NYT: Harvard ends early admission (EA)

Parents Forum
41

<p>I really don't see how this is going to make the world better at all. If all of HYPS + M follows suit, it's going to have the following effects:</p>

<p>About 2,500 extraordinarily qualified kids are going to be filing an average of 7-8 additional applications apiece across 30 or so schools. A few of those additional will go to HYPSM schools (I am assuming that many of those kids would have applied to multiple HYPSM schools even if admitted SCEA at one of them anyway), but most of them will be spread around other, slightly less selective and less selective institutions. Those institutions will be faced with the daunting task of figuring out what to do with the sharp increase of Harvard EA types in their applicant pools.</p>

<p>Those 2,500 kids, many of whom are highly strung to begin with, are going to generate enough additional anxiety to power Rochester, NY for a year. If only it could be harnessed!</p>

<p>But that's nothing compared to the anxiety those kids are going to cause their classmates. For every superstar kid who would have gone off the market because of SCEA, there are 7-8 kids who will be sobbing in their rooms because they don't see how they can compete with kid #1. And faculty recommenders -- tough position to be in, lots of Sophie's Choices.</p>

<p>There will be more "surprises" and crises in April, because kids will not get an early wake-up call that they aren't as hot stuff as they thought they were.</p>

<p>This will make ED even more important at the next tier of institutions, as kids desperate for certainty opt for that choice rather than playing the HYPSM lottery (the kids who can afford to go ED, of course). So the ED pools at SWAMP, Brown, Penn, Dartmouth etc. will get a little stronger and tougher. It will morph from being a way for rich kids to reach for their first choice to a way for rich kids to buy security.</p>

<p>The deadline difference is two months. That's not going to make a huge difference in what kids accomplish, etc. It is going to foster procrastination, and put more last-minute pressure on high schools.</p>

<p>And, at the end of the day, as marite says, this will do nothing to reduce the number of hooked kids, or development admits, or athletes. In fact, there will probably still be de facto early action for athletes, since otherwise the top Ivies will lose prospects by the truckload to other Div I schools, LACs, and Penn, etc. Except for the ones who drop out into other schools' ED programs, the same kids, or kids who are functionally the same, are going to get admitted to HYPSM. They're not going to decide in droves in March of their senior years, with the additional maturity that a couple of months brings, that they'd rather go to Amherst. </p>

<p>So -- lots of disruption, lots and lots of anxiety, some suboptimal solutions, more gaming than ever, more work for everyone, and for what? Improving access to lower income kids? I don't see how this makes that happen at all (and if it does it make be at the expense of other elite institutions, not increasing the number of lower income kids into the "system").</p>

<p>I thought the current set-up kind of works. There are some issues, certainly -- Princeton's 50% ED to start with -- and schools could tinker with the number of SCEA acceptances they give. More schools could migrate to SCEA from ED. That would all be good. This decision seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

42

<p>I agree with Northstarmom's Post #8. In fact, quite low-income combined with exceptional accomplishment both academically & in e.c.'s & awards, is an edge for EA. However, I like the lead that Harvard is taking. Despite its previous advantage to my own d, I actually dislike the Early Rounds in general (and did when she applied), for the "frenzy" reason and for many other reasons.</p>

<p>I agree with your point about Kennedy in principle, ucla_dad. However, if Kennedy is doing it to show leadership, I think it's a positive, as the family name has so often been associated with H.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I wonder if this will make Harvard slip even farther behind Yale in terms of being the most selective college.

[/quote]
With all due respect, who cares?</p>

<p>I would dearly love to see ED move off the planet of college admissions. Too much gaming, too much pressure to get the "boost," even if a kid is not sure.</p>

<p>I might be sorry to see EA go. I like that some kids can be "done," or at least feel safe early in the year. I think that's a plus. SCEA is a hybrid, which does give families a chance to compare $$ packages, but I've never understood the point of the "Single Choice" aspect, so I guess I'm glad to see it go too. </p>

<p>
[quote]
“We keep hearing that the frenzy and pressure at elite public and private high schools has really ramped up in the past two or three years,” Fitzsimmons said.

