chose to attend Amherst despite my efforts to steer her toward Virginia.</p>
<p>for one, Virginia doesn't have a premier private school like most states on the east coast do. Richmond is easily a tier below UVa and washington and lee isn't big enough to really affect the state. By virtue of this alone, you have a larger group of wealthy people applying to and attending UVa - simply because there are fewer choices in Virginia. Not only that - the median income of a family of 4 in virginia is 78,000. You don't qualify for accessuva with that - or even significantly below that, and you'd most likely just receive loans to attend UVa. Its not a mistake that so few people are on financial aid at UVa - theres a smaller pool of underpriviledged people (in relation to the cost of UVa).</p>
<p>The point is, Virginia isn't poor and UVa is cheap. Poor OOS students don't look at UVa, and in all honesty shouldn't - they should be looking for the cheap schools in their own state. How many more poor kids is UVa going to attract with this move? How many affluent people - and OOSers are going to be deterred by this move? Just a thought. </p>
<p>To me I just see this as a way of penalizing people who would have applied Early to UVa.</p>
<p>Here's a solution, charge $40,000 a year in tuiton, keep ED, and then we can see those financial aid numbers jump.</p>
<p>This honestly justlooks like a ploy and marketing gimmick to say that "look we have lots of people on financial aid, you can get it, too. don't be worried about the cost." How about saying instead, "yea we don't have a lot of people on FA because we're 1/3 the cost of peer private universities - but hey don't worry, if you need it we have it - and we have great FA, too."</p>
<p>FWIW,
W&L will consider following UVa's move...though as you mentioned with less than 2,000 undergrads it won't have a huge impact. Richmond on the other hand has said it definitely won't go that route.
<a href="http://blogs.roanoke.com/campuswatch/archives/money/reforms_to_impr.html%5B/url%5D">http://blogs.roanoke.com/campuswatch/archives/money/reforms_to_impr.html</a></p>
<p>As a single parent of 1 kid in college, and 1 high school senior, I can tell you that ED was not an option for us. There is now way we could commit to a school without knowing what the price tag may be. My d applied to 9 schools and the financial age packages were ALL OVER the board. We were eligible for a pell grant as my income is low. I found that most packages did not come close to meeting our EFC. She is very bright and I wish ED was an option for her. I am envious of those who can take advantage of it. Some of us are in our situations not by choice. Both my children worked very hard in school by enrolling in the International Baccalaureate program and part time jobs since they were 14. I am sure she would be in another school if ED was an option. Just my 2 cents worth..................</p>
<p>marylandgirl, you stated on ED "I am envious of those who can take advantage of it.....I am sure she would be in another school if ED was an opt"</p>
<p>I am sympathetic to your situation. However, consider this: many affluent students are denied entrance to an elite university such as Uva because they are expected to have higher credentials than economically disadvantaged students. To many parents, ED levels the playing field for them. It is, however, an opinion that I do not hold myself but I can assure you is quite common among my peers. My D applied ED to her dream school but failed. I would hate to see students like her lose their opportunity to try. </p>
<p>I am a single parent as well. I make and save just enough to disqualify my daughter for any financial aid. My daughter's college cost at Amherst equates to ~60% of my take home pay. With the exception of a one time National Merit Scholarship, that is all the help I get toward her college. I assure you that is by choice as my D turned down merit scholarships that either gave her a full ride or at half the cost. Both scholarship offers were unexpected. The fact is that the high cost of college is a burden for most except the very rich, who would not need ED anyway since their admission into elite colleges can be guaranteed through their donation or through the portal of elite private high schools.</p>
<p>Although our S was admitted to UVA ED last year (and it was the best thing since sliced bread for him), I think UVA is doing the right thing. </p>
<p>I saw an awful lot of high school kids in our area who misused the process. At least two applied to other schools and claimed it was no big deal to just change their mind and break the contract if they got in both places (which didn't happen). One was accepted ED to one school (not UVA) and then became a recruited athlete at another school (ended up at the ED school but it was touch and go). Others used ED just to get the process over with sooner, but were not at all sure about their choice of schools. In sum, it was a mess for a number of kids beyond the financial aid aspect.</p>
<p>However, the early bird often gets the worm, whether ED, EA, or rolling. Once a rolling admission acceptance came in around early November, S was excited and ready to commit to there or UVA without even filling out applications to the five other schools he had on his initial list.</p>
<p>It's a good change. I commend you for attempting to level the economic playing field. I agree that, if adopted widely, the elimination of ED/EA will make the college selection process more thoughtful. My kids changed their minds several times. Not everybody is focused like a laser beam on one school in October of their senior year.</p>
<p>As for the impact on the quality of students, I'm sure UVa will continue to draw far many more qualified applicants than it can admit and matriculate. </p>
<p>I do have some concerns about the access UVa process--the primary driving force for this change in policy. Is it working? Does RD show an increase in low-income, high-aid kids?</p>
<p>More importantly, be careful what you wish for: Just admitting students does not guarantee them success. UVa does not offer remedial classes. Do you have some type of intervention plan in the event that students with "maximum aid" run into troubles? The history of well-intentioned programs such as this is not pretty. The last thing you want is to create a self-segregated underclass on the grounds.</p>
<p>So, please, tell me you have a plan!</p>
<p>I think the point is - there shouldn't be a need for remedial classes. We should just be admitting poor students who perform just as well as the smart students.</p>
<p>I just have a bad overall feeling about this entire situation. I'm not against underpriviledged people getting a fair shot - its just I don't think they should get a shot at the best schools in the country if they don't belong there. Now obviously eliminating ED shouldn't increase anyone's chances, just reduce the chances of some...the so called rich people who can afford to apply ED. The school has a long long long history of being the last to make changes relative to other elite universities - and I feel it might be jumping onto this bandwagon a bit too early.</p>
