<p>So is this new rule apply for class of 2011 or class of 2012?</p>
<p>It applies next year, to high school class of 2008 (Harvard class of 2012).</p>
<p>oh no, so close. This would have allowed my kid to make a decision based on financail aid alone. RSI, and so many national level awards yet no way to know even if she will be admitted.</p>
<p>but NYT says</p>
<p>Many admissions deans and high school guidance counselors greeted Harvard’s decision — which is to go into effect for applicants in the fall of 2007 — with astonishment and delight.</p>
<p>In a perfect world, all colleges would get rid of both ED and EA. I think they both stink for kids. </p>
<p>But as long as they offer a competitive advantage for the schools, I know they'll stick around for the most part.</p>
<p>High school students APPLYING in the fall of 2007 are students in high school class of 2008, just as students applying this fall (2006) are students in high school class of 2007.</p>
<p>Thanks tokenadult :)</p>
<p>In my excitement I thought this is for this year class. It is sad.</p>
<p>I know many students will have much higher chances to go into their top choices through ED with much lower stats and SATs scores based on scatter gram data. These kids have hooks such as athletics, URMs, legacy, money etc. Kids like mine having super academic achievements and many national level awards have much lower chances to compete with these kids with hooks as my kid need financial aid. But this is life and reality. </p>
<p>This elimination of ED/SCEA/EA, I see will definitely help kids who needs financial aid to have at least a better playing field in comparison to kids with hooks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
I think it's great that Harvard is taking the lead on this. We did not allow S1 to apply ED anywhere, although he did apply EA to a few schools. It was nice to know in December that he would at least be going to college!</p>
<p>But I think ED in particular benefits kids who have already received many advantages. Very few families have the resources to allow a child to apply ED without regard for financial issues, and many lower SES kids don't have access to the counseling which would enable them to understand the ramifications of early applications.</p>
<p>I'm currently re-reading "The Early Admissions Game" and I believe there is a real advantage to applying early, and that upper middle class kids benefit.</p>
<p>Of course, we have a HS junior at home, and may allow him to apply ED to a particular school, so I'm not saying ED is always bad -- it would be nice to just get this one over with early.</p>
<p>SCEA allowed kids to compare offers. Hooked kids will still have hooks. But the kids who were admitted early will not be compared with applicants in the regular pool.</p>
<p>S decided against applying ED because he was not absolutely sure that the ED school he was considering was his top choice. He settled for SCEA. Once he was admitted, he became uninterested in applying elsewhere, though he also applied RD to Stanford because of its early deadline for RD.</p>
<p>sjamom </p>
<p>ED is bad for kids who have stats and everything and needs aid to compare. This has been told by our prep school counselor. SCEA is still better but optimum is EA. The single one admission entrance date is most beneficial where kids apply and see what happens is best. This way students with lower stats/GPA/SATs/SATII/APs do not get a big boost and perform better as compare to student who have better stats but needs money and have to compete with other students who have equally good stats. This at least try to put a level playing field.</p>
<p>Marite</p>
<p>I know you are very knowledgeable and I respect you that. But now looking at the scatter gram, kids in ED colleges who were admitted early have much lower GPAs/and Stats and much lower ECs profiles. I can not prove it, as the data I see I can not provide it to anyone.</p>
<p>Newparent:<br>
You are right that many of the early admits have lower stats. That has been the big criticism leveled at early admissions. You can get all the data you want in The Early Admissions Game. But most of the early admits have hooks. The legacies will still be legacies, development kids will still be development kids, the URMs will still be URMs, the kids with unusual ECs will still have unusual ECs. Pushing the admission deadline will not change that landscape.</p>
<p>newparent, I thought that's what I said,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Very few families have the resources to allow a child to apply ED without regard for financial issues, and many lower SES kids don't have access to the counseling which would enable them to understand the ramifications of early applications.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To expand, I like EA, but I still think it provides an advantage to higher SES kids. The benefits to the student are nice -- having an acceptance in hand + the ability to compare finances. The problem I have with ED is that it forces kids to decide on a college at the very beginning of senior year. There can be tremendous changes in a student's outlook by April or May, and some kids may prematurely commit to a particular school. </p>
<p>For kids who are legacies, and have spent time at mom or dad's alma mater, it may work out for them to apply ED. If we feel comfortable about our financial situation, we may allow S2 to apply ED to S1's school, if he chooses. But that's because we are very comfortable with S1's school. But, of course, we have to see what S2 wants to do.</p>
<p>I wonder why Harvard didn't just go to regular EA rather than "Single-choice EA"--that would have given students the option to apply early to other schools and have all their options open until May. I'm not really sure that I believe that lower-income Harvard-qualified students can't comprehend the difference between EA and ED--with or without good counselling...it doesn't seem very complex. I'm exceedlingly glad that this change didn't take place when my son applied---the DONE factor was huge (for all of us, actually, hence my screen name). It also allowed him to avoid completing about 3 more aps and to enjoy devoting himself to his extracurricular passions for their own sake during senior year.</p>
<p>Donemom: Harvard has tried regular EA before and found it to be extremely taxing. Approximately 8,000 students applied unrestricted EA, but the number of admissions officers remained the same. They felt that they were not doing justice to each applicant. Furthermore, Harvard's peer institutions were not too happy with its open EA policy.</p>
<p>I agree that regular EA would have been a viable option, but I think this is a good move. When my d was applying it was clear to us that it was just plain stupid not to apply early somewhere if you have all your ducks in a row. As a result she definitely felt pressured to decide by October. Not every kid can do this successfully. </p>
<p>I do agree that being DONE was absolutely terrific, but now that the common app exists it would presumably not be a total nightmare to submit multiple apps.</p>
<p>Xjays is correct. Harvard did try EA and was flooded with applications. SCEA was a compromise measure to limit the number of early applications while still maintaining the system.</p>
<p>I can only add my hope that this is the first domino to fall. When my older S graduated in '03, from an elite independent school, approximately 70% of his class applied ED somewhere. Do you think they all made the right decision? I don't. But the "done" factor and accompanying pressure was huge.</p>
<p>It seems to me that it's not lower socioeconomic kids who can't risk applying early due to the need to compare packages but middle class kids. If you're poor and applying to Harvard, you can feel assured 100% of need will be met and that it won't be loan-heavy. I'd guess the kids missing from the EA applicant pool are from middle to upper middle class homes.</p>
<p>It does seem a bit weak to me to state that students applying to Harvard can't understand the difference between EA/ED/RD. And I don't see how this won't overwhelm Harvard admissions in the RD round (as someone stated it was overwhelmed when it had EA). I guess I am just skeptical that this action was taken for the lauditory purposes stated. It isn't just coming to light now that the early policies disadvantage a segment of the student population. It has been talked about for years. </p>
<p>But it will be interesting to see what happens if other schools don't follow suit. It is one thing for other EA/SCEA schools to abandon the practice -- as they have less to lose, but those schools with ED have that policy for a reason and presumably want to admit at least a portion of its student body with those who affirmatively want to go there and/or who don't need financial aid. I can't see them dropping the practice. </p>
<p>Although I don't think it will happen, in the ideal world, there would be no early admissions of any sort.</p>