<p>If you haven't seen it, go back a few pages and read the post by JHS. It makes many excellent points in support of the current system.</p>
<p>I am perplexed by the notion that doing away with SCEA/EA/ED will in any way meaningfully level the playing field. The playing field is not level and never has been. Aside from legacies, recruited athletes, URMs there are test prep programs, paid programs couched as internships, students with access to private counselors, public and private schools with counselors who have amazing long-standing relationships with admission reps, private schools that are beyond the affordability of the average person, public magnets that are not available anywhere else, schools that have programs hooking students up with university professors, blah, blah, blah....... </p>
<p>The college application process has become a job for a publicist. In some ways, a candidate's unabashed affection and desire for one place they think is great is the most honest thing about the system.</p>
<p>"It's good to see Harvard follow the University of Delaware's lead."</p>
<p>I don't know that UDel really did anything important. Two of its most important competitors for students -- UMCP and Penn State -- don't have ED anyway. Harvard, on the other hand, competes for students with many schools that do have ED or SCEA.</p>
<p>As for nimby's point, eliminating ED would level the playing field in that both affluent students and less affluent students would apply in the same way. As it stands now, only affluent students who do not need to compare financial aid packages can safely apply ED, and that's not fair.</p>
<p>Yes Marian, I get that argument. But it does not really hold water. Rich kids have money and truly poor kids (the ones we are supposedly so concerned about having opportunity and that level playing field) get money. The ones who are disadvantaged by the early notification FA process are the middle class/upper middle class kids.</p>
<p>At 80% yield, Harvard doesn't compete for students with anyone. That's why the decision is so "pure", and also about Harvard. The number of applications may decline, but selectivity will actually go up, as folks who would really rather be elsewhere will apply to Elsewhere University ED or EA. Yield will increase.</p>
<p>Another advantage is that they will be able to consider all the "developmental admits" in one pile, which will set off a bidding war. (I would consider that to be a good thing. Maybe they could renovate the music building and build a student center. ;))</p>
<p>But although not everyone realizes this, at these elite schools -- unlike at the less-endowed privates -- any student or parent can sit down with a finaid officer and get a pretty clear idea of what the aid package is likely to be. Any student who applies to Princeton, for example, knows within $100 what his/her aid package will add up to. I think the differential less about the finaid and more about the fact that affluent students on average are better at gaming the system in terms of getting all their paperwork done and their numbers in order -- and at being either legacies, academic standouts, and even top athletes. All of which means they are more likely to be successful early.</p>
<p>Staring next year, I hope Harvard, Yale and Standford now do not honor ED as ED is bad for poor kids. This way ED will fold itself as there will be no meaning to ED if other school do not honor ED. This will be true ending of ED which puts kids with $$$$$$$$ need in at least theoretically at a level playing filed and do not allow kids with better economic condisitons to go to ED schools with a lower GPA and SATs and SAT II and AP scores but a much better financail status. This will allow a top performing kids with financail needs a figthing chnace to have a level playing field.</p>
<p>Most students do not really focus on applications until late in junior year--witness the flood of posts by parents who can't get their kids to practice for the SATs or write their essays. Clued-in kids know that they should start taking SATs/ACT in junior year, to leave room for retake in early fall and still make the EA/ED deadline. Kids without savvy parents or GCs who are on the ball are not told any such thing. All they know, probably, is that fall of senior year is when they should apply. Moving the application deadline to Dec. 31 gives them that many more chances to take and re-take standardized tests. Some schools have 1 GC per 1,000 students; others, 1 for 50 or even fewer. Some schools have great websites with lots of info about the college application process an/or great handbooks. Some don't.