<p>I guess I have a hard time seeing what change this will actually make - whether they applied ED or not, low-income students should <em>still</em> have the same opportunity for admission now as they did before, shouldn't they? I don't see how depriving others of ED makes life any easier for the "disadvantaged" - unless it's simply to make them feel better that a "rich" person can't steal a march on them? </p>
<p>Or are we saying that those admitted ED were "stealing" spaces and aid from those disadvantaged students who apply RD? Somehow, I doubt that - given the push for diversity and access, probably this helps no one, and if it achieves anything, simply squeezes those in the middle - same ones that always get squeezed. </p>
<p>To me, ED was simply a way for someone who was <em>sure</em> of where they wanted to go, and were certain of their aid or personal finances to pay for it, to get the process over early. Never really liked ED, but, I think non-binding EA was/is certainly a better way to go, especially for high-priced private schools - there aren't <em>that</em> many people who can just write a $40,000 check, and have a similar need to evaluate the aid offer. </p>
<p>Ultimately, not sure how much time any school should spend patting themselves on the back over this move - this seems more cosmetic than anything, and they'll certainly compress their admissions staff workload - hopefully, they'll do as thorough and as fair a job as they do now.</p>
<p>padad- are affluent students really expected to have higher credentials than economically disadvantaged students? For affirmative action, yes... that's what it's all about. But in a pool of applicants , all the same race, do they really pull up someone's FAFSA before they admit them and say "this person is low income so we will hold them to a lower standard and this person is rich so we will hold them to a higher standard? You would never know we were low income unless you looked at our FAFSA. We live in an extremely high income area and went to a top notch HS. We are not a minority and my d EC's were as good as it gets. I would think it is the opposite with ED. We know kids who got in to top notch schools only because they could do ED. The same students would probably not have gotten in if they went the regular admission route. It's all about the yield for the schools..........again, just my opinion.</p>
<p>maryland girl,</p>
<p>I understand your financial situation and express my respect to both your proven ability to raise high achieving children and finding a way to send them to college. You are rightfully proud of this and seek to establish an admissions system that would be most advantageous to your family. This is no different than most parents.</p>
<p>You certainly have a right to an opinion on the subject of Early Admissions, but I am a little unsure why you are posting on the UVA board about ED. According to your prior posts, your daughter attends Maryland-College Park, and she investigated (and perhaps even applied to Virginia Tech, University of Richmond, George Washington, Towson, and Loyola). While these schools all have terrific qualities, they are not traditionally those with whom UVA competes for students. Did your daughter even apply to UVA and was she accepted? If she did not apply, did the ED situation at Virginia signal elitism or an unfair admissions process to you and thus dissuade you from making an application? </p>
<p>Many of us with long ties to the University of Virginia believe that some type of early admissions program has many positive benefits for the school and for the students and families that apply. Can you see any solution other than the elimination of ED that might be a middle ground where families like yours and mine could both be happy? I look forward to your response.</p>
<p>Marylandgirl, The answer to your question "are affluent students really expected to have higher credentials than economically disadvantaged students?" is a definite yes. Economically disadvantage students can be readily tagged because they ask for application fee waiver, which shows up right on the first page of the application. Fee waiver can be obtained either through a letter from the high school guidance office or through college board when a student requests for SAT fee waiver. It also shows up in the student personal assay. Harvard routinely reports the percentage of ED applications that requested fee waiver. The number has been used routinely to justify ED being non-exclusionary against economically disadvantaged students. Need-blind admission only means that the school does not exclude on the basis of need, but all Adcom's recognize, rightly so, standardized test scores and AP courses are less of a predictor for economically disadvantaged students. </p>
<p>If you go to the PBS web site (or through Amherst Admission web site), you will find a video of a program where PBS followed the process at Amherst one year. The program shows footage where the situation of an economically disadvantaged student is specifically discussed in Adcom. The Dean of admission, when interviewed also commented specifically on the expectation of standardized test score differences between economical groups. </p>
<p>Please understand that I strongly believe it is right for Adcom's to factor in differences in standardized test scores and high school curriculum across applicant groups. A college class composition should be determined by factors more than just academics. Furthermore I do not imply that students necessarily benefit from such considerations. My D is a legacy applicant but she may not have needed it.</p>
<p>We do not use payment method in our review process.</p>
<p>A fee waiver is sometimes used by those who are cash poor, which does not always mean a family qualifies as low income.</p>
<p>By the way, this is an open forum and this is an issue that extends beyond the schools currently involved.</p>
<p>Dean J, Can you truely declare that you do not track economically disadvantaged applicants? </p>
<p>I probably have said here more than I should. I am dismayed that the University has now done away with the only "hook" for students who otherwise may not get in through a holistic admission approach. Virginia, like other elite universities, routinely turns away highly qualified applicants, and for many young men and women, ED is their conscious decision made to improve their chance. I only have one child, and we are done with the process. I know how important it was for my child to have her EA/ED school. Whether the process indeed works in her favor is irrelevant, and I think ending EA/ED will disappoint many.</p>
<p>padad, I wrote that we do not use payment method in our review and explained why a fee waiver is not always an indication that a family is low income.</p>
<p>Thanks Dean J,
...no, I meant ED in general. No particular school. Again, just my personal opinion. Thanks</p>
<p>My english teacher told me that there may be more deferred applicants from this year's ED pool. Is that gonna be true?</p>