<p>"Surely it cannot be a secret that Kennedy's motivation is ALWAYS how to best score points with those who would otherwise notice that he owes his position in the world entirely to hereditary privelege."</p>
<p>So would you rather he lobby for privilege and the right for legacies and those who went to the "right" prep schools to get a leg up?</p>
<p>Re: Turning down elite schools for merit money. I don't think I can read all 51 pages of the thread from 2-1/2 years ago. But I was thinking about the following last night:</p>
<p>Harvard accepts 2,100 applicants for a class of 1,680. Yale accepts 1,800 applicants for a class of 1,300. Princeton accepts about 1,500 for a class of 1,200. Stanford, MIT have similar numbers.</p>
<p>A high proportion of those kids who turn down one or another of those schools have to be turning them down in favor of one of the other such schools. In my experience, at least, that is the #1 reason kids choose not to attend Harvard -- because they're going to Yale or Stanford or Princeton (or MIT, Amherst, etc.). I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but half of the 500 kids who turn down Harvard or Yale, and probably more of the kids at other schools, seems a very conservative estimate. Kids apply to more than one of these schools, and the schools are all looking for the same things. So while all of them face an overqualified applicant pool, it would be very surprising if their admissions decisions didn't have a high degree of overlap. (And of course that's what I see on the ground, too -- at least half the kids who get into Harvard also get into at least one of Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc.)</p>
<p>So, while I don't doubt that there are kids out there who are choosing a merit scholarship at Wash U over Harvard or Yale, and I even know of some specific examples, I also know for a fact -- based on the HYPS yield numbers -- that there just cannot be that many of them. Probably fewer than 1,000 per year across HYPSM, or less than 12% of the unique kids admitted to at least one of those schools.</p>
<p>Why is this relevant? The SCEA system works pretty well to give informed kids the option of playing merit schools off against HYPS -- Harvard may say that it's poorly understood among low income students, but I can tell you that it's very, very well understood at my kids' HS which is over 60% free lunch eligible. Not that many people take advantage of it (although when they do, they seem to rush to CC to brag). I don't see things changing much if the HYPS schools go off EA.</p>
<p>There WILL be one predictable effect of Harvard's termination of SCEA next year that I didn't mention before: Yale and Stanford are probably going to get about 1,500-2,000 additional SCEA applications each. Why not? I wouldn't be surprised if the Yale SCEA pool went to 6,000 applications. Yale may have to follow Harvard in shutting down SCEA just to avoid having to process that many strong (but comparatively affluent) applications in a short period of time, and at the very least the acceptance rate in the EA round is going to plummet.</p>
<p>"I think you are right, Ben. By the time you add up the comfortably middle-class kids trying for some merit money and those who can't commit because they expect a range of FA packages, an awful lot of people see the SCEA"</p>
<p>SCEA doesn't committ you to the college! You can still compare financial aid packages. </p>
<p>If you read Harvard's press release properly - you can see that their agenda is two-fold. Getting rid of SCEA at Harvard because wealthier kids are more savvy and tend to be the early appliers, and ED at other schools because it committs kids without being able to look at Financial Aid.</p>
<p>Dadx: Your theory is plausible that Harvard looses very rich kids to ED places. If they have open policies it would have major share of rich but true super achievers kids because now these kids do not have to worry about early gaming system. Who will benefit under this scenario is poor kids most and yes top elite colleges because they have now rich but equally smart kids coming and not locking themselves out in ED.</p>
<p>How a rich kids but with lower stats (without taking any major math/scinece APs) benefit from ED? By looking at the trends you will find that majority of ED kids have much lower numbers, but benefit most out of ED. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>They have resources to go to foreign countries each summer so their skills in foreign language are better than any kid on full aids. They tend to score higher as sometime take two language class and will go for English/language major. This is a very big advantage in GPA boost.</p></li>
<li><p>Similar advantages are given in English/music/arts and this boost GPAs.</p></li>
<li><p>Exciting summer program are created that they can show earth shattering ECs and have enormous advantages. This allows them to write human touching stories and essay that adcoms are moved. Better advantage in essays and Ecs.</p></li>
<li><p>Their SATs II are in languages and SAT1 are in with coaching around 1500 plus.</p></li>
<li><p>Despite this rich kid’s with lower numbers: their science/math curriculum is much weaker and overall GPA goes down. These kids take barely any AP Bio/AP chem. And AP BC calculus. Forget AP Physics – They do not want to touch it. Lot of them barely goes for AB calculus in senior year and by the time game is over. Lowering risk in sciences by ED.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Thus majority of these kids apply to ED schools. They do not need finances and thus benefit from ED. ED schools selectivity goes up as they are receiving top 10% with distortion who does not have any major in science and math.</p>
