NYT: Harvard ends early admission (EA)

<p>Wow! Tufts is exactly the school I would have voted least likely to consider giving up ED. That is the one group of students that has identified Tufts as their #1 choice. How would a school like Tufts estimate their yield if they eliminated ED? They would have to err on the side of fewer admits (a heavily overenrolled freshman class can be a disaster) and rely more heavily on waitlists. If you have several selective schools eliminating ED during the same admission cycle it could create quite a mess of unexpected consequences. </p>

<p>I think this is a much easier problem for Harvard to solve. They can probably safely use their historic yield (what is that, 80%) for a RD round. But with many schools admitting 50% of their class ED and then getting maybe 25-33% yield in the RD round it will be very tricky giving up ED.</p>

<p>Knowing what I do now about the very, very large differences in financial offers we received from 100%-of-need, so-called "need-blind" (doesn't exist) schools, I couldn't dream, if we were doing it again, of even considering doing ED anywhere. As for EA, well, I'm an informed consumer, but I doubt there are all that many parents who are. As for SCEA, Bok sees Harvard as benefitting from getting rid of it pretty clearly, for reasons he has publicly stated, and I have no reason to doubt him.</p>

<p>And I don't think H. is trying to "poach" anyone. If anything, I think they are trying to discourage first-class applicants who would be just as happy (or happier) somewhere else; they've got more than their share, and they want students who really want to be at Harvard for other than the bauble provided to mom and dad. The only disadvantage I can see to them is that getting that third string quarterback is going to be a little bit more iffy.</p>

<p>Interesteddad :</p>

<p>Well I do not think ED school should be afraid of Harvard. If they think they can compete with H, then why not remove ED. They need to prove themselves that their yield is as high as harvard. Are Ed schools afraid of H so much that they are ready to admit kids with lower stats in oredre to say that they are top colleges. For princeton it does not make sense at all. They are as good as Harvard. So why not EA and why ED? Afterall Yale, Standford, MIT are copeting with Harvard. They are ranked number one and post it on thier site.</p>

<p>Same thing goes for other Ivies who have ED choices. They need to copete for the best student not by making these walls to benefit the pople with $$$$$$$.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If anything, I think they are trying to discourage first-class applicants who would be just as happy (or happier) somewhere else; they've got more than their share, and they want students who really want to be at Harvard for other than the bauble provided to mom and dad.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think Harvard is trying to get a shot at the significant number of excellent applicants they lose to ED programs at other top schools. </p>

<p>With the highest yield in the country, they are in the singular position of having the most to gain from the universal end of early decision.</p>

<p>I don't think they gain a thing that way. They end up rejecting more students, but it doesn't mean they become "more selective" as a result. They end up with a larger proportion of students who would have actually been happier elsewhere, who had PLANNED to go elsewhere, but are drawn in by the fact that "no one rejects Harvard". There is a law of diminishing returns, and Harvard (and probably Swarthmore, and host of other places) got there a long time go.</p>

<p>What it does afford them are more chances at low-income students, and more bidding for places among "developmental" ones.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They need to prove themselves that their yield is as high as harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Their yields are NOT as high as Harvard's. Only a fool college administrator would try to prove that his school's yield would shoot up to 80% without ED. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Are Ed schools afraid of H so much that they are ready to admit kids with lower stats in oredre to say that they are top colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not personally familiar with any schools that are admitting an ED cohort with lower stats than the enrolled class as a whole. There may be schools that do so, but that is not the case at the schools I'm familiar with.</p>

<p>In fact, the schools I'm most familiar with could easily increase their "stats" (by that I mean SAT scores) if they wanted to. My daughter's school rejects or waitlists half of their applicants with an 800 on the Math SAT or and 800 on the Verbal SAT. Why? Because they have other institutional priorities and consider other factors beyond SAT scores. Those priorities and factors would exist with or without ED. In fact, ED helps achieve some of those priorities, including the goal of enrolling low income and URM and international students.</p>

<p>Ben Golub, Post 138: Even if what we care about is truth and justice, maybe it's not so bad to tie aid to merit/accomplishment. It incentivizes exactly what we'd like kids to strive for.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ben, for standing up for the concept of merit awards. Wish there were more who think like you. </p>

<p>All of you commenting on Ted Kennedy's threats: Surely it cannot be a secret that Kennedy's motivation is ALWAYS how to best score points with those who would otherwise notice that he owes his position in the world entirely to hereditary privelege. Without question, the biggest hypocrite in the public sphere today.</p>

