MIT student paper: End Early Action Program (9.29.06)

Colleges & Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>EARLY ADMISSION: DIVERSITY TRUMPS YIELD</p>

<p>"In an effort to level the undergraduate playing field and increase diversity, Harvard and Princeton recently abandoned their Early Action and Early Decision programs, respectively....</p>

<p>The recent eradication of early policies at Harvard and Princeton culminate a 10 year “arms race” by elite universities trying to gain a top U.S. News College ranking...</p>

<p>Wealthy students have been caught up in an arms race of their own — hiring expensive consultants and tutors to fine tune college applications is now the norm. But the buildup in spending on pre-college expenses leaves behind a significant part of the applicant pool, as many applicants to top schools do not have the resources to hire consultants or attend schools with such strategically aware college counselors. MIT admits 26 percent of its class early, and the early admissions rate is significantly higher than the regular decision rate. At a top tier private high school, the norm is to apply early to a top school, thereby increasing one’s chance of getting in. Conversely, at an inner city public school where the majority of the student body does not attend college, students are less likely to be encouraged to apply early. They should not be penalized in the application process.</p>

<p>An early application process forces students to play a strategy game with universities.... Having a standard admission procedure would remove some of the importance of strategy from the admissions process, forcing it to be more merit based. Moreover, having one admissions process in the spring could leave more time to recruit diversity in the fall....</p>

<p>If there is an opportunity to increase the legitimacy of the admissions process, it needs to be taken. If MIT and other institutions do not follow Harvard and Princeton’s lead, their efforts will have been wasted.</p>

<p>“It has the capacity to change a lot of things in this business … It’s bold enough for other schools to really reconsider what they’re doing. I wish them so much luck in this,” Marilee Jones, MIT dean of admissions, told The New York Times. Since MIT recognizes the prudence of the new policies, our admissions office should not allow apprehension about the risks involved to deter its implementation. Given MIT’s ability to attract students — evidenced by a low admissions rate coupled with a high yield rate, we should have little to fear. ...</p>

<p>We should not set precedent by blindly following Harvard; however, in this case, we should follow their moral lead by eliminating our early action program."</p>

<p><a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N42/Kohli42.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N42/Kohli42.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>
[quote]

...the early admissions rate is significantly higher than the regular decision rate.

[/quote]

This is blatantly untrue.</p>

<p>They also fail to note that, while 26% of the overall class was admitted EA, 36% of the total URMs were admitted EA.</p>

3

<p>Time for a Letter to the Editor!</p>

4

<p>Yeah, that piece conveniently leaves a lot of the story out.</p>

5

<p>ZOMG someone agrees with you, you win!!!!</p>

<p>P.S. Refuting the larger number of conceptual inaccuracies, logical flaws, and utter crap in that article isn't even worth my time right now.</p>

6

<p>Working on it mootmom.</p>

7

<p>Damage control? </p>

<p>And Ben, Mootmom & Mollie - once again, closer than half the class, rather than the claimed 30% - is filled by higher yield early pool applicants rather than "true" regular pool applicants. (Just compare the admit rate and yield rate for EA deferreds.) In the name of candor this should be acknowledged in any letter to the editor.</p>

8

<p>Oh don't worry, Byerly. I completely trust benjones to be absurdly honest in his letter, and human, and compassionate, and literate, and fun to read. He's one of my favorite role models. :) Ben, when your letter is published, I hope you'll post a link.</p>

9

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/opinion/27etchemendy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/opinion/27etchemendy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

10

<p>Why so adamant on toeing the party line on this one? I like EA because it gives another option, and I believe that the higher admit rate for students that originally apply EA is (mostly) because of self-selectivity; but I think it's confusing, and I think that advantaged students are more likely to be the ones that know about it and are seriously thinking about applying to schools this early in the year.</p>

<p>I do believe that these students gain the benefits of (1) having the opportunity to reflect on their application in between the EA and RA rounds and improve it, (2) the subconscious effect of their applications being considered for admission multiple times, if deferred (and possibly remembered by the readers) - a similar small advantage to that given to legacy students.</p>

