<p>This is from something that came up in the Penn thread…</p>
<p>I think ED is really unethical and should be done away with–particularly the way certain schools are implementing it.</p>
<p>At Penn, for example, they fill almost half their freshman class with ED applicants–not because they want students who want to be there as they claim for PR purposes, but because it artificially drops their acceptance rate and increases their matriculation yield. </p>
<p>While this is good for the school’s ranking, it’s really bad for applying seniors. It deliberately turns admissions more into a game of chance than it has to be (as opposed to a fair selection process of the most qualified people). As a result, many apply ED to have a higher statistical chance of getting in, and compromise with themselves, rather than applying because they truly want to be there most. </p>
<p>Everyone should get to apply anywhere they want with equal chance of getting in.</p>
<p>Yale and Stanford have led the charge with this view and recently switched back to EA. I was disheartened when Brown decided to go back to ED from EA two years ago.
EA should eventually be phased out as well.</p>
<p>I agree completely in that ED should be done away with.</p>
<p>Not only is it unfair to RD applicant's, for instance, 30% acceptance rate vs. 8.8% at Princeton, but it also pressures high school students into picking just one school.</p>
<p>What's more, it's not good for students who need significant financial aid, and need to compare packages.</p>
<p>I completely agree. I know that at least for my school, nobody gets in RD to Brown. Ever. I was happy to apply ED, but I know that many people that would have applied RD didn't because they knew they have absolutely no chance of getting in.</p>
<p>Actually, I think Princeton's RD rate is more like 12% (at least for domestic applicants). Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't have a problem with ED. If you don't like it, then don't bother with it. Besides, it's not like you're going to get into a school through ED just because it's EARLY decision, and not regular decision. ED aceptees are often people that would get in regular decision anyway, because they are usually very strong applicants. Don't be deceived by percentages, I don't think they're all that accurate for basing an opinion on.</p>
<p>And if you want to compare packages, then don't apply ED. Instead, go with EA/RA/RD schools so you can compare your financial aid offers. It's not like ED pressures you to do anything, YOU'RE the one who chooses to apply there.. not the other way around.</p>
<p>I think the higher admit rate during ED might be higher in part because the applicant pool may be slightly better. Besides, schools are more likely to admit people if they know they are not wasting a seat on someone who will never attend. I do think that the financial aspect is kind of unfair. </p>
<p>However, colleges are businesses, and they can really do whatever they want in order to make more money. Fairness is irrelevant. Besides, ED helps guarantee that they'll have a certain number of students paying their own way so that they can fill the financial needs of other students who apply RD.</p>
<p>do you honestly believe that that the ED pool is slightly stronger? even so, how much stronger? enough to take two or three times the applicants?</p>
<p>it's fair for a school to consider how badly someone wants to attend. but there are ways to indicate that (the why brown essay, the interview, the general essay...even EA) that don't put you in a binding contract. it is the binding contract that turns college admissions into a gambling game and search processes into a strategy rather than a survey</p>
<p>the point i take most issue with though Rabo, is that "colleges are businesses". that's blatantly false--not only are they non-profits, but there is a principle at work. institutions of higher learning should be held to a higher standard because of the moral imperative behind what they do. universities play a pivotal role in the well-being of society and as a result they are treated differently (university policies are scrutinized for ethical standards by the media, the government grants them a fully tax exempt status, etc.).</p>
<p>oh, also, ED does not change things financially from the school's point of view (at least in the ivy league) since all ivies are need blind. they could theoretically admit an entire ED class with no ability to pay whatsoever--and starting next year, loans would be almost entirely replaced by grants. the stakes are the same for them, ED or not.</p>
<p>I do think the applicant pool is slightly stronger. You don't have those applicants who dash off 10 applications just to see if they get in. The pool is solely comprised of people who have committed themselves (or at least convinced themselves to commit themselves) to one school and have put the effort in to finish the app early. This influences the "why brown" statement a whole lot IMO. </p>
<p>I wasn't thinking only of ivies when I was talking about admitting students who can pay. I know a former adcom who got fired because he denied too many kids who didn't require fin aid. </p>
<p>While universities might not be out to make money like microsoft or something, they do need to make enough to stay up and running. While very few are actually in danger of shutting down (Wells, anyone?) just the fact that they are judged by their endowment means that they need money and lots of it to keep the ratings up, just like they need a certain matriculation rate. I don't know if that makes sense, and I might be wrong. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>That's correct, but the applicant himself may not be able to sign a binding contract because he or she may need to see the financial packages of different schools If you're not making below 30 grand, and you're not making above 100,000, then sometimes it can be tough to know how much a school will give you.</p>
<p>I actually do believe that the ED pool is perhaps SLIGHTLY stronger. Some students I know are kind of lazy in their approach to college.. just doing whatever, and then OH BY THE WAY the apps are due in January! Then they hurry up and write their essays at the last minute. The students I know doing ED/EA tend to be more serious in their approach to college.. they know which one they want to apply early too, and they're more serious (which makes sense, since some are binding). This lends to a somewhat more qualified applicant.</p>
<p>Of course, I'm not saying that's true for everyone, I'm exaggerating it to show my opinion that the ED pool is usually stronger. I'm not saying that simply because the colleges say that, but from personal experience. There's just so much more talent I see in ED/EA applicants, compared to the bulk of the rd/ra application pool. There are definitely exceptions though.</p>
<p>I agree that there are other ways to indicate how badly someone wants to attend, but personally for me, actions speak louder than words. Anybody can write up an essay about how much they love a certain school, but not actually mean it. However, applying ED implies certain consequences of attending the school if you do get accepted.</p>
<p>in fact, at a top level private university your tuition only covers 1/3-1/2 of your education expenses. the rest of the money for your education comes from interest earned on the endowment (that's why endowment values are kept so high at ivies), and some non-endowment directed donations.</p>
<p>And, while you might be right about the percentage of strong applicants being higher in the ED pool, the absolute number is bound to be at least comparable (if not much higher) in the RD pool because there are many times the overall number of applicants</p>
<p>Ok, tuition may not have anything to do with endowment, but my point is that the more money a college does not have to give for fin aid, the better (for the college).</p>
<p>It's all well and good for the universities to operate as a business, but if that be the case they should be up front about it.</p>
<p>At the smaller ivies ED provides not statistical advantage at all. </p>
<p>For instance, Dartmouth admitted 397 ED. Of those accepted 123 were recruited athletes and 64 were legacies.</p>
<p>In other words, of the 397 accepted only 210 were accepted without the perks of athletic recruiting and legacy.</p>
<p>That was hardly an admissions boost for applying early, as most students believe.</p>
<p>There needs to be more transparency. Its not good enough to just supply admissions data, there needs to be a more forthright explanation from the schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That was hardly an admissions boost for applying early, as most students believe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what I said before... it's not like someone who applies early is going to get in early JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN EARLY APP, there are other factors as well. I also see your point on the transparency issue.</p>
<p>So what does all that have to do with your "death to ED, EA" statement?</p>