NYT: Harvard ends early admission (EA)

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/education/12harvard.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/education/12harvard.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
“We think this will produce a fairer process, because the existing process has been shown to advantage those who are already advantaged,’’ Derek Bok, the interim president of Harvard, said yesterday in an interview.</p>

<p>Mr. Bok said students who were more affluent and sophisticated were the ones most likely to apply for early admission. More than a third of Harvard’s students are accepted through early admission. In addition, he said many early admissions programs require students to lock in without being able to compare financial aid offerings from various colleges.</p>

<p>Mr. Bok also spoke about reducing the frenzy surrounding admissions. “I think it will improve the climate in high schools,” he said, “so that students don’t start getting preoccupied in their junior year about which college to go to.’’

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting...I wonder what other schools will follow their lead.</p>

<p>EDIT: More info in Crimson story here:
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514173%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514173&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Thanks for the news flash Wisteria. I can't say that I accept Harvard's claim that eliminating SCEA is "certainly a win for students in the bottom quarter and bottom half of the income distribution.” The article explains that "Students from more affluent families often apply early to express special interest in a particular school, while students from lower socioeconomic levels frequently hold off for the regular admissions process in order to compare colleges’ financial aid offers."</p>

<p>The fact is that SCEA DOES allow for students to compare financial aid offers no matter what their economic status. ED, no. SCEA, yes.</p>

<p>Personally, think that there's an ulterior motive here in that SCEA was more trouble than it was worth to Harvard in that it greatly favored the applicant and didn't much benefit the school.</p>

<p>It will be very interesting to see what Yale does.</p>

<p>I know that Ted Kennedy has been pressuring colleges to get rid of ED. He even threatened legislation to get rid of it. (I know that Harvard has EA, but as the article said, many didn't know the difference so they didn't apply EA).</p>

<p>Read the articles for some very interesting quotations of admission officers at other colleges and of scholars of early action/early decision policies.</p>

<p>The WSJ reports:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Robert Durkee, vice president and secretary of Princeton, which admitted almost half of this year's freshman class through early decision, said that Princeton reviews its early-admission program annually. Harvard's decision, he said, is "obviously something we'd be taking into account as we conduct our review this fall." Princeton President Shirley Tilghman said earlier this year that if peer institutions moved to a single admissions date, she would be "very comfortable" with such a move.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115802833491360256.html?mod=home_whats_news_us%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115802833491360256.html?mod=home_whats_news_us&lt;/a>
(subscription required)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ted Kennedy has been pressuring colleges to get rid of ED

[/quote]

Harvard's a private school. Kennedy should stay out of their business.</p>

<p>EA is nonbinding, and I doubt that it's hurting low income and disadvantaged students. ED, however, does put such students at a disadvantage.</p>

<p>i would wager that they discovered that Harvard was getting a pretty narrow profile of students in that EA group...pretty number oriented- scores, etc., and that some great kids couldn't be taken from general pool</p>

<p>I haven't seen that to be the case. The EA students whom I've seen admitted there have been outstanding across the board. What I haven't seen in the pool, though, have been low income students and URMs.</p>

<p>However, Harvard didn't have to 1 out of 3 EA applicants, something it traditionally has done. </p>

<p>What I wonder about is whether the increasingly large numbers of EA applicants were too much for the admissions office to handle relatively easily.</p>

<p>well, doesn't look like harvard thinks so...their reasoning is interesting, and it doesn't mean that the EA accept kids are not Harvard material, but Harvard must be seeing a pattern of kids they have to reject regular admissions that they are disturbed by</p>

<p>You may note that this takes effect NEXT year, not this year.</p>

<p>This is a pretty clear case of Bok wanting to signal to his colleagues and give them a chance to do the same. I doubt very much, BTW, that this change occurred without some discussion among Yale and PTon, perhaps others. These guys know each other too well to make such a move completely on their own.</p>

<p>I do find it interesting, though, that they/'re dumping the whole thing, rather than fix it and make it more attractive to lower demographics.</p>

<p>Although SCEA does allow students to compare fin aid offers, the kids who take advantage of this are most likely more coached and sophisticated about admissions. </p>

<p>Not a bad move. Ulteriour motive? Could it be that, with guaranteed free rides to those whose families earn under $60,000/year, that Harvard wants a way to change its applicant pool?</p>

<p>Not sure the experience we had (my S and many of his year-before and year-after classmates at TJHSST--generally, the classes of '04 thru '06) means anything "overall"...but my very strong impression from this group is that early applications--whether ED, EA or SCEA--were at least 49% motivated by a desire to "be done"...not that the kids in question didn't really and truly prefer their early application choices--but I heard an awful lot of gleeful "DONE; I'm DONE" after receipt of positive ED/SCEA/EA decisions, or conversely "now I have to do more apps" (w/groans and curses accompanying that statement) when the ED/EA/SCEA decision was a "no."</p>