<p>My impression from talking to a few MIT administrators about this issue at the ALC was that they didn't support the concept of forcing any kind of choices on applicants too early in the game, but that they simply didn't feel their EA program was too bad at all. That they might get rid of EA in the future (even if just to follow suit) but wouldn't/couldn't at this point, both for administrative reasons, and implicitly because EA applicants are seen as more likely to be able to pay.</p>

<p>I have no real problem with EA, but I'm a little turned off by the factionality in this thread, which dangerously resembles thought patrolling. Are we going to claim that having an EA round is the only non-satanic admissions scheme... and in five years when for whatever reason MIT does away with it, suddenly decide that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia?</p>

11

<p>A response to Etchmeny's rationalization for retaining EA thjat appeared in the Stanford Daily recently:</p>

<p>"Etchmendy, unfortunately, goes the same route as most administrators called upon to defend their early admissions program. There is a lot of irrelevant focus on the alleged "strength" of the early pool, and a coy reluctance to acknowledge that there is an absolutely HUGE admissions edge for any early applicant over a similarly-qualified applicant in the regular pool. At least Penn - to its credit - admits that the purpose of its early program is to raise the yield rate and limit overlap with competing schools. It sells the program to legacies on this basis - warning them that no legacy "credit" will be granted to alumni offspring unless they apply early. Why do the supposed "advantages" of the early program for the tiny fraction of successful applicants outweigh the early trauma for the 4 out of 5 who are not tapped? No. Any early program is designed to benefit the school offering it, with the "advantages" for applicants only of incidental importance. But Harvard's eminent Professor of Cognition and Education Howard E. Gardner said in today's Crimson that Etchemendy’s argument, while logical, “misses the point.” “The current terrain is complex and unfair,” Gardner wrote. “It was gutsy for a few universities to take the lead, risk losing some good students, to try to push the overall system in positive (less complex, fairer) directions.” And, Gardner added, Etchemendy’s “argument—insensitive to the human dimensions of both college applicants and competing colleges—makes him less viable as a candidate for the Harvard presidency.”</p>

12

<p>Careful, Byerly - I don't believe that EA applicants are given explicit advantage (although I've seen some high-ups at MIT look very awkward when pressed with this question). Certainly, only the best EA applicants get in early. But after being deferred, when they are being judged against RA applicants, these students would be expected to yield a higher percentage. It's not that MIT intentionally admits those who applied early, but I'm sure this truism is in the back of the adcoms mind in justifying the indirect advantages of having applied EA that I mentioned earlier.</p>

<p>Another justification is that students who apply early want to come to MIT very much and therefore, could be considered to be better matches (in addition to EA merely being academically self-selective). This reasoning has its flaws, but I accept it for now. I also accept the "the girls that apply to MIT are cooler" half-argument for affirmative-action. Girls are cooler, and I do want to have girls at MIT. Just as I want to have those students with the initiative to figure out their college-application plans in time for early action at MIT.</p>

13

<p>I don't dispute a number of the points you make, but whether you talk about EA applicants being "better matches", more motivated, those who "want to come very much" or whatever, in the end we are talking about the yield rate, aren't we? Understand, I am not saying that every reason for seeking a high yield rate is of the ignoble, USNews-ratings-chasing sort: obviously, a school with fairly precise "diversity" goals (including MIT) finds it easier - and more efficient - to achieve those goals if it can identify in advance the applicants most likely to enroll if admitted.</p>

<p>The problem comes when these institutional goals clash with the legitimate expectation of applicants, particularly those who, through no fault of their own, are not clued in to the strategic edge gained by the dispropoportionately wealthy, northeastern or well-advised applicants with a sophisticated understanding of the way the admissions process works these days.</p>