<p>Lower ranked ED schools have kids apply who have lower GPA and SATs are evn lower.</p>
<p>new parent</p>
<p>Under my scenario the benefits from Harvard's decision go to 1. full-pay students who would not have applied early (they now have more spots still open for which to compete), and 2. the school, which now gets to look at everyone together.</p>
<p>If you're talking about the development admits, early decision wouldn't have any effect on them. I doubt that there are more than 15 or 20 of them anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't you always wonder if your lack of financial resources caused the death of the dream school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lkf: Lack of financial resources causes the death of many dreams. Where to live, how to live, what careeer to pursue are all decisions that start with financial parameters. Not being able to afford an ivy is not a death sentence. There are thousands of alternatives that will enable a student to fulfill his dream. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I have still a much more secure life than my truly lower income students. I just can't see how they are advantaged over me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>garland, to a great extent this is true. "There but for the grace of God go I" is something I say to myself on a daily basis. But if you run the numbers, middle class people are really being squeezed with income taxes, property taxes, and the assumption that we can afford everything. A low income family getting section 8 housing vouchers, food stamps, free tuition for music lessons & science camps & the like, can actually have more $$$ left over than the full-pay middle class family with kids.</p>
<p>dadax :</p>
<p>Yes full paying kids who truly have good stats and compete with any kids. They can challenege evn top performing math/science kids. Their sucees is not camoflauged and protected by ED. Since these kids pay full fair, hravrad or other schools can now admit more low income but kids with better achievements. Thus it is a win win situation. This applies to all colleges and does not benefit only Harvard or yale or MIt or stanford.</p>
<p>Just to reassert here that EA and SCEA are non-binding for every reason when it comes to the decision phase. Financial aid applicants are no more bound to agree to those college acceptances than to RD acceptances. That's why I don't believe that H's decision was mostly economically driven. However, as long as H has neither EA nor ED, it assures them that there will no early round, period, of high-paying applicants, and that the latter may first select peer schools who retain an early round. I agree with JHS that unless Princeton & others eliminate ED, the others may see quite an increase in ED apps (which is probably why P mentioned that they're re-evaluating their own policy).</p>
<p>I'm not sure how much H expects there to be a domino effect.</p>
<p>epiphany </p>
<p>If Harvrad or other SCEA or EA school do not honor ED, princeton can not do any thing about it.</p>
<p>newparent: Where are all these rich kids with low stats who get in ED? I don't know where your perception is coming from. I see rich kids working just as hard as anyone else. I don't begrudge them anything.</p>
<p>Newparent--I don't see anywhere that Harvard has said it will not honor other schools' ED policies. I'd be surprised if they went that route.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So would you rather he lobby for privilege and the right for legacies and those who went to the "right" prep schools to get a leg up?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if I life were fair, Kennedy would just about now be fininshing up his prison sentence for Mary Jo's tragic drowning death.</p>
<p>Stickershock :</p>
<p>How can I begrduge any rich student, when I want to be one of the rich person too. I admire and want to learn from rich people how to think and make $$$$$. Then I do not need any financail aid for my kid. I am sure majority of parents looking for financail aid will agree with me.</p>
<p>My problem is that ED program beneifts the wealth with lower stats better. It hurst a poor person with much better stats and ECs as they can not apply ED and have to compete in RD round. Hence it is not a level playing field.</p>
<p>Garland:</p>
<p>Harvard never said that they will not honor ED. It is my sisnce hope that Harvard take a stand against ED and not honor it. Then it is a level playing field and end of ED system which is bad.</p>
<p>newparent, I do not understand your post #190. Princeton is re-evaluating its own policies with regard to ED. They're not trying to "do anything" about other colleges' Early policies. (But all peer colleges would understand that one change would have a significant impact on applications to the others; that was my point, and one of JHS' points.)</p>
<p>Like Stickershock, I would like to know who these undeserving students are getting in ED. If you look at the admittance result threads on the various college boards on this site, they look pretty impressive to me.</p>
<p>I know that my S, who got into an Ivy ED(not HYP, but still) had SATs and grades in their top 25%. And at these higher echelons, it's not about the absolute highest stats, anyway. Almost all the students applying are competitive. The schools are looking at the complete person, not just whose stats are highest.</p>
