<p>garland:</p>
<p>Our income is... um... somewhat higher than yours. I might not feel so selfless in your situation!</p>
<p>Marite, I never said that Harvard had or should have any obligation to line up stakeholders before announcing its policy. Harvard is free to do as it pleases in regard to changing its policy. My only point was that the rationales provided for the policy -- in the NYTimes article -- didn't ring true -- to me. Primarily because its current policy isn't binding on the student so they can apply elsewhere and compare financial aid packages. And if desirable students, who didn't or couldn't apply early, show up in the RD round, Harvard can take them then, as presumably it does now.</p>
<p>Well, Marite, we're not totally out of bounds here. Did apply for aid this year, got a nice subsidized loan, and workstudy. Figure by next year, as income continues to plummet, the grants will show up!!:)</p>
<p>I was responding to your post wondering why, since the issues raised had been known for quite a while, Harvard took so long to make this decision. Like most institutions this size, Harvard takes a long time. Not only does it have to consult people within the university but also others who are outside it but are interested in what goes on. In fact, there is a joke that, by the time Harvard is ready to adopt a new trend, it has gone out of fashion.
Additionally, as everyone knows, Harvard was distracted for two years and a lot of decisions that could have been made earlier had to be put on the back burner. In fact, SCEA was implemented only in 2002. Four years seems like a good span of time to figure out the pros and cons of a particular policy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And if desirable students, who didn't or couldn't apply early, show up in the RD round, Harvard can take them then, as presumably it does now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would be happy for a much more limited number of admissions through SCEA. As it is, Harvard admits 800+ students early; presumably, over 80% of these students accept the offer of admission; in other words, they represent half the entering class of 1600+. This means that Harvard can admit fewer "desirable" students in the RD round. But I don't think that is the major issue.
I believe Harvard when it says it wants to identify more academically qualified low income students. These are the students who are the least savvy about the college admission process. Even CC posters confuse EA/ED/SCEA; why shouldn't a 17 year old first generation college applicant from a poor school with lousy college advising? I think that is the issue that Harvard seeks to address. If more low income students applied early, Harvard would probably feel less need to move to RD. </p>
<p>No system is perfect. So Harvard is going to give the all-RD system a try for 3-4 years.</p>
<p>Think of the paperwork nightmare college admissions will become. To those who read Gatekeepers a typical highly selective school admission counselor spends 20 minutes on the first pass. Now if Harvard and let's assume Stanford, Princeton and Yale go along there will be 10's of thousand more applications in the system in that short Jan - Mar window. Harvard let's in 800 Early, Pton 600 and on and on. Now those super bright kids will do 8 to 10 applications extra to jam the system in the regular round. Probably 3,000 kids got in in one step and most did little beyond that one school application (obviously EDs did none and SCEAs accepted at Harvard I doubt were overly ambitious with applications). In sum, I would expect adcoms would be working 22 hour days instead of 21. Nice to know the review process will become even more frantic.</p>
<p>That, indeed, is a danger. But it turns out that many EA and SCEA applicants apply to many RD schools as well, so we will have to wait to see how many more extra applications this will lead to.</p>
<p>Marite, maybe your speculation is correct. I did read that Harvard plans to do more outreach and recruiting. That certainly is the way to go to get more applications from the group Harvard is targeting. </p>
<p>I don't know about other SCEA schools, but I would be surprised if the ED schools go along with the change, particularly since Harvard is having a test period for this new policy.</p>
<p>ED schools have no choice if harvard or even MIT or Caltech do not play along and honor ED.</p>
<p>ED is an agreement between schools, it is not a legal document. Student should not break it as it will not be in their best interest.</p>
<p>Harvard or any other school can break it any time they want. If any school choose to get away from these honor agreements, this way ED will have no meaning and ED will be out of the window. If I can understand? Am I right in my assumptions?</p>
<p>I have the same concern as wsox about the number of very strong applicants to top schools skyrocketing. All those students who were early accepted at HYPMS and the like will now likely to be submitting applications to all of those schools. The schools will no longer know what school is the applicant's first choice or best fit or what their yield will be. The class of 2008 will face more wait list scenarios than ever.</p>
<p>Whatever the motivation (which I know will still be debated over the next 50 or so posts), it is going to be quite interesting to watch the fallout. Will Harvard be left standing alone, or will others follow? Pass the popcorn while I watch the show!</p>
<p>wsox </p>
<p>How about this scenirio the top kids apply SCEA do not make it as many other top kids are applying and compettiion is fierce. ED is not possible beacuse not sure even can afford $7000 (For some people it is a lot of money while others it may be a change). The kids below who happen to be second in rank applies ED beacuse the kid has better informed parents and do not need aid. This kids with lower stats get in. </p>
<p>In RD round the top kid does not make it in any of the top three or five choices kid has. ED schools now want other better kids with ECs which are unique and have other hooks.</p>
<p>Who beneifitted most with ED the more infomed kid, the kid who applied SCEA to very top schools looses out as competition is fierce. </p>
<p>Thus I think ED is more favorable to kid who do not need aid and have better access to information.</p>