[/quote]
This is really the crux of the matter, to me. I don't think we can deny that the college admissions world includes way too much frenzy and pressure. Whether this particular move will help mitigate that, we may not know. But any institution which steps forward to try is an institution I feel grateful to. All in all, I'm pleased and hope ED schools follow suit.</p>

44

<p>I agree, the early rounds cause more problems than they solve. For example, kids who aren't sure where they want to go, slightly preferring an ED school, not enough to commit, still pressured to apply early, apply to an EA or SCEA just for the "edge".</p>

45

<p>JHS, I love your post and think you should work it into an op-ed piece. Btw I don't think we need to assume that other schools will follow suit. When Princeton started on its grade-deflation policy, deans emphasized that they saw themselves as leaders in the Ivies, etc. etc. Two years later, deans at Harvard and Yale have gone on record as stating that they have no intention of following Princeton's so-called lead. </p>

<p>As MomofFour states, most of these schools give you a pretty good idea of what kind of aid you can expect. Princeton has an online estimator and their finaid people invite you to call and give them your numbers. It's really the poorly endowed private schools that are a mystery until you get your letter. I think the real issue is that you need to have all your tests, grades, and ECs out of the way pretty much by junior year if you want to apply early. You need to be very aware of the whole application process in a way that only people who frequent cc are...;)</p>

46

<p>JHS:</p>

<p>You make lots of good points. I would have been happy with a much reduced percentage of SCEA admits. It looks like Tufts syndrome is going to affect a lot of schools. For kids with multiple admissions, April will be spent agonizing over what may be small differences in fit (happened to S1).</p>

<p>What does SWAMP stand for, by the way? I got Swats, Williams, Amherst and Pomona but not M. What a horrible acronym for such a fine bunch of schools! :(</p>

47

<p>I don't see why anyone should be surprised that ED admits have lower stats than RD admits.</p>

<p>To use my alma mater, Cornell, as an example: The ED pool for Cornell consists entirely of students who are aiming at Cornell. These are generally kids who are one step short of extraordinary. The RD pool for Cornell includes similar kids, but it also includes truly incredible kids who are aiming at Harvard or MIT but using Cornell as a backup. Of course the stats for the RD pool will be higher.</p>

<p>If the top half-dozen schools drop ED/SCEA and the next tier doesn't, it's going to create an even more bizarre situation for applicants than they face right now. Perhaps advanced game theory courses should be taught in high schools!</p>

<p>As for Ted Kennedy, he has the right to pressure Harvard. He's an alumnus.</p>

48

<p>I do see merit to many of JHS' points. In particular, his insight re an "early wake-up call" is an important one. I know that our savvy PHS Guidance Counselors felt that ED/SCEA was a good idea even if the devastating "No" came in the early mail, because it gave these kids a chance to re-think their application stategy and list. </p>

<p>However, on balance, I think the whole ED/SCEA stuff causes more stress than a simple RD system. </p>

<p>I wonder if what <em>I</em> consider the next tier (different from JHS' list; I think his list is too darn close to the selectivity of HYPSM) will follow suit. I'm talking about the "clear" safeties for HYPSM kids - a Lehigh, for example. Those schools truly benefit from the ED system in terms of protecting and predicting their yield. It benefits them far more than it benefits a Harvard, an Amherst, etc. They will be the losers, I believe, if ED goes away. Of course, if USN&WR et al and all of us followers of such rankings and info (guilty as charged, moi aussi) stopped feeling that there must be something wrong with the lower yield schools, that would help eliminate the madness, too.</p>

49

<p>SWAMP. M is for Middlebury.</p>

50

<p>I'm not sure what SWAMP actually stands for either. I think you've got it right: SWAmP. I like it because, like HYPS, it's funny and useful as shorthand, even if it leaves out Wesleyan and Carleton and Bowdoin and Haverford . . . </p>

<p>Someone should come up with some more acronyms, like for women's colleges (how come none start with vowels? thats a serious acronym issue).</p>

51

<p>I, too, admit that JHS made some darned good points, and I'll have to backtrack a little with embarrassment -- recalling some earlier discussions Xiggi and I and some others had with regard to the multiple-app dilemmas.</p>

<p>(EDIT: Those discussions had proposed <em>multiple</em> ED rounds, which some schools already have. That was proposed as a way to reduce the scatter-shot multiple-apps strategy that makes it more difficult for colleges to predict enrollment, etc. And all Early Rounds, EA or ED, should always have a fin.aid escape clause.)</p>

<p>The "frenzy" aspects covers a lot of areas. One, the area most people have been focusing on, is the early deadline aspect which causes enormous anxiety & can compromise the development (unfolding) of the student between late junior and late senior yr. But the other "frenzy" that has been much discussed is that of multiple apps. This in itself ramps up competition, creates extra work for colleges on the <em>back</em> end of the application year, etc. </p>

<p>That said, I still come down in favor of elimination of Early rounds, as the advantage is more toward the college, less toward the student. (It was obviously created initially as a competitive tool for the top peer colleges.) I think, as marite says, the hooked students remain hooked students whenever they apply, and in turn colleges are able then to compare all hooked students together, which can't hurt from the college's perspective. </p>