<p>StickerShock: Do you have any idea how little income a "low income family" has when it gets section 8 vouchers and food stamps? Here, a family of four would have to have income below about $30,0000 to be eligible for Section 8 vouchers, and food stamps would phase out around $25,000. The Section 8 vouchers require spending 30% of income on rent. These families do not have dollars left over for much of anything. </p>
<p>Everyone: I am mystified about the claim that Harvard needs to see the whole applicant pool at once to make rational decisions. It gets about 4,000 SCEA applications, accepts 800, rejects maybe 200, and kicks the remaining 3,000 into the RD pool, which winds up being about 21,000 applications. In other words, they look at 95% of the pool at once. I have a hard time believing that they accept many kids in that initial 800 that they would not accept anyway in RD. </p>
<p>As far as I'm concerned, this is a cosmetic thing. It's getting applauded for addressing issues, but it addresses issues in the sense of waving at them, not in the sense of solving them.</p>
<p>Also, Newparent: ED is a contract between the school and the applicant. If the ED school learns that an accepted student has not withdrawn all other applications, it can (and will) withdraw the acceptance, whether or not the kid actually gets into the other school. Harvard would not poach on Princeton (or any other ED program).</p>
<p>I don't know that I buy the statement that "the majority of ED kids have much lower numbers (GPA, scores)." I don't know that I would agree with the "much" part. The ED round captures a variety of hooked applicants; if they don't have stats they have to have a different, very compelling hook. Being able to afford the college is not in itself enough -- not for the very top "elites." (It's a different story for the non-peer schools.) For HYP you'd better be truly a development admit (donor) if you don't bring something else to the table in the ED round -- such as superior athletics, arts, celebrity, extremely <em>low</em> income, truly URM, etc.</p>
<p>[edit: I meant ED or EA round]</p>
<p>Newparent: Wow. You really dislike rich people, don’t you.</p>
<p>I am affluent now, but my parents were lower-middle class borderline poor. My daughter goes to a public school, so I don’t know any wealthy prep school kids. But I disagree with a lot of your points.</p>
<p>Awhile back you said: “How about this scenirio the top kids apply SCEA do not make it as many other top kids are applying and compettiion is fierce. ED is not possible beacuse not sure even can afford $7000 (For some people it is a lot of money while others it may be a change). The kids below who happen to be second in rank applies ED beacuse the kid has better informed parents and do not need aid. This kids with lower stats get in.”</p>
<p>Chances are the kid with lower stats may still get in, even under RD. Why? Because colleges are not only looking at stats. They reject valedictorians and 800 board scorers all the time. Your kid has awesome stats, but even under a total RD scenario she may not get into all her schools simply because the school needs to accept the quarterback, the tuba player, the celebrities’ son and the sole applicant from North Dakota. Eliminating ED is not going to change those admissions policies. And that second-ranked kid who got in ED – what makes you think she/he isn’t fully qualified because of a GPA that is .02 less than the valedictorian? In fact, in many cases even the kid ranked number 10 or number 80 could be much better than the val, because of factors you may not be able to see.</p>
<p>Your claim that rich kids get to go to foreign countries, etc., and get to write emotional essays: Admissions officers are a very savvy bunch. They read hundreds of those essays, along with the “winning goal” ones. If anything, those essays and those summer experiences work against those kids. Personally, I think a kid who writes an honest essay about their own life – and an underprivileged kid who writes about their resilience in the face of poverty – has a better chance of impressing an ad rep. I know of a college counselor who advises kids to go get a job during the summer, because going to expensive programs now looks bad on applications.</p>
<p>Many colleges are looking for kids with an interest in science and math. That’s the case at my Ivy alma mater, where female humanities majors are at a very serious disadvantage in the admissions game. So all the emphasis on languages and English is not much of a boost in admissions.</p>
<p>As for the SAT coaching stuff – adcoms always look at SAT scores in light of family income and make adjustments. </p>
<p>If a college accepts a student without the science and math you refer to, that student must have a hook the college wants, and will want in both the ED and RD round. They may get in over your kid in any scenario. So, I’m not convinced that eliminating ED or SCEA is going to dramatically affect the profile of the school’s student body. It may have no impact on individual low-income applicants. Just because Harvard says not enough low-income students are applying doesn’t mean it plans on accepting more low-income students.</p>
<p>Clarification:</p>
<p>It is my sisnce hope that Harvard take a stand against ED and not honor it. </p>
<p>Student can not break ED. It is a honor system and one has to live with it. It is my sincere desire that Harvrad by taking leadership position denoce that they will not honor ED. They have taken a stand that they will not be a EA or SCEa or ED just one admsiison policy. Harvard probably will not do try to break ED. It is just a chrismas wish.</p>