<p>Are qualified low-income students applying to Harvard RD NOT getting in, while they would have gotten in if they HAD applied early?</p>
<p>I think a better question is what the article alludes to, which is, "Are any qualified low-income students not applying AT ALL, SOLELY because they were unaware of EA?" That's a somewhat ludicrous question, but based on the article, that's the assumption on which harvard's decision is based.</p>
<p>I think it's clear that ED discourages low-income applicants (and furthermore, I'm not sure I would've gotten in where I did if it weren't for ED, so i'm a little embarassed), but this doesn't mean EA is a worthless yield tool for adcoms. EA has a number of advantages associated with it too, and chief among them is the possibility of preventing:
- a student from spending additional hundreds of hours preparing another dozen applications
- ...and spending a grand in application fees
- ...and wasting a bunch of admissions officers' time</p>
<p>The two-phase system gives everyone a fallback that's still highly respectable. Ok maybe not everyone, but those who are more organized, researched and dedicated - which is probably correlated with being a better applicant anyway.</p>
<p>I applaud Harvard for being willing to take the lead on reform like this, but I'm not sure it isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.</p>
<p>-Steve</p>