NYT: Harvard ends early admission (EA)

Parents Forum
321

<p>soozievt said: "The frenzy to have to apply early to a school is prevalent, it seems, in certain circles but it really is not in my community and so it is more of an individual choice."</p>

<p>Just wanted to say that things are different at my daughter's HS, which is just a few miles down the road from Soozie's. Last year, a number of kids applied ED or EA, and the vast majority of them did very well -- better than kids who just applied in the RD round. They all felt pressured to do it last year, and a number of this year's seniors, seeing what happened last year, are feeling that pressure right now. </p>

<p>So, not all of Vermont is laid back, I'm sorry to report.</p>

322

<p>The point of the Gordon Winston article is that the students are already there. They already took the SAT and ACT. They already scored high enough to qualify for prestige college admissions. But they are still well unrepresented, and not finding their way in. Yes, schools should do more, and parents should do more, and GCs should do more. But the point of Winston's exercise was to demonstrate that if these colleges wanted more "qualified" low-income applicants, they were already there to be found.</p>

<p>What I do think is likely true, however, is that a very goodly number of them are finding their way to colleges (often good ones) in any case. It is likely that the overwhelming majority of the 35% or so of the student bodies at UCLA and Berkeley who are on Pell Grants are well qualified for private prestige college admissions. But it is hardly a national tragedy that they end up at Berkeley rather than Dartmouth, or UCLA rather than Brown.</p>

323

<p>
[quote]
They do without that extra car, that new or expensive car, the upgraded cell phone, an optional vacation. Practically all resources (not just financial) are centered around education. It speaks volumes about the priorities of the parents, and I say, More power to 'em.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>epiphany, I agree with you. I'd add some more things to the list that educationally advantaged but low-income families do without: $100+ manicures & tips, ipods, various consumer electronic dodads, $100+ sneakers, Coach bags. Frankly, I've been floored by the luxury items some low-income families strut around with while complaining that the SAT fee is high & they need a waiver. A real shame that their kids are not taught to prioritize very well. Right next door you'll see a family pinching pennies, going to the library, seeing that the kids hit the books. Such a huge disparity in attitudes that the "low-income" label doesn't offer much insight into the kid's suitability for a challenging school.</p>

324

<p>Hey sly, that is interesting. But I think your community/school are a bit different than the one my kids went to in a few ways. (for those who don't realize it, I have met sly and know which school her children attend) Some apply ED from our school but nothing like I read about in competitive communities where ED seems like the norm. And people in our school are not admissions savvy as a whole. I am thinking there may be more professionals in your community too. Hard to say. Our school encompasses six rural towns and yours is one city. We have just a few kids each year that go to highly selective schools, not a real lot. We do have graduates who have gone to top schools but there are just a few each year who end up at such schools. Some of our top students opt to go to UVM too. Not sure how it is in your school to be fair. I think the other high school very near yours, is also different than our HS. I think you know which one I mean that also has many kids who dance at our studio. I don't know about your school, but 66% from our school go to four year colleges. I wonder if it is higher at your HS?</p>

325

<p>Mini, thanks for posting that Winston study. I had heard about it, but never read it. I also agree completely with your UCLA/Berkeley/Dartmouth/Brown comment.</p>

<p>A few comments:</p>

<p>The degree of underrepresentation changes a lot if you look at the SAT figures only: 1% (10%) at a 1420 cutoff, and 4% (40%) at a 1300 cutoff, which I think is probably the realistic cutoff absent significant other factors. Obviously, this is an explanation, not an excuse, and it is a good argument for using the ACT instead of, or alongside, the SAT. It also suggests that there is a regional element to the underrepresentation -- it may not be lower income people who are underrepresented so much as lower income people from certain regions.</p>

<p>Winston's data are a powerful argument for better marketing by elite schools to lower income kids and families. However, one of the marketing challenges may be that the available high-quality low income kids are diffused somewhat in populations of lower-ability kids, especially in rural communities, so that it becomes more difficult to find them, even if they're there. It's easy to send a rep to Andover or Scarsdale High, and you'll find a whole bunch of qualified largely high-income kids. It's easy to send a rep to my kids' school, too, or other urban public magnets, and you'll find a whole bunch of mixed-income qualified kids. It's not so easy to service a bunch of small rural high schools in Nebraska or Mississippi, which may or may not produce a qualified kid or two in any particular year.</p>

<p>I stand by my belief that in my community, the qualified kids are relatively concentrated, but clearly that isn't true elsewhere (maybe not even in NYC, per Sybbie). </p>