<p>Does Harvard really think EA leads to senior year goofing off? That would be a blatant admission that they are not screening well.</p>

<p>For the record, my simpleminded hypothesis about why they did it: the group that applies SCEA is on average richer and gets admitted at twice the rate. It almost certainly doesn't actually help to apply SCEA, nor does the program "really benefit" the rich, but why spend a good chunk of your life explaining that over and over again? </p>

<p>Getting rid of the program makes the process simpler and better-smelling. That's reason enough.</p>

<p>I think you are right, Ben. By the time you add up the comfortably middle-class kids trying for some merit money and those who can't commit because they expect a range of FA packages, an awful lot of people see the SCEA and ED programs as a benefit for the well-to-do or the outright poor, and no one else. I don't dispute that some ED families find the program very useful and a good fit for them. But, we attended an info session for Penn, and the alums doing the presentation came right out and said, repeatedly, that our kids better apply ED because their chances were much better that way. I came away really turned off, and no big fan of ED. (EA is another story.) Still, I like options; in general, people are better off with options. It is a hard call.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see what happens below the HYPS level regarding ED/EA, b/c those schools will have a much tougher time managing yields without ED, at least initially.</p>

<p>A couple of interesting quotes in today's Chronicle of Higher Education article:</p>

<p>Harvard U. Plans to Drop Its Early-Admissions Program, Rekindling National Debate
By ERIC HOOVER</p>

<p>Harvard University announced on Tuesday that it plans to discontinue its early-admissions program, immediately rekindling a national discussion of the controversial policies that allow some students to receive an admissions decision months before regular applicants. </p>

<p>Harvard -- the first of the nation's most selective colleges to drop early admissions altogether -- will move to a single application deadline of January 1 beginning in the fall of 2007. William R. Fitzsimmons, Harvard's dean of admissions and financial aid, said the change would allow more low-income and minority students to apply to the university. </p>

<p>"The underlying piece here is access and the perception of access," Mr. Fitzsimmons said. "Early applicants tended to be disproportionately white and affluent, and there was a growing perception that early admissions was becoming an exclusive club, to which somehow only a few were invited. That worked against the whole idea of access." </p>

<p>In recent years, critics of early-admission plans have complained about the fact that some highly competitive colleges now admit at least two-fifths of their applicants through early programs, which generally attract the savviest -- and wealthiest -- students. Yet even as praise for Harvard's unexpected decision rang throughout the nation on Tuesday, some college administrators said they doubted that the announcement would revolutionize the admissions field so much as bring the nation's oldest university some good publicity. </p>

<p>Because of Harvard's stature, the announcement carried symbolic weight, if nothing else: That the nation's oldest and most famous university had washed its hands of a popular admissions practice was a strong suggestion that a major component of the nation's admissions system was broken. And so Harvard officials had reason to hope that their announcement would prompt other elite colleges to re-evaluate their early-admissions policies -- and to discuss ways of easing the competitiveness of college admissions. </p>

<p>"It's a chance for higher education itself to take a huge collective breath," Mr. Fitzsimmons said, "not just with early admissions, but also the whole college admissions frenzy, such as all the time and resources spent on test-prep, application-prep, and expensive college consultants." </p>

<p>The decision elicited praise from many high-school counselors, who stand on the front lines of the frenzy Mr. Fitzsimmons described. Willard M. Dix, a college counselor at the University of Chicago Laboratory High School, said Harvard's announcement had given him chills, and that he hoped the move would help ease the "arms race" among elite institutions. Joanna Schultz, director of college counseling at the Ellis School, in Pittsburgh, said colleges' increasing reliance on early admissions during the last decade had increased anxiety among students and parents, causing them to think more about admissions strategies and less about finding a good fit. </p>

<p>"I'm so excited," Ms. Schultz said. "We teach high-school seniors to be examples for other students, and what Harvard has done is to set an example. It's very possible that, starting from the top down, other colleges will have to reconsider their own policies." </p>

<p>Admissions deans at several top colleges also applauded Harvard's stated reasons for making the change, yet some questioned the notion that the university had knocked down the first domino in a process that would drastically redefine the college-application process. </p>

<p>"I don't think it's going to mean the end of early admission," said Peter E. Caruso, associate director of admission at Boston College and chairman of the National Association for College Admission Counseling's Admission Practices Committee. "Other colleges and universities are not going to follow through right away. They're going to say, 'Wait a minute, how does this apply to us?'" </p>

