<p>I use this phrase when I compare the health and natural talents of my children to those less fortunate, but it is not really the right response to Garland. The right answer, I think, is to look at the adverse effect the current system has on incentives. My spouse has taken on a ton of consulting jobs and contract work over the last ten years, in addition to his professor duties, in order to save some money for our children's college ed. Now, we discover that we would be better off if he had kicked back and watched football on the weekends, because the extra income has elevated us out of needs-based aid range. This doesn't have much to do with the topic of EA/SCEA/ED, but that is Garland's second post that implies that moderately successful people are just lucky, and it really grates. It isn't "conventional wisdom" that the middle class is taking a hit at the elite schools, it is a fact. Whether or not this is a problem depends on whether or not you think elite schools are really better than, say, Carnegie Mellon or U Chicago. Just my personal opinion, but I predict an accelerated trend of top students heading for good schools with merit awards. If those schools aren't just as good already, they will be in ten years.</p>
<p>Mathmom says, of Ted Kennedy, "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?"
He has is fact, done exactly this. He is one of the loudest opponents of "voucher out" programs for poor kids stuck in lousy urban schools, Wash. DC among others. I sure don't remember his kids going to public schools. But sorry, this too is off topic. My point was that nobody should pay any attention to what Kennedy has to say about this subject because his motives are calculated to win votes, not to inspire informed debate about an important topic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is Harvard’s hope, and ours too, that moving to single-stage admissions will increase the diversity of the student body. As interim University President Derek C. Bok said yesterday, early admissions “advantage[s] the advantaged” because the pool of early applicants is disproportionately affluent and white. Most strong minority and low-income applicants apply in January. Their secondary schools, where the advisee-to-councilor ratio is astronomical, where most students don’t have the money to visit colleges or hire private councilors, and where bureaucracy likely impedes the processing of applications, are less likely to provide students the information and infrastructure needed to apply early. Besides mitigating some of the advantages of the privileged, the College plans to further attract minority and low-income applicants by using November and early December—a time now spent reviewing early applications—to further reach out to and recruit students who may not otherwise apply.
<p>
[quote]
Fitzsimmons said Monday that early admission at Harvard has been “a vexing and difficult topic for us for a long time.”</p>
<p>In fact, he said in a follow-up conversation yesterday, Harvard has weighed returning to a unitary system for practically as long as the program has been in place—more than 30 years, extending back to Bok’s original tenure, which lasted from 1971 to 1991.</p>
<p>Bok said that it was “only within the last few months” that the administration took steps toward ending the College’s early admission program.</p>
<p>Although the admissions office has long debated the merits of early admission, Fitzsimmons said that Bok’s presence on campus was pivotal in making the discussions a reality.</p>
<p>“It’s very clear that President Bok did indeed lay the decisive role in making the change happen,” Fitzsimmons said. “The change would not have occurred if it had not been for his leadership.”
<p>How can I hate the rich people. I am firm beliver in capitalist society to make money. I want myself 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>I never said do not take rich people. I never said do not take athelete.</p>
<p>I just said do not allow ED to go on. IS that such a bad thing that I am accused I do not like rich. Think about enormous benfits coming out of donations from Carnegge, Rockerfellar, Bill gates any amany more genrous rich people who knew meaning of making money and benefitting the society in terms of charity giving. I hope you see me as agianst ED not agianst ri h people whose genrosity has benefitted me and people who need financail aid.</p>
<p>Harvrad takes a next step and state that any person who apply ED schools can apply to them too. If harvard says kid only who have applied Ed can now apply for regular decision. Princeton and other schools in that case have to reevulate Ed system. This will be the end of ED walls. It is a wishful thninkng. If it going to happen I do not know. But I hope so.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that people like Bok and Fitzsimmons are well aware of the impact Harvard has on higher ed in this country, and are using its position of dominance to make a change that corrects some inequities in our society.</p>
<p>yes, marite is so right. No college would ever knowingly violate the terms of some other college's contract with a student. They would lose credibility & reputation -- not to mention annoying the competing college, big time. (And making a legal mess for themselves.) Ain't going to happen.</p>
<p>you are right it is unethical and I hope Princeton named numebr one school shows leadership and when reevualting breaks ED route and show everyone that still it is Princeton can can compete head to head with any college in the world. same thing goes for Upenn and other schols too. My disliking is against ED and not anything else.</p>
<p>ED is biggest dilemma for people in my shoes. because one can not compare financail aid and hence can not apply ED. I know many people may not agree but ecah additional $1000 in aid mean a lot for family. And I am still better. There are kids who even need more than us and they will benefit out of breaking ED.</p>
<p>Yes breaking ED is unethical and wrong. It shows lack of charcater on apllicant part. hence they tend to shy away from ED. You have made better arugument against ED then I did.</p>
<p>Midmo. I would never mean to imply that mid-level families are not working very, very hard for their money. But I also don't believe that lower income families are not.