<p>Obviously, there are a ton of cultural factors which a marketing effort must address. Somehow, I doubt that eliminating SCEA does a whole lot to address them, but I know that isn't the only thing Harvard (and others) will do.</p>

<p>Finally, there is obviously a significant issue lurking here where race and income level diverge. I don't think it's any secret that the elite colleges care about race more than income, and that most of their marketing to low income students has been to low income URMs. Also, the real scandal in Winston's data is the enormous underrepresentation of kids in the middle income quadrants relative to ability.</p>

326

<p>Of the 8 colleges on my D's list, only 1 had a rep visit our HS. As well, not all of her schools were present at the huge state college fair and I am including very well known Ivies and selective schools.</p>

327

<p>"Also, the real scandal in Winston's data is the enormous underrepresentation of kids in the middle income quadrants relative to ability."</p>

<p>True. Remember, however, that "middle income" in Winston's data, the middle quintile, runs approximately $40-$65k. Most of them would qualify for free rides at, for example H., without H. being able to recoup any of the investment through Pell Grants. Data I've shown previously on Amherst indicates virtually no students in this quintile, and I'm quite willing to bet that close to a majority of students in this and the next quintile up ($65-$92k) at Ivies and etc. are athletes (and some URMS - Carnevales' 2003 data indicate that 86% of African American students at these schools come from middle, upper middle, and upper income families.)</p>

<p>Re: marketing. You are absolutely right. It took my d's school some 25 years of time, energy, and money to get its 26% Pell Grant recipient share, and it has taken Amherst about a decade to get to 16%. It's expensive and, really, what's the payoff for them? Suz, for example, notes how uncommon it is for reps to even show up at her local high school, which sends 66% on to four-year colleges. I doubt the local GC is "cultivated", and doesn't receive regular phonecalls, like, say, the GC at Andover.</p>

<p>Again, I don't think this is a national tragedy. If the kids can fight their way out of their home towns, they are going to do just fine at the Berkeleys, UCLAs, Wisconsins, etc. of this world, provided their state legislatures don't cut their legs out from under them. This is a cause of much greater concern (to me) tha what Harvard and etc. does with EA to enhance its institutional mission.</p>

328

<p>Some time ago, Newsweek ran a "My turn" piece from a student from Appalachia. He sounded very well qualified. He expressed frustration that no adcom had ever/might ever visit his high school or contact him in any way. I hope that after that piece, someone did!</p>

<p>I agree that highly able kids from rural areas are the hardest to identify--and perhaps the least knowledgeable about the intricacies of the college admission process.</p>

<p>I agree with Mini, too, that it is far more important to give access to more kids. That's why it's frustrating to me that our state legislature has done so badly by our state university system.</p>

329

<p>Mini, you may enjoy knowing that of my D1's 8 colleges, the ONE that did visit her school was..........Smith! Come to think of it, I don't think any of D2's schools had reps visit our HS either!</p>

330

<p>Here's my story about a low-income kid who was clueless about the college application process. She applied early to an Ivy, encouraged by her teacher who was an alum. It was unusual for a kid from her rural HS to go to the state university -- most went to the state colleges, if to college at all. I interviewed her, and she was truly an amazing kid. She called me in tears about a week after sending in her ap -- the college had sent her a letter saying that it couldn't consider her early decision because she hadn't taken the SAT IIs. She had barely heard of the SAT IIs -- her GC had told her all she needed to take for college was the SATs. I called the admissions rep, pleaded this kid's case, and she was accepted early under the condition she take the SATIIs. She took 3 in one day. </p>

<p>Now this happened 14 years ago. I wonder whether she'd get into an Ivy today.</p>

<p>And Soozie: things haven't changed much here in terms of college adcom visits. My daughter was very disappointed at the colleges last year at the big state fair. Only one Ivy shows up (and it's not Harvard); very few selective schools are there. So if they are trying to reach rural Vermont kids, they aren't trying very hard. Our GCs, btw, encourage juniors to go to this fair. They visit each junior English class in early Sept., encouraging juniors to think about college. Not that it works all the time - I know seniors this year who haven't visited a college yet. </p>

<p>To be honest, one of the reasons I think this process is handled well at my daughter's school is because the GC went to a very selective LAC, and so knows the system pretty well.</p>

331

<p>Yeah, if I recall at the state college fair, Brown was the only Ivy represented. Maybe Cornell was there. Definitely not HYP. Surely none of my kids's colleges sent reps to the HS. </p>

<p>I have to say that we love our GC, but not so much for college reasons. We did that process on our own. He is supportive and has been helpful to my girls in many ways. Actually at the state college fair, he spoke to the Brown rep on my D's behalf. </p>

