<p>Princeton and Harvard have both dropped their ED/EA option for future classes - do you think this is the start of a trend?</p>
<p>Well i think so..... This really seems to be the future.. well at least there won't be this pressure on high school seniors to be the "early bird"</p>
<p>No, I doubt that many colleges will change their EA/ED options. </p>
<p>Several colleges rely on EA/ED in order to attract the best and brightest students. With competition for colleges so competitive, kids choose EA/ED to get into their choice college early, and many colleges will welcome them with open arms.</p>
<p>Take that away, and everyone is on the same playing field, which can be a good thing, but can be nothing but trouble for colleges. </p>
<p>In an article I read, the only college that wins in this decision is Harvard. In a survey of the top students in numerous high schools, the kids were asked where they would matriculate if they were accepted to the most elite colleges. Harvard wins out with no sweat when put up against all the other Ivys and universities like Stanford, MIT, and Duke. If any of these colleges give up their EA/ED options, they are likely to lose their best applicants in the RD pool.</p>
<p>Hmm you are right in some respect... however, as I often read in MIT forums, they are constantly saying students are in a lot of pressure.. I think that such practices of removing ED/EA will leave more time to students to focus and still work on looking at colleges suitable to them than working day in day out for these super colleges... However, at times , ED/EA systems do help people who are not as good in RD pool but somehow still make there in ED.. It isn't just the priviledged ones that get in...</p>
<p>One overlooked aspect is the emotional commitment factor. A couple of decades ago, for example, Columbia had a large population of Harvard rejects. Being the "second choice" school for a big chunk of your freshman class wasn't the greatest way to build an enthusiastic student body.</p>
<p>By relying on ED fairly heavily, CU can recruit a class of students who is really gung ho about the school, the city, the Core Curriculum, etc. We know there are plenty of these students who would really prefer CU to any other school, but sorting them out in RD is tough - even those hoping for another school are smart enough to suck up in their app and talk about their love of the arts and NYC's great museums, their interest in the Core, etc. ED applicants, though, are much more likely to be the real thing. I think CU would be ill-advised to cut back or eliminate ED.</p>
<p>I see nothing unfair or discriminatory about ED applications. By November of a kid's senior year those kids who are serious applicants to college have narrowed down the schools that they want to apply to and would be content or thrilled to attend if accepted. They have visited or researched the schools,talked to current students, talked to GCs at their high schools to help them decide which school is a good fit for them. That is all any kid and their family can do to make a reasoned decision what school is best for that student.</p>
<p>If a kid has done his/her due diligence then they will have a substantive idea of the pecking order of their choices. Assuming the accuracy of the above, then why shouldn's a kid who does know his own mind be able to apply ED? The kid benefits from the ED with a statistically better chance of acceptance and the school gets a student who truly wants to go to that institution.</p>
<p>This is not discriminatory to any ethnicity or economic strata. The only thing that negatively impacts a prospective applicant is the waiver of her chance to compare financial aid if the student needs it. However it does not eliminate the choice a kid has to use ED or not .</p>
<p>To be quite frank I think that my daughter is becomming more and more burdened because of who she is. She is a top student with great gpa, great SATs, merit semifinalist etc. So what's the rub? She also happens to be white, female, and from a family where her mom and I have worked hard and are both professional. We will not be asking for financial aid both because we won't get any but also because that aid should go to those who need it. However the fact that my kid is white , female and upper middle class should not be an excuse to place the acceptance bar at a higher level for her than, less economically advanted kids who are of an ethnicity other than caucasion. My child has worked hard for what she has achieved and the playing field should be even. If a similarly achieving urm or economically disadvantaged student desires admission to a school they should get all the fanancial needs blind aid they can but they should not get a leg up over my kid. </p>
<p>Ending ED is just another slap in the face to kids like my daughter. This is just one man's opinion and I hope no reader takes offense although I accept all well-reasoned replies.</p>
<p>Dana's DAD</p>
<p>"The only thing that negatively impacts a prospective applicant is the waiver of her chance to compare financial aid if the student needs it. However it does not eliminate the choice a kid has to use ED or not ."</p>
<p>Hi, Dana's Dad
The financial aid consideration did in fact prevent my son from applying ED to his initial first choose - Bowdoin - where he was WL'd as an RD applicant in April. Fortunately, by April his first choice school had changed (to Chicago) and he was admitted there. </p>
<p>So, while being shut out of ED worked out well for us, it was an advantage that we could not use. FWIW, we are white, middle-class, professional/academic, and eligible for (some) finaid.</p>
<p>Dana's dad, there is a subtle negative effect of ED that has nothing to do with financial aid.</p>
<p>At many colleges, ED applicants are more likely than RD applicants to be admitted. Given this, for those students whose highest priority is not to attend a "safety" level school, the optimum strategy is to apply ED to a "match" school and not apply to a "reach" school at all. </p>