<hr>

<p>ps: be prepared to parse very carefully the responses of admissions people - from MIT, Harvard, Stanford or anywhere - about the real edge enjoyed by those applying early vs. RD for similarly situated applicants.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
I have no real problem with EA, but I'm a little turned off by the factionality in this thread, which dangerously resembles thought patrolling. Are we going to claim that having an EA round is the only non-satanic admissions scheme... and in five years when for whatever reason MIT does away with it, suddenly decide that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't have any problems with MIT's EA policy, and I will continue to think it's a good, reasonable program to have even if MIT does away with it.</p>

<p>I have qualms with ED programs, and I don't particularly like SCEA programs either. But non-restrictive early action just doesn't seem dangerous to me, particularly when the acceptance rates for both pools are about the same.</p>

<p>Of course, to be honest, the way Byerly is clearly trying to pick fights is what bothers me the most.</p>

15

<p>Why am I "picking fights" when I disagree with your factual assertions (such as with respect to the clear difference in the fraction of early applicants vs. RD applicants who ultimately gain admission) , but you are not "picking fights" by challenging my statistically-backed claims?</p>

<p>Isn't it just possible that we may disagree, Mollie, without your position being morally superior?</p>

<p>My point is simply that MIT's institutional stake in its early admissions program is as compelling as it is at most elites; that its early pool applicants are admitted in greater numbers, and at a higher yield rate, than is generally acknowledged, and that this helps explain the school's reluctance to surrender those institutional advantages.</p>

16

<p>As other people have said, MIT doesn't give special consideration to EA applicants. And MIT, unlike most other schools, caps the percentage of its class that can be admitted in the EA round. Sure, some of them are then admitted in the RA round, but that seems reasonable enough - they aren't being given special consideration in the RA round because they were originally EA.</p>

<p>I don't see what's bad about MIT's EA program. I don't like binding ED programs, or single-choice-only EA programs, and I think that schools in general should do a better job of explaining the difference. MIT's program is neither of these.</p>

<p>What bothers me about these sort of discussions is that the people criticizing college admissions policies often refuse to acknowledge that colleges do have very different policies - if a college claims that "That's not how we do things," the college is accused of concealing the truth, being dishonest or evasive, even if their policy actually is different. All EA programs are not created equal.</p>

17

<p>Just because somebody SAYS they have a different (presumably superior) early admissions policy doesn't mean that the differences are as significant as proclaimed, or that the policies aren't virtually identical under the skin, and motivated by the same institutional concerns. </p>

<p>But I can see it is uncomfortable for you to consider - let alone acknowledge - this. Peace.</p>

18

<p>The only published data I have seen supports the claim that MIT uses the same admissions standards for early and regular applicants. I do not know whether there is any other elite that follows this policy. As noted above, Penn makes it clear that it does not. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, Harvard's action only makes sense if Harvard really was giving an edge to early applicants. If it was not, and it only admitted in Dec those who would be certain of admission in April, then it could not matter whether lower income students applied EA or RD. </p>

<p>I am not so sure students end up better off under the new policy. A student admitted early can stop the application process right there. Hard to see how this student is better off by going through the full app process and waiting until spring.</p>

19

<p><<the only="" published="" data="" i="" have="" seen="" supports="" the="" claim="" that="" mit="" uses="" same="" admissions="" standards="" for="" early="" and="" regular="" applicants.="">></the></p>

<p>Which "data" was this, as opposed to an unsupported admissions office proclamation?</p>

<p>Absolutely every early program advantages early applicants vs similarly situated RD applicants. If this were not so, and if guidance counsellors, highly-paid admissions consultants and savvy parents did not believe it to be so, than few would avail themselves of the "benefits" of applying early.</p>

<p>Every admissions office in the land, including Harvard's and MIT's (but notably excluding Penn and those at a few candid 2nd tier LACs) swears up and down that there is "no admissions advantage" to applying early, and that the hard to deny higher acceptance rates for the early pool are do the "strength" of the early pool, etc etc. </p>

<p>Such carefully worded defenses should be taken with a liberal dose of salt.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Which "data" was this, as opposed to an unsupported admissions office proclamation

[/quote]

The Early Admissions Game</p>