More on "Scrapping Early Admissions Sparks Debate"

Parents Forum
1

<p>Story reprinted in a few locations, with a few more comments, reactions.</p>

<p><a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/23/national/a124015D90.DTL%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/23/national/a124015D90.DTL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think the "tiny sliver" part is a bit of an understatement, but whatever... :)</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
But many of Harvard and Princeton's immediate peers — including Yale, MIT, Stanford (early action) and the University of Pennsylvania (early decision) — have indicated they will keep current policies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The people at Penn must be turning cartwheels in front of the statue of Ben Franklin. The Associated Press just made their school equivalent to HYPSM.</p>

3

<p>"The people at Penn must be turning cartwheels in front of the statue of Ben Franklin. The Associated Press just made their school equivalent to HYPSM."</p>

<p>LOL - and to think it was my safety way back when. How times have changed!</p>

4

<p>actually, it was Stetson's strategic use of ED that vaulted Penn from an also-ran to the top echelons of college societe.</p>

5

<p>You guys are ridiculous. It's only in a rarified atmosphere, and at a very high degree of resolution, that Penn (like Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, and others) isn't a fine example of a "peer institution" for HYPS & MIT. The differences you all froth about could fit on the head of a pin with plenty of room left over for some angels.</p>

6

<p>jhs:</p>

<p>no disrespect intended; Lee Stetson has publicly acknowledged that ED has played a significant role in moving Penn into the top 10. I appreciate Stetson's vision on how to make ED work for them, particularly at a time when Philly was having maior economic pain and the city was becoming less attractive as a place to send an 18-year old -- it has now bounced back. (The other Ivies and Duke just followed his lead.)</p>

7

<p>Which begs the question - top 10 of what? ED didn't improve the institution one iota. It didn't add any professors or innovative programs, it didn't improve teaching or even research, (it might have added buildings from big donors), it didn't reduce class sizes, it didn't improve campus food or housing.</p>

8

<p>But it might have improved the peer group for students???</p>

9

<p>Most likely not. In fact, because their ED emphasis has clearly been on legacy admissions, the result is a class that is significantly less diverse, more homogenous, and likely less interesting than it might have been otherwise. Furthermore, with RD admissions in the teens, rejecting more candidates then doesn't make them "more selective". It just means they reject more.</p>