<p>I don't think Harvard is suggesting that they would poach accepted ED students from other schools. Even if they were to do so, I don't think it would make much difference.</p>
<p>I think way too much is being made of ill-considered ED applications. When I applied ED and when my daughter applied ED and when my daughter's friends applied ED, it was because each student knew where they wanted to go to college.</p>
<p>My daughter had visiting twice, including an overnight before applying. She had talked for hours to current students. Attended classes. Talked with alumni. She knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, where she wanted to go to school if she could get in...and, honestly, second place on her list wasn't close. I know that her ED roommate felt exactly the same way.</p>
<p>My sense is that the ED applicants at other top LACs feel just as strongly about their decisions. </p>
<p>Do they know there may be an advantage applying ED? Sure, they aren't stupid. But, the advantage is only important because they know exactly where they want to go to school. My daughter had already decided not to apply EDII had she been rejected by her ED school, because she WASN'T sure about her second choice school.</p>
<p>I agree with whoever posted that maybe we should start giving these kids a little more credit.</p>
<p>Other schools may follow Harvard’s lead</p>
<p>By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff</p>
<p>Officials at several top colleges, including Tufts and Princeton, said Tuesday that Harvard's unexpected move to eliminate early admissions will prompt them to consider doing the same, while admissions officers at other prominent schools, including Boston College and a number of Ivy League colleges, said their early admissions programs benefits students.</p>
<p>"As we wrap our arms around Harvard's decision, I'm receptive to thinking about whether Tufts could join Harvard in that type of policy change," said Tufts' dean of undergraduate admissions, Lee A. Coffin, who noted that he had not consulted President Lawrence S. Bacow, who is traveling. "The early pool is less diverse in all ways. It's more Northeastern, more affluent, more independent [private] schools and more suburban."</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about this scenirio the top kids apply SCEA do not make it as many other top kids are applying and compettiion is fierce. The kids below who happen to be second in rank applies ED beacuse the kid has better informed parents. This kids with lower stats get in. In RD round the top kid does not make it in any of the top three or five choices kid has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Happens all the time. That's why I consistently advise students and parents here to be brutally realistic in their lists.</p>
<p>"Why not take a wild long-shot?", people ask. Well, the scenario you outline is precisely what's wrong with taking a wild long-shot.</p>
<p>based on prep school scattergram :</p>
<p>Between GPA and SAT SCEA schools vesrsus GPA/ SAT scores of ED schools there is a difference of 0.2-0.4 and 100-150 points for SAT. SCEA have higer values.</p>
<p>Interestedad :</p>
<p>That is my reason to remove ED and hope the best schools attracts best students form a school. The money part is removed. I hope there is only one single day for admisison so kids apply and see what happens No gaming just based on factors best student has better chance. NO ED. period</p>
<p>The high schools Derek Bok claims to be targeting with the decision to drop EA don't have niceties like scattergrams.</p>
<p>Re: Turning down elite schools based purely on financial factors. At d's Catholic H.S. this year, there was a very big disparity in the list of schools where girls were accepted and where they attended. Many ivy & needs-based only schools were turned down by a large number of girls. Now, unless we see a family's 1040, it is impossible to really know for sure what their financial standing is. But in general, these were often girls from some of the wealthiest towns in NJ. They could easily afford to pay full price at the ivy, but their families just didn't see the value in Yale over Rice or Princeton over Duke when the difference in cost exceeded six figures..</p>
<p>yes I am aware of that. But prep schools has kids on full financial aid too :) who have no hooks and they perform too. In order to go to any college these kids need lots of aid too. These full aid kid can never apply to ED schools and thus despite having higher GPAs, higher SATs , much better EC. yet they do not perform that well compare to kid with accees to $$$$ and private consulatnts and resources because they have no resources compare to other kids No trip to third world countries to save human kind. They do not have resources to make earth shattering and moving essay their better resources kids colleauges have. All they got is there hard work. Thus kids with better acees to $$$$$ apply ED schools and locked in. While kids with need wait for RD round and loose out.</p>
<p>newparent:</p>
<p>My daughter benefitted from getting into her first choice school ED. The school benefitted by locking in a student they wanted, a student who had researched the school, a student who was a good fit, a student who was tremendously excited about attending (and who, therefore, had an uneventful, low-stress transition to college life). A win-win situation for everyone involved.</p>
<p>Two years into it, I know that my daughter is still very happy with her choice. I suspect the college feels like she's been an OK contributor to the campus community.</p>
<p>Neither my daughter nor the college nor her high school nor her parents nor the overall admissions system would have benefitted from my daughter wasting everyone's time submitting another dozen applications to schools she would not have attended.</p>
<p>The flaw in the logic is the faulty assumption that colleges accept students ED that they would not accept otherwise. I have seen nothing to indicate this is true, at least at the colleges I'm most familiar with. Look, let's say that a college budgets for 50% full-pay students. Do you really think they aren't going to hit that 50% target, with or without ED?</p>
<p>I agree with the poster earlier who suggested that Harvard wants to end EA/ED because they stand to benefit the most from a system without EA/ED (thanks to 80% yield).</p>