<p>ID - Harvard rejects almost nobody in the first round. For example, class of 09, SCEA applicants 4214, accepted 892, deferred 3187, rejected 135.</p>
<p>Right. That's why I say that Harvard's EA program has so little impact on the system that it probably doesn't matter much whether it exists or not.</p>
<p>If it pushes more applicants to apply ED elsewhere, it will lower the number of ultimate applicants, yet increase "selectivity" at the same time - for the simple reason that, having eliminated the other EDs, they will be more sure that the students they accept really want to be there.</p>
<p>H. is such a special case, though, that on the whole I doubt it means much, and I think it is worth taking Derek Bok's explanation at face value. They know what their own data mean, and if they say early admission provides "an advantage to the advantaged", I think we should take him at his word.</p>
<p>wisteria:</p>
<p>(I won't use the demeaning 'ahem') - so, do you think it's appropriate for a legislator to attempt or threaten to pass a law to regulate the fine point of EA at a private institution (which is what it is) such as Harvard?</p>
<p>I haven't checked the boards, but won't there be howls of protest from the hs students? A lot of kids were probably looking forward to applying early to Harvard.</p>
<p>re legislation: I don't like the idea of congress getting involved, but I think they could, if they felt that EA and ED programs were an unfair restraint of free trade.</p>
<p>
[quote]
do you think it's appropriate for a legislator to attempt or threaten to pass a law to regulate the fine point of EA at a private institution (which is what it is) such as Harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't say that.</p>
<p>However, I don't think a private college which accepts well over a billion dollars a year in Federal funds and tax breaks as a "public charity" should be surprised when legislators call for them to reform admissions practices that disproportionately favor students from privileged backgrounds.</p>
<p>Harvard does a lot to thank its private donors--everything from nice thank you notes to snazzy dinners to naming buildings or endowed chairs after generous donors.</p>
<p>When was the last time Harvard said "thank you" to the taxpayers for their support of the institution in all the ways I previously listed?</p>
<p>Maybe Harvard should name some buildings after the taxpayers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At my kids' high schools, transcript/recommendation requests for colleges with January application deadlines (which is most of the selective schools) have to be submitted to the high school registrar before Thanksgiving. So no matter what happens with a kid's ED/EA application, the rest of the kid's application list is locked in well before the ED/EA notification. There is no way for a kid to add additional colleges to the list after the notification. I thought this was standard practice.
[/quote]
Well, the organized advanced planning is a great thing. My kid's hs had a similar calendar. But to "lock in" a student, so that s/he can make no changes based on an ED/EA deferral or rejection is a horrible policy, imo. At our hs, the Guidance Office and Administration are a team with the students, helping to achieve the best possible college admissions outcomes. I would be all over a school policy which says that no one can re-think based on new information, personal growth or whatever.</p>
<p>It is not standard practice. Teachers ask that requests for recs be submitted before Thanksgiving. However, if a student does not get in EA, the student can ask that the same rec be submitted to different colleges. Obviously, this applies to the narrative essay rather than to the form itself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
H. is such a special case, though, that on the whole I doubt it means much, and I think it is worth taking Derek Bok's explanation at face value. They know what their own data mean, and if they say early admission provides "an advantage to the advantaged", I think we should take him at his word.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Such an interesting statement! I almost agree with it, except:</p>
<p>In this regard, Harvard is about the same special case as Yale, Stanford, and MIT, the other super-selective SCEA schools. And Princeton, Columbia, Penn, Brown and Duke would probably be part of the same special case if they chose. (I'm not dissing Dartmouth or Cornell, by the way; but I do consider them less comparable to the others because of location, size, and style.) If you get all those "special cases" to the party, that's pretty powerful.</p>
<p>Harvard alone, though, won't have that much effect. It can do whatever it wants, pretty much, as long as it doesn't make kids wait beyond other schools' commitment dates. </p>
<p>The other part of the statement, though, is what's really interesting. From my little vantage point, here's who I see getting into those schools ED/ED: athletes, strong URMs, and unbelievably strong candidates. It's really hard to believe that a class all of which is accepted in April is going to look significantly different from the current classes, and if Derek Bok believes that then they ought to know how to alter their criteria to get closer to their target, or how to market to students and GCs to balance the pools more. (And if Harvard wants to stop giving "an advantage to the advantaged", let me suggest that it take a look at its squash team for starters.)</p>
<p>No, I think this is a well-intentioned, but ultimately counter-productive, attempt to be the leader and to "do something" about the "frenzy" they keep reading about.</p>
<p>I asked my S about EA today. 4 out of 5 in his suite applied EA.</p>
<p>An advantage to the EA applicant is that if they are rejected or deferred, they have a chance to spend additional time "polishing" their applications for the other schools on their RD list. They do not necessarily need to calibrate or change the original list, but a deferral or denial from an EA school may make them focus more on doing a better job at marketing themselves on the other applications! </p>
<p>When my S applied (2004), many of his friends applied hastely to some EA schools just to see what would happen. Yale was the school of choice at the time. There were over 100 kids (from a class of around 300) that applied to Yale that year from his school. Many were EA applicants that decided to apply EA at the last minute. Many realized (after that) that applying to college required more effort than that.................</p>