<p>You are right that many kids here don't take SAT2 tests. My kids did and they took three in one day. But that is because I am up on this stuff. I'd say everything we did for college admissions was on our own. That's why my kids felt sorry for other kids whose families were clueless or whose parents were just not as involved. </p>

<p>By the way, I have clients in other states who are seniors and who have not visited any of their schools yet. One is even applying ED (that is the one school she has seen as she did a summer program there) but hasn't seen the others and live very near many of them. As I said, the parents and families on CC's boards are not as typical as you find in other places! I am baffled when I get kids who are starting the process in late fall of senior year. I was really baffled by the local girl I worked with some this summer when she hadn't yet taken the SATs because her mom teaches at the school. I have to remember that not everyone is as savvy about even the basic process as I see with posters on CC. </p>

<p>I just read the daily bulletin from our HS (for some reason I am still on the email list though this is my second year with no kids attending high school) and here are the colleges lined up to visit our HS this month:</p>

<p>Lyndon State College
Johnson State College Green Mountain College
Skidmore College
Saint Lawrence University
Evergreen State College
Saint Thomas & Mt Allison Universities - New Brunswick, Canada
Connecticut College
Hartford Conservatory
SUNY - Canton</p>

<hr>

<p>I am delighted to see Conn College actually because that was one of D1's schools and back in 2003, they did not visit. However, an adcom held interviews for applicants (not quite the same thing as an informational visit for any student) in Burlington, VT and my D was able to travel there for that.</p>

<p>Oh, and the newsletter mentions that this week the guidance counselors will meet with all seniors (in groups) to talk about college.</p>

332

<p>Way, waay back on this thread poster JHS brought up my family and my D's choice to attend Rhodes College over Yale and Amherst RD. I really don't know why except to suggest it was some anomaly. It was not. </p>

<p>Not to interrupt the recent flow but to make perfectly clear the reasons she did so, Yale and Amherst were the stingiest two schools on her list. Had she trusted the process to be fair , we would have been hosed. Make that a capital H. Hosed. </p>

<p>The difference between those two and Colgate, Hamilton, and Scripps (her other 100% of need schools) on need based aid was $56,000 in cash money. Out of pocket it was well into the $60's. That's right - over $15k a year . Don't trust what they say unless you file a 1040 EZ and rent. You'll get better odds playing the slots. At the airport. </p>

<p>For this particular student Rhodes College was "close" in quality and had specific research programs of great interest to her as good or better than those at any higher ranked schools. And Rhodes was $100K less expensive than Yale and Amherst. </p>

<p>To a kid who plans on attending medical school and/or grad school the opportunity for meaningful UG research at the finest hospital of its kind in the world, to present papers at symposia, to begin work second semester (yea!) with a professor doing NIH funded research in an exciting area directly on campus (with a 3 year grant!!) coupled with the fact that she is treated very well , made the Ultimate Frisbee Team (they beat Ole Miss Yesterday and she scored and had 2 assists), and the basketball team, and got her first choice sorority - well, she is so proud of her college choice. </p>

<p>Her feet haven't touched the ground yet. She's eating the place up (and they, her ;)). </p>

<p>But, it's their loss. Had Amherst and Yale treated her more fairly they would have been the lucky school to get her. I have a feeling they miss out on lots of truly exceptional middle class kids this same way. And yes, I have notified Yale and Amherst of what they did "wrong" in the process with suggestions as to how to make the process more fair to middle income kids from self employed folks, and much to my surprise - did you know they haven't bothered to respond? ;)</p>

<p>Edit: I once felt fairly generous to Yale and Amherst but as time goes on I see how callous the system is as it relates to a whole class of kids. I'm not as generous anymore especially since they don't seem to be willing to learn or even listen.</p>

333

<p>Ours was not "1040EZ and rent", but awfully close, and our experience was (as noted), virtually the same.</p>

334

<p>The point of Harvard making its early action program nonbinding, and the point of its new initiative of making all of its admission decisions come in the regular round, is to let applicants choose offers of admission based on all factors important to that applicant. I can well imagine that some parents would advocate NOT taking a half-price offer on an Ivy education, because students qualified to be admitted to Ivies can get better financial offers from other colleges, and I can also imagine some other parents thinking that half price for an education at a top Ivy is a bargain. To each their own. I think it is commendable that Harvard has always thought it is important that applicants make that choice with competing offers in hand.</p>