<p>Ain't capitalism wonderful? (Jmmom, nothing says that the non-Ivies would be necessarily inclined to follow H, at least initially. If anything, this could be their niche: We're an ED (or EA) school! I agree with you that ED may have advantaged the mid-tier schools the most, but in that case maybe they should be the group definitely keeping it.</p>

<p>As to the flood of apps in the RD round, perhaps H is also foreseeing that this will begin to dissipate after '08. I'm just kind of surprised then that they jumped the gun, and are effecting it for that year instead of the following year, when they're <em>should</em> be a drop in apps, or at least I thought.</p>

52

<p>I don't buy the comments about "game theory" and gaming in general. ED should be simple--you have a definite first choice school, you apply early, and if you get accepted, you go there. Anyone playing games like "using their ED card" at a better bet, or feeling "pressured" to apply early when they don't have a clear first choice are not using it for, to me, the right reasons. Those are an added layer of anxiety that are brought to the system; they shouldn't be assumed to be an intrinsic part of the system. Again, maybe coming from a different world from most of you, I see it differently. Maybe 3-4 people in S's class of 400 applied ED, and it came from them, not outside pressure or game theory. They had clearcut first choices, so they applied to them. I can't imagine anyone at this school "pressuring" a kid to go ED, or anyone playing probability games to figure out where to play their "card."</p>

<p>The FA question is different. But at the top schools, if a family is prepared to pay their EFC, they can be pretty assured they will get the money they need. (my S's school definitely meets EFC, with standard student loan level only). A middle class family isn't going to get a package which lowers its standard of living below that of a lower income family, or even brings them near it. </p>

<p>At schools which do not promise to meet need, then that is a different story. And then I think ED would not be a wise choice.</p>

<p>Overall, I think that JHS's post makes a lot of sense, and I also question that this is going to simplify things.</p>

53

<p>This may be off topic, but I completely agree with jmmom that one of the best things that could happen to calm down the college application process is to get rid of USNews rankings. Has anyone tallied the number of discussions about which school is "better" [e.g., UC-Berkley or Stanford; Harvard or Yale; etc., etc.] where the bottom line inevitably is the rank in USNews as the final judge?</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
As for Ted Kennedy, he has the right to pressure Harvard. He's an alumnus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Kennedy was kicked out for cheating. He paid another student to sit for an exam (Spanish, I believe.) Whenever old Ted raises any issue that relates to fairness or ethics, I laugh and laugh and laugh......</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
ED should be simple--you have a definite first choice school, you apply early, and if you get accepted, you go there. Anyone playing games like "using their ED card" at a better bet, or feeling "pressured" to apply early when they don't have a clear first choice are not using it for, to me, the right reasons.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agree, garland. ED can eliminate stress & workload for kids who are sure of their top choice. Why eliminate it?</p>

56

<p>I prefer AS3W - Amherst, Swat, Williams, Wesleyan, Wellesley.</p>

57

<p>As a practical matter I can't see how this decision hurts Harvard, given the acknowleged strength of the University's applicants, the University's yield (ie., percentage of accepted students who attend) and the University's huge endowment. Sure, there will be a few more SCEA applications than there were ED applications. But if "being done" is a prevalent reason for applying early (and I believe that is so), why apply SCEA to Harvard where acceptance is highly unlikely? So I view Harvard's announcement as taking the political and philosophical "high road." Being Harvard, they can afford to do that. But for a school like NYU I can see where dropping ED would be very disruptive.</p>

58

<p>"Quote:
I wonder if this will make Harvard slip even farther behind Yale in terms of being the most selective college. </p>

<p>With all due respect, who cares?"</p>

<p>Answer: Byerly ? :)</p>

59

<p>What about Pomona, though? So: 3WASP? Hmmmm....</p>

60

<p>Harvard leads the way once again. And I'm very glad about it too. I hope this quickly leads to a complete dismantling of the whole misguided early admissions game.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>JHS - this sounds like a dead-on description of the CURRENT system. It's hard to see how a simpler and fairer system is going to create more gaming. It's going to reduce the gaming. Every year we read dozens threads and posts on CC by parents and students wondering how to best play their Early card: "What's the best strategy?" "Is is true that you lose your legacy boost if you don't apply there early?" "Will my SCEA school find out if I also applied EA elsewhere?" "Can I get out of my ED commitment?", and on and on. If all that goes away it will all be for the better. Kudos to Harvard!</p>