<p>This helped the applicants, but not so sure how it helped the school.</p>
<p>ID - Huh? This is what you wrote</p>
<p>
[quote]
This change will lead to a lot of headache for over-reaching applicants. Many times, it is the rejection by Harvard EA that belatedly forces kids to recalibrate their application lists. I hope something else triggers the recalibration for these kids before it's too late.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As above, Harvard rejects almost nobody SCEA.</p>
<p>Most applicants, though, realize that a deferral is almost a rejection; and if they were not accepted by Harvard straight out, they run the risk of not being accepted by Y & P. So they do add a few schools to their list that are not crapshoot.</p>
<p>Come on, stop nitpicking. Deferral = rejection as far as the student is concerned (and statistically, too). (x-post, obviously, not directed to Marite)</p>
<p>if all the top schools got rid of early applications, it would force students who are applying to those schools to also apply to 10-12 or even more schools, just to ensure that they might get in somewhere. There would be no applying early to georgetown or uchicago (great schools, but a bit easier to get into) so that students are atleast comfortable of getting in somewhere. Also, I got in early ED to P, had I not, i would have had atleast 10 other applications. When schools that I was looking at had acceptance rates of <10%, you need a lot of schools to ensure that you get in somewhere. At roughly $70 an application, plus however much to send SAT scores and APscores, applying to all those schools would have been a lot of money. I suppose not compared to paying for college, but still. </p>
<p>Additionally, the wanting to be done with applications is a big deal, atleast at my school. It's better to be able to enjoy the second half of your senior year, rather than be stressed all the time about whether or not you're going to get into a college. I think that the getting rid of EA/ED would increase the stress level of applicants, not decrease it</p>
<p>wisteria:</p>
<p>I'm glad that you don't seem to think that legislation is approptiate here.</p>
<p>Regarding the research contracts - I view this as the government paying for a service rather than a taxpayer subsidy - not much different than purchasing airplanes from Boeing or renting buildings from a private company. I think it's acceptable for the government to apply conditions (ex: recruiters on campus) or jerk these funds if they want. They're not 'obliged' to send any of these contracts the way of any particular school.</p>
<p>Regarding gifts that are deductible - well, allowing gifts to be deductible is the way the system is setup for all orgs designated as acceptable charities. One can view this as 'lost' taxpayer dollars going to that institution. There's been much debate about this - i.e. do I want the lost tax dollars going to support someone's religion and possibly dubious charities? For me, the answer is no but for many, the answer is yes. I personally think that if someone wants to donate to a charity, they should just donate for philanthropic reasons, and the tax deductions should not be allowed. (I know many will disagree with me here). </p>
<p>Regarding not paying corporate taxes - this is within the current tax law. I don't like it myself; I think charities should pay income taxes, but this is not unique to Harvard.</p>
<p>My point was that legislation (or the threat of it) to the degree of legislating whether a college does EA or variants of it is not the answer.</p>
<p>Well, getting in early certainly reduces the stress level of the admitted kids; but it also increases the stress level of others. If the overall admit rate at harvard is 10% and the RD admit rate is only 7%, any applicant will see that his or her chances of being admitted RD have diminished substantially.
Being on your toes throughout senior year is not a bad thing. I never understood senioritis.</p>
<p>At the risk of carrying on a discussion on the same topic in two different threads --</p>
<p>The stated rationale of this move to eliminate EA -- that underprivileged kids confuse it with ED -- makes no sense to me. Even if parents didn't go through the process and GCs are hopeless (a situation I faced myself long ago in my city's equivalent of an "inner city" school -- I just researched what classes I should take, application requirements and deadlines, and the like myself), students with any minimal amount of research will find the information. If someone can't understand the Harvard web site, its application instructions, general college information on the internet, the public library, etc., they aren't going to have the reading skills to be admitted to Harvard to begin with.</p>
<p>The idea that EA was getting to be more of a problem than it was worth or that Harvard found itself admitting people who wouldn't have made it during the RD round seems more credible.</p>
<p>I read another article on the subject in the Harvard University Gazette that indicates another motive.</p>
<p>Read carefully what Bok and Knowles say. Apparently some kids are getting in early and then sluffing off for the rest of senior year.</p>
<p>Interesteddad says:</p>
<p>"Binding ED is, by far, the most efficient mechanism for matching up colleges and qualified students who MOST WANT TO ATTEND those schools. My guess is that students who are truly excited about their college choices are likely to have a more positive transition to college life.</p>
<p>The biggest flaw in the overall admissions system is that it is so inefficient in this regard. Binding ED is much closer to the way the system should work: matching up first-choice colleges with first-choice students."</p>
<p>This would be great if it still worked this way -- as it did a few decades ago. But so many kids apply ED today that the system significantly decreases the chances of admission for kids who apply RD.</p>
<p>Also, it only works for affluent students. Lower-income students who must compare financial aid packages cannot afford to apply by binding ED.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's good to see Harvard follow the University of Delaware's lead
[/quote]
Thank you mini. In discussing Harvard's decision, the Boston Globe wrote "The University of Delaware eliminated its early decision option this year, but Harvard appears to be the first elite school to do so" UDel's no Ivy League school, but I thought that was a gratuitous and pompous comment from the Globe. :)</p>