335

<p>


You speak of that as if it was a choice. That's not a choice given to some of us. It's not a bargain if you can't pay it, can't borrow it. That's not a choice. That's a sham an artifice to make them feel better. They know we can't pay that rate going in. They have our financials for crying out loud (and in our case they had a narrative also setting out our peculiar circumstances explaining why we can't borrow it). </p>

<p>Some of us wish we had a real choice that didn't amount to financial stunt riding and that's what it would have required from us. Doing a wheelie on a tightrope with a blindfold, or if you prefer, "betting on the come" as in </p>

<p>"7 come 11. Baby needs year two tuition."</p>

336

<p>Curmudgeon:</p>

<p>I certainly didn't mean to cast any aspersions on you, your daughter, or your family. The only point of my post was that, on CC we talk about people turning down Harvard and Yale, etc., a lot for merit scholarships at "lesser" (in general reputation, not necessarily in quality) institutions, but that based on those schools' yields, the absolute number of people doing it isn't very large. At most, a few hundred.</p>

<p>You have always been extremely articulate in presenting your daughter's reasons for going to Rhodes, and I don't think anyone would accuse her, or you, of making an irrational decision. Obviously, it was extremely rational, and the wonder is why more people don't do that. But the objective evidence is that many/most people don't. If they enter the HYPS lottery, and win, they go. I suspect what happens most commonly is that people choose not to play the lottery in the first place if they suspect that "100% of need" won't be 100% of their need.</p>

<p>I note also that your extreme scholarship differences were between extremely popular colleges (Yale, Amherst) and colleges that are clearly at a different tier in popularity (Rhodes, Scripps, Hamilton, Colgate). That is perfectly consistent with what I was saying, and what many people say: Less-popular colleges use dollars to buy great middle-class candidates, but people who choose to go the HYPS route generally follow through with it, and the financial aid differences among those schools, while certainly meaningful sometimes, are rarely as meaningful as the differences you are talking about.</p>

337

<p>And I wonder whether Princeton, as per its reputation, would have been more generous than Yale and Amherst. Dang, Cur, why wasn't D willing to be the guinea pig for those of us here on cc:).</p>

<p>JK, JK, JK, in case there was ANY doubt about it. Glad to hear Mudgette is eating up the territory, and not one whit surprised. Am hoping she shows up for grad/med school at Stanford, he he he.</p>

338

<p>


JHS, I understand. I just think the perspective is off kilter. On this side of the fence, Colgate, Hamilton, and Scripps aren't buying anybody with their NEED (not merit) based package (I was comparing their need packages) - Yale and Amherst are treating the middle class students, especially those with self-employed parents, unfairly in the FA process. Several thousand higher than Fafsa and Profile would have suggested. Every adjustment (5) went against us. </p>

<p>In the interest of total fairness, D was statistically in the top 25% of the pools at all five schools but certainly closer to the top at the "lesser" 3. Also, D was a merit awardee at Scripps and Hamilton which IMO helped her need based aid substantially and an Alumni Memorial Scholar at Colgate which certainly didn't hurt. She was indeed preferentially packaged within their definition of need. (Although I realize this dilutes my argument somewhat. LOL. Dang, this honesty stuff gets in the way, doesn't it? )</p>

<p>I guess it was clear that they wanted her more than Yale and Amherst did. I suspect there are kids Yale and Amherst want that much, too. They all do it to some level. </p>

<p>Alu, based on the calculator- I think she would have fared better but we'll never know because the little hard-headed weasel wouldn't sit for the dang Subject Tests (as you know).</p>

339

<p>
[quote]
She was indeed preferentially packaged within their definition of need.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bingo. We have bingo!</p>

<p>BTW, I have no disagreement with ANY of your posts on this topic. In fact, I find myself vigorously nodding in agreement.</p>

<p>Where we could all use a little more transparency is on the issue of preferential packaging of need-based aid. I have no doubt that Amherst and Yale practice preferential packaging just like Colgate, Rhodes, and Scripps do. They just target different types of students with their preferential packaging (i.e. loan-free preferential packaging for low-income and/or high stat URM applicants).</p>

<p>Because these schools have no problem enrolling students to bolster their median SAT scores, they preferential package to achieve different institutional priorities. Other schools need to preferential package to middle class kids to land the high SAT scores. There is nothing sinister in either case. As you know better than almost anyone here, it is very important that each applicant understand where he or she fits in the equation and what each school is looking to achieve with both their preferential packaging and their explicitly-stated merit discounts.</p>

340

<p>Yes, but if the school claims to meet 100% of need and gaps what FAFSA suggests need is, then RD is the best route for that student to go.</p>