Many of my students' parents work two jobs just to make ends meet. We are fortunate that when we work two jobs (which I do) we make a better income from them.</p>
<p>My argument against ED is not for me. It is for every family who need even $2000 in financail need. ED hurts these people more than anyone else.</p>
<p>Harvard leadesrhip position may not make a big difference nbut at least it is a right step agianst Early admission and hope a death knell for ED.</p>
<p>The other Ivies and elites will follow Harvard's lead. You can tell from the public comments of the Admissions Deans. They share Harvard's sentiments about ED/EA hurting low-income kids and they don't like the way ED/EA starts the admissions pressure before the senior year of HS even starts. All of which is valid.</p>
<p>But, schools other than the elites will continue with ED/EA, because: (a) it will be a way for them to beat the elites to quality, motivated students looking to get a jump on the process, (b) the ED/EA kids tend to be affluent full-payers, and the non-elites need them since they don't have the elites' billions in endowment, (c) ED/EA tends to even out the work flow of the adcomms, and this is important to non-elite schools since they're more likely to be underfunded and understaffed in Admissions, and (d) it protects yield.</p>
<p>Bottom line: Soon, having an ED/EA program will be a sign of a non-elite school that wants to move up the rankings. Like having an Honors Program, or giving out a lot of merit aid, or doing extensive marketing.</p>
Newparent, I could kind of see your point until this post.</p>
<p>College is not free. </p>
<p>Kids can and should earn something over the summer months, and even during the school year. Earning $2500 over summer and another $2500 during the school year is not unreasonable. Almost all students qualify for Stafford loans, although they may not be subsidized. The limits have increased recently, and range from $3500 year 1, $4500 year 2 and $5500 years 3 and 4. So, a student should be able to come up with somewhere between $8000 and $10,000 per year for their own education.</p>
<p>Parents, like us, who don't qualify for need based aid, take out significant loans and economize as much as possible. I still think it's easier for us than for the students that Garland describes, but unless one is independently wealthy, it's still hard to come up with the EFC.</p>
<p>Roscoe, I agree with everything you said. Ivy's probably don't "need" EA/ED anymore than they "need" to give merit aid. But schools other than the elites will continue, and a few who do not use these early programs will. I think that many use rolling admissions to even out the flow and to get a jump on some of the competitive students.</p>
<p>If everything is so fair the way it is, why did so many of you apply ED? (generically "you"...not meant to indicate any individual). Even if you can afford full fare, would you not have taken scholarship money if offered it in the RD round? (Buy your kid a car, offer travel, save for grad school, etc.) The reason so many financially capable people encourage ED is that they love their kids and they know it is an admissions advantage. It is an advantage the same way that being an athlete or a legacy or a URM is an advantage. Do any legacies or URM's fail to identify themselves as such on their applications? I doubt it. </p>
<p>No one can fault parents for loving their kids and wanting them to get into the college of their choice. But come on...ED is an unfair advantage and families who can are willing to forgo scholarships and financial aid to get it.</p>
<p>"yes, marite is so right. No college would ever knowingly violate the terms of some other college's contract with a student. They would lose credibility & reputation -- not to mention annoying the competing college, big time. (And making a legal mess for themselves.) Ain't going to happen."</p>
<p>Epiphany, I am afraid that there have been reports of "poaching" of ED students by schools during the RD round. Inasmuch as we know that the schools would not release students for whimsical reasons, the release/reapplication is a fine line. As far as legal action, I believe that you would have a hard time finding a school having pursued a legal battle about ED with either a student or another school. </p>
<p>This said, I strongly believe that, as long as they exist, the ED contracts should be binding and ... protected. I would, however, welcome a greater transparency and evidence that the schools do indeed exchange information about candidates and enforce the rules and spirit of their practices.</p>
<p>Colleges and students (and their parents) look at the system from different perspectives. Obviously students must do what is best for them, whether to apply ED or EA or RD. But colleges have other priorities, too.<br>
Knowing that early admissions advantages oneself and making use of that advantage is not the same thing as saying that the system is fair--indeed, it is saying that it is less fair for those who do not know how to or cannot take advantage of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
StickerShock: Do you have any idea how little income a "low income family" has when it gets section 8 vouchers and food stamps?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, JHS. Are you aware that there are hundreds of programs that aid low-income families through subsidising or eliminating the cost of just about every expense they encounter? Section 8 & food stamps are only the two I mentioned. So many low-income families pay for very little, while middle class families pay for every single expense, and often must walk away from opportunities for their kids because they can't swing the cost. I'm not wishing to trade places. I'm just pointing out that the middle-class squeeze is real.</p>
<p>midmo makes a great point about the adverse effect that this system has on incentives. I was in this scenario myself over 30 years ago. We kids turned over our social security checks to our widowed working mom every month. Also worked part-time jobs. But when my allowable job earnings exceeded a certain amount, money was deducted from the SS check. (I believe it was $1 for every $2 of earnings over the limit.) I explained the situation to my boss & he understood why I took time off. Why work when it was COSTING me money? The following years, I adjusted my hours accordingly. This is one small anecdote in the crazy system that penalizes independence and rewards those who stay on government assistence of all types.</p>
<p>While I applaud the decision of Harvard and its apparent willingness to show leadership, I am not so sure that the move is really about ... minorities and lower SES families. </p>
<p>With the changes brought to the financial aid packages, the lowest income families have a reasonable expectation of receiving very, very generous packages at Harvard. Accordingly, families with low EFC should not worry about the financial "comparisons." There is ample evidence that the situation would be similar at Stanford, Princeton, and many other uber-elite schools. </p>
<p>Considering that families with very high income--at least for financial aid purpose--know how limited the aid will be, this leaves us with the ... lower to high middle class. Incidentally, this is the group that is the most interested in comparing financial packages and seek substantial merit aid at non_ivies schools.</p>