<p>Any college that considered eliminating early admission would have to weigh practical concerns, Mr. Caruso said, including how such a move might affect the delicate logistics of the evaluation process. </p>

<p>Officials at Yale University, one of Harvard's fiercest competitors, said they had no immediate plans to dismantle their own early-admission program. "Harvard has taken a strong action here, and we certainly share their concerns about access for low-income students," said Jeff Brenzel, Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions, "but it would be premature to anticipate what we might do." </p>

<p>In 2001, Yale's president, Richard C. Levin, urged elite colleges to abolish early-admission programs, saying the policies were increasing the anxiety many high-school students experienced during the application process. At the time, however, Mr. Levin said that because of the intense competition among elite colleges for top students, Yale could not abandon its policy unless rival institutions did the same. "No one [college] alone can tip the system back to what it used to be," Mr. Levin told The Chronicle. "It will take a critical number of colleges" (The Chronicle, January 11, 2002). </p>

<p>In response to Harvard's announcement on Tuesday, Mr. Levin suggested that he had reconsidered his stance on early-application policies. "It is not clear that eliminating early admission will result in the admission of more students from low-income families," he said in a written statement. "What is really needed is what Harvard, Yale, and others have been doing in recent years: That is making efforts to increase the pool of low-income students who apply and strengthening the financial-aid packages available to them." </p>

<p>Mr. Levin also said that recent changes to Yale's early-admission program had benefitted students. In 2002, Yale abandoned its "early decision" program, a type of early admission under which students apply early to only one college and agree to attend if admitted. The university replaced that plan with what the admissions association defines as a "restrictive early action" program, in which students may apply early to a single institution without committing to enroll but have until the spring to decide. Harvard's current early-admission policy also gives students until the spring to make their decision, so long as they do not apply early to another college.</p>

<p>"The move to early action had the effect that we desired, and significantly increased the proportion of low-income students in our early-applicant pool," said Mr. Brenzel, of Yale. "We were disappointed that more schools didn't move to an early-action program." </p>

<p>Officials at several other colleges with early-action programs said they were happy with their policies and had no intention of changing them. "On the one hand, I understand Harvard's motivation, and the argument for equality is an outstanding argument," said Charles A. Deacon, dean of undergraduate admissions at Georgetown University. "But a less drastic measure could be taken without much disruption to the whole admissions process." </p>

<p>Georgetown allows students to submit early-action applications to other colleges, though not to institutions with early-decision plans. The process gives students more freedom than restrictive plans while preserving the benefits of early admissions for colleges, according to Mr. Deacon. </p>

<p>"It's a lot easier for Harvard to do what they're doing because they get such a high yield," Mr. Deacon said, referring to the proportion of admitted students who enroll. "If other institutions were forced to eliminate early programs, they would be facing a much lower yield and find it harder to predict enrollment." </p>

<p>Robert J. Massa, vice president for enrollment management and college relations at Dickinson College, agreed that a wholesale abandonment of early-admissions plans could have unintended consequences. </p>

<p>"Some might say it would increase the college admissions frenzy," Mr. Massa said. "Down the line, in March, more students will not know where they're going. More of them will be on wait lists." </p>

<p>A common criticism of early-decision programs is that they hurt students from low-income families, who often decide to forgo an early application so they can compare financial-aid offers from multiple institutions during the regular admissions process. Yet at Dickinson, which uses early decision, the percentage of financial-aid recipients in the early-admit pool is the same as in the regular pool, according to Mr. Massa. </p>

<p>"It's all about how a college goes about recruiting its students and talking to them about financial aid," Mr. Massa said. "To assume that the elimination of early-decision programs will fix what's wrong with admissions in general is na</p>

<p>^^^^ article continued:</p>

<p>Mr. Lucido said the key in changing Chapel Hill's policy was institutional data revealing that early-decision was not serving low-income and minority students. "Part of the ability for a college to make this move is to have folks in high leadership positions know that this is the right thing to do," Mr. Lucido said, "to move away from chasing a ranking to a position that is clearly more equitable." </p>

<p>Mr. Fitzsimmons, Harvard's dean of admissions, said that dropping early-admission would allow him and his staff to travel more widely and recruit a more diverse pool of applicants, particularly those from parts of the country that lacked "a Harvard tradition." </p>