<p>THe TJHSST applicants' pool may not be relevant to Harvard's decision (or to the other top schools, if they follow suit)...certainly there are few (none?) that fall into the demographic that Harvard cites. But I do wonder how many of these kids (and those like them from all over the country) will apply to HPYSM if the "I can be done by December" element is taken out of the equation? And whether if in fact their application pool from among these kids shrinks "noticeably" Harvard et al will care?</p>

<p>
[quote]
EA is nonbinding, and I doubt that it's hurting low income and disadvantaged students. ED, however, does put such students at a disadvantage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True, while Harvard's EA is non-binding it is also single choice early action, which means that students can not apply to any other early programs (except for rolling admissions at state U's) where they may stand a good chance of obtaining merit money if they apply early.</p>

<p>For years, the Yale president has been making noises about eliminating Early Admissions, but chose to go SCEA. It's taken Harvard to take the lead on this. It will be interesting to see if Yale follows, after all.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: S was admitted SCEA and felt "I'm done" by Dec. 15. </p>

<p>I think this move will benefit everyone. It will help students build a stronger profile, giving them more time to take standardized tests and obtain first semester senior grades. For the few students who were admitted early, it will mean a greater outlay of application expenses and a deferral of the "I'm done" feeling. But for those who were rejected, there will not be a crushing blow to deal with while trying to complete other application essays.</p>

<p>As others have said, the ones who benefitted the most from EA/SCEA and ED are the most savvy kids, those who tend to go to good schools, have access to good counseling and are generally more affluent.</p>

<p>I agree with overanxious mother. My son graduated from TJHSST last June. A significant number of his classmates applied SCEA or EA. While they would have been happy to attend those schools, I think the primary motivating factor was to be "done" - or to at least have the pressure removed reagrding college acceptances. Also, because SCEA/EA isn't binding many figure they have nothing to lose - and much to gain.</p>

<p>A large number also applied ED (including my son.) I think these students knew where they wanted to go and applied ED because they perceived that their chances of getting in would be greater. I do think that TJHSST students do have better chances of getting in ED at some schools - mostly because of its reputation. Those that got in ED to their chosed school were very relieved to be "done." It made the second semester senior year much more pleasant.</p>

<p>Obviously my son benefited from having the ED option. I do think he would have gotten in to his chosen school anyway. I must admit I too was relieved to have the whole process over. I wouldn't have encouraged him to apply ED if his choice hadn't been tops with him (by a great margin.)</p>

<p>We sure would have liked to be able to say to our son, "You are a great student, apply ED where ever you wish because money is no object. It'll be great for you to be done by Christmas and not have to still be in limbo in April". This is not reality for most families. </p>

<p>Of course ED favors wealthy families for whom financial aid is not a consideration. There is an admission advantage to applying early that lower income students cannot take advantage of. </p>

<p>Good for Harvard. I hope others follow.</p>

<p>These educational markets are segmented.</p>

<p>ED and EA mean something completely different among HYPSM than they do in the rest of the educational market. Harvard has the most latitude to do away with it because it gave them the least incremental advantage as an institution. Now what is going to happen to the overlap schools is that the kids who were early admits at Harvard, (and at Yale, Princeton, Stamford, and any other places among the top five or six) are going to have applications active at more schools, and are still going to go to Harvard, or Yale or Princeton when they are admitted.</p>

<p>It will not affect Harvard's yield, but it will affect the process at everywhere else all the way down to about number 20 on the list.</p>

<p>I suspect the basic reason for changing is simply that it was literally more trouble than it was worth to Harvard. Simple as that. Of course, that may not be true at Yale or Princeton, especially after Harvard has gone off on its own. It wouldn't be totally surprising to see Yale decide to go back to ED....I think it would make some sense competitively. </p>

<p>In any case, the earlier argument made, which really suggests a mismanagement of the process and admitting too many kids early and having no room for the fine applicants you see later just doesn't hold water. You can easily handle that after a couple of years of experience by simply knowing what you want and admitting those kids.</p>

<p>Just for the record, Harvard did not have ED. It had SCEA, which allowed students to apply RD to other schools and compare finaid offers, but it took away the edge of being able to apply EA to other schools where finaid might be more generous to early applicants.</p>

<p>Long time back I asked that they should get away from EA/ED/SCEA because it pressures pressure best student to play the game theory. This way the best student does not have to commit early. Once they get in they can make a decision where they want to go.</p>