When S1 was applying to colleges, the general college info session did not take place until some time in junior year. No one informed anyone that PSAT was important or that being NMF might lead to scholarship money. And that is a school whose GCs are actually pretty good.</p>
<p>I think that H decided not based on benevolence (for all their liberal rhetoric, they still want the best mix in a class, and have to watch the bottom line even with the large endowment) but because it realized that choosing a class piecemeal - ED, then EA, then RD, does not afford it the opportunity to really see all the apps at one time in order to make a more informed decision, and perhaps there were students they really preferred to have, but had to reject because they gave the spot to someone not as qualified in the earlier rounds.</p>
<p>I think Harvard did it in the hopes of encouraging other schools to do the same and because the current system was denying Harvard access to some applicants that it might want.</p>
<p>Under the current system, quite a few kids who might have had an interest in Harvard will apply ED to a school a bit lower on the food chain, such as Penn or Cornell, because they know that choosing ED will give them an advantage in Penn's or Cornell's admissions process. Harvard will never see these kids' applications, but maybe it would like to. In an ED-less system, these kids would send applications to Harvard as well as Penn and Cornell, and all three schools would get an opportunity to see whether they are interested in the applicant.</p>
<p>Like DianeR, I too appear to be bouncing between two threads on the same topic. With reference to her post above with the link to the Harvard Crimson story, I cite the following quotes:</p>
<p>President Bok: "Others who apply early and gain admission to the college of their choice have less reason to work hard at their studies during their final year of high school."</p>
<p>Dean Knowles: "These programs distort the high school experience by forcing both students and colleges to commit prematurely, based only upon the record at the end of the student's junior year. Moreover, students who are admitted early receive what often appears to be a 'free pass' for their second semester, sadly encouraging them to disengage from their academic experience."</p>
<p>I thought that EA/ED acceptances were conditional upon successful completion of their academic requirements. Isn't it the responsibility of Harvard (and other schools with such "early" options) to rescind an acceptance if the level of academic accomplishment hasn't been maintained?</p>
<p>Well, yes, but it would take a really bad grade or two to get colleges to rescind an offer of admission. In most cases, students will work hard at least through the time when they submit their application, so senioritis does not set in quite so early for RD applicants as for EA/ED applicants, and especially for those who have been admitted by December 15!</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that ED apps have increased significantly over the last few decades. At my daughter's school, fewer than 9% of the total applications were ED apps this year. </p>
<p>ED was solidly in place at the liberal arts colleges when I applied in the early 1970s. I'm not sure the percentages have changed very much.</p>
<p>What does significantly decrease the chances of RD admissions is the absurd number of untargeted applications being submitted in the ED round -- by students who have simply added a half dozen schools to bring the list up to 10 or 12 or 18. Acceptance rates would go up without ED, but only because the colleges wouldn't have to mail acceptances to thousands of kids who have absolutely no interest in attending the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, it only works for affluent students. Lower-income students who must compare financial aid packages cannot afford to apply by binding ED.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have not seen that to be the case at my daughter's school. 25 of their 156 ED acceptances this year were kids from College Confidential. These successful ED applicants covered the spectrum. African-American, Hispanic, Asian American, international, 3rd generation legacy, full-pay, full-scholarship, in between. </p>
<p>The most surprising thing is the number of lower income kids who apply ED. You don't have to be rich to apply ED; you simply have to be willing to accept your negotiated EFC. I'm not aware of a single ED acceptance from here on CC that asked to be released from his or her commitment. Several were very satisfied with their aid packages.</p>
<p>Most of these applicants were fully aware of the trade-offs inherent in applying ED to a non-merit aid school. Others opted not to apply ED so that they could pursue merit aid options. The desire to seek merit aid alternatives would not have been changed one iota if ED didn't exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dean Knowles: "Moreover, students who are admitted early receive what often appears to be a 'free pass' for their second semester, sadly encouraging them to disengage from their academic experience."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If this is the case, then I would suggest that the admissions office is not doing a very good job admitting self-motivated students. Maybe they should re-examine their methodology.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He [Kennedy] can pressure all he wants as a civilan but not try to pass laws dictating how a private business should conduct its business.
[/quote]
Considering the number of billions of dollars of taxpayer money goes to Harvard every year for grants, I would say the public has an interest in the manner in which that money is spent, and the institution spending it.</p>
<p>At least, that's the legal argument. I'm more of a libertarian than that sounds, so I'm not sure I'd like what I'm saying to become standard practice with govt in higher education. But I'm even more of an egalitarian than a libertarian. If Ted Kennedy, against all odds, can come up with a plan that will help level the playing field of admissions, god bless the man. (but I doubt it)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, my S's work dropped off dramatically after his ED acceptance. His rank dropped from 7/400, to shudder, 8. Oh the shame.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. I didn't see any drop-off in our house between December and April, either. What I saw was a kid who really enjoyed senior year, had plenty of opportunity to make the mental transition to college, and was excited as heck about going off to college.</p>
<p>I think that removing the stress of college apps from the December to April period was a huge positive.</p>
<p>It isn't that students will be hit by such a huge case of senioritis that they will be in danger of having their admissions rescinded, but that other kids who did not apply EA will have slightly stronger records by virtue of not having slacked off a little. Let's face it, there would not be the term senioritis if the condition did not exist. </p>
<p>For the record, my S worked harder than ever in the second semester.</p>
<p>I like that Harvard is changing its policy.</p>
<p>Personally I like the EA policy of many schools because of the non-binding nature of the application while also having an answer before the middle of December. Niether of my sons were allowed to apply ED to any school. </p>
<p>I am one of those unfortunate parents who wanted to compare financial aid packages. They were allowed to apply to a rolling admissions or EA schools if they wanted. They were both accepted to schools by mid December. They both reported that the stress at school between January 1 and April 1 was pretty intense but not for them.</p>
<p>A bit of a different cut at admissions policy is the University of Southern California. They have 2 dates, mid December if you want to be considered for merit aid and mid January if you want to be considered for admission with financial aid. The first date does not violate the SCEA policies of other schools because they do not notify students before January 1. </p>
<p>To me a very interesting and creative policy.</p>
<p>"I think that removing the stress of college apps from the December to April period was a huge positive."</p>
<p>There could be advantages in terms of shopping, too. My daughter's ED school is way up north, and there are good bargains available between December and April on boots and serious winter coats (neither of which she owns, since we live near Washington, DC). If she gets accepted ED, some intensive shopping will follow. If she doesn't, we will wait, since four of her six RD schools are in warmer climates.</p>