<p>Harvard stopped short of making a permanent commitment to its new admissions policy, however. In a written statement announcing the change, Harvard officials said they planned to monitor the effect of dropping early decision over the next two or three years, "to make sure that it does not have a negative impact on student quality."</p>

<p>A couple of years ago there was a long discussion here on CC about choosing a free ride over a " more prestigious" school. Here is the thread</p>

<p>*Did anyone's child choose a free ride over a "more prestigious" school? *</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=21907&highlight=merit%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=21907&highlight=merit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
But, we attended an info session for Penn, and the alums doing the presentation came right out and said, repeatedly, that our kids better apply ED because their chances were much better that way. I came away really turned off, and no big fan of ED.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Penn's overenthusiasm for ED borders on the offensive.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>It certainly does sound like a win-win situation in your case. It's great if you can afford a low stress situation. I'm glad for you...really. But consider this. What if your daughter did her research, found the perfect fit college and was really excited to attend there, but you could not afford to let her apply without regard to finances and the result of her RD application was a rejection. Wouldn't you always wonder if your lack of financial resources caused the death of the dream school? Wouldn't you resent wealthier but less qualified students who were accepted ED? I would. </p>

<p>Until now, applicants at both ends of the spectrum had the advantage. It's about time for the hard-working middle class unhooked kids who have nothing to offer but their hard work and accomplishments to catch a break.</p>

<p>(BTW, although we couldn't afford to let our son apply ED, he did get in everywhere, so this post isn't sour grapes. I'm just saying....)</p>

<p>I'm going to go against the conventional wisdom here, and ask how it's harder to be middle class than low income. I haven't heard that it's common for a middle class family to be asked to shoulder so much tuition that their income left would be less than, or even close to, a low-income family's income. So how can it be harder than them? For example, last year, our income was about 100,000 (higher than middle income). Our EFC was about 38,000. Surely that leaves us with a much better income, even after paying it, than a family with a 30,000 income. This year our income will be much lower. I expect we'll get some more aid, and I also expect we'll also pay a quite a bit. But, I can tell you, I have still a much more secure life than my truly lower income students. I just can't see how they are advantaged over me.</p>

<p>Garland you make some very good points. Those of us who are middle or upper middle income don't always think about how much harder it is for those in the lower quintile.</p>

<p>Also, newparent said,
[quote]
based on prep school scattergram :
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.

[/quote]

This concurs with my reading of "The Early Admissions Game." Kids with the financial means and/or sophistication to apply Early Decision benefit. As Garland pointed out, it's always easier to be rich (or even middle class) than poor.</p>

<p>Whatever you perceive your relative financial situation to be, some people can afford to apply without regard to finances and some can't. Being able to do so is definitely an admissions advantage.</p>

<p>I believe Harvard's decision will have one very interesting effect.</p>

<p>It has been speculated that many of those admitted early are full-paying students....and that one of the targets applied in early admissions is to gain a good portion of the class who does not need financial aid. Whether or not this is true, it is likely that the self-selection in early applications, (coupled with counselors' orthodoxy that financial aid applicants must necessarily be able to force bidding by schools), has led to a disproportionate number of early applications coming from high income families.</p>

<p>So, I believe it is likely that early applications have become is a device that, de facto, bifurcates the full-pay applicant pool. If so, this is a very bad situation for schools like Harvard. I suspect that Harvard has realized that there are many highly qualified full-payers who don't apply early, and who might have been preferred to many of those admitted in the early round. In that case, it would make a great deal of sense to have been able to look at all of them together.</p>

<p>This is especially true given that these schools have developed a view of themselves as being "priviledge rectifiers" as much as educators. They are deeply concerned about limiting the number of full paying students. Thus, there is an effective cap on those students who come from the income groups that supply a disproportionate number of the highly qualified applicants. </p>

<p>If the early admits are disproportionately full-pay, then the competition in the final round among the full-pay applicants for the few remaining spots is obviously fierce. (Although this problem could be handled by simply deferring more students, that act has become tantamount to rejection, and currently sends a negative message that could impact yield among those deferred and then admitted).</p>

<p>Add this to the other perception benefits, and it seems like a move with instiutional benefits. If this point were the most important one, you might expect Yale and Princeton to follow.</p>

<p>True, lfk, but there are two variables there--the family perception, and the choice/advantage to apply ED. Either variable could be changed with fair results.</p>