<p>To use the simplified example that I described on another thread, the student who considers Princeton his favorite "reach," Northwestern his favorite "match," and State U his "safety" school can maximize his chances of not attending State U by applying ED to Northwestern, which (for all practical purposes) means giving up his hopes of attending Princeton completely. It doesn't even really matter whether or not Princeton has ED in this scenario. What matters is that Northwestern has ED and that it's easier to get admitted to Northwestern ED than RD.</p>
<p>Thus, one disadvantage of ED is that it forces applicants to play games with the college admissions process. To maximize their chances of a "good" outcome (attending Northwestern), they must give up any chance of a "great" outcome (attending Princeton). They cannot simply select "reach," "match," and "safety" schools and apply to all of them, the way they could in an ED-less system. They have to make complicated decisions about how to optimize their college admissions strategy.</p>
<p>I don't like this system much because I don't think 17-year-olds should be encouraged to think this way. Plenty of other people on these boards disagree.</p>
<p>Those in a position to do so will be considering the move more seriously than ever, as there have always been long-running discussions about EA / ED in offices...I spoke with officials from Williams and Brandeis just today, both more or less said they were satisfied with their current programs as were, though Williams tried to sort of throw up a smokescreen at me. Dartmouth and Brown are very "we do what we feel we need to do," while Penn wishes it had the money to be in Harvard's shoes. Yale is being conservative about it... etc etc.</p>
<p>Those colleges with the brand strength (and cash!) to drop EA / ED will, again, be thinking more and more seriously about it since Harvard (and to a lesser extent Princeton's) dropping of early programs eases up the pressure.</p>
<p>we'll see...</p>
<p>Mariana;</p>
<p>We have pondered the same issues that you write about. My daughter's decision is to apply to one of her reach schools ED to maximize her chances. It is the difference between a 19% acceptance rate and approx. 30% acceptance rate. We decided that the best use of ED is to try for reach school and the chance for a superlative educational experience. Her chances of admissions on her "non-safety " schools that are not reaches are statistically better RD than the reach schools and we didn't want to waste the ED on a school she has an excellant chance of getting in to RD. This is not gaming the system ,rather it is a logical utilization of an option that the school offers.</p>
<p>Dana's Dad</p>
<p>I think that many of the Ivies/like Ivies will eliminate their ED, which is so sad.</p>
<p>Roger.....Do you think your comments regarding Columbia could also be said for Princeton?</p>
<p>What do you think is the real motive for Princeton's decision?</p>
<p>I hope not. When Harvard/Princeton accept students a lot usually decide to attend because it typically is their first choice, so ED/EA was probably not as useful for them as it is for other colleges. I'm sure the other ivies will keep their EA/ED options.</p>
<p>Dana Lynne,</p>
<p>Now imagine being very poor. When you are poor you cannot just choose to go to any school you want. So what if the government says you can pay $25,000 a year. If any of you think that the government is generous in calculating EFC for Financial Aid, you're wrong. </p>
<p>Now this poor person cannot say I will attend dream school if I get in because what if "second favorite school" or even "safety school" offers me merit money, money that will help me get through college and put less stress on my parents. It is for this reason that ED is unfair because some people don't have the luxury of saying $43,000 a year is a reasonable price to pay for a college education, especially at a school you like so much that you can apply ED to it. </p>
<p>Really, I know you just want what's best for your daughter and it makes sense to use the ED in your case, but let's imagine the situation in someone less fortunate's shoes. Some people simply rely on merit aid or need to compare acceptances and because they are not allowed the option to tell their kids that whatever school they get into, they can attend that school. So why not eliminate ED and put everyone in the same pool and actually have the college sacrifice higher matriculation percentages, in order to promote fairness and equality within the society of higher education.</p>
<p>hope so. I wish they got rid of it this year so I would not have to stress over stuff twice.</p>
<p>I'll throw this your way class prez. Let's eliminate ED but as a quid pro quo we eliminate all special nods to a less qualified urm or first generation applicant or an athelete or a legacy or boys versus girls. If we are going to make a truly balanced playing field we eliminate all special nods and advantages. If we do that then I agree let's certainly eliminate ED that you believe benefits economically advantaged kids. I am all in favor of total equality . Let the most qualified student get in to the school without regard to race, religion, socio-economic status etc.</p>
<p>In most cases, a family can run their numbers through an EFC calculator and get a rough idea of their EFC, though some schools use different calculation methods. I doubt if families who do their homework are surprised too often when they get their number from the school. The rude surprises are for those families who take "don't worry about money, we meet 100% of need" as an indication that the amount they will have to pay will in some way fit their budget.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Do you think your comments regarding Columbia could also be said for Princeton?</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Not to the same degree. Princeton is about as selective as Harvard, and would hardly be a "safety" for Harvard applicants. Of course, with today's admit rate, neither is Columbia.</p>
<p>how does the change impact the recruiting of athletes? will "likely" letters still go out to the recruited athletes in the fall as they do currently? </p>
<p>"official visits" for athletes would still be taking place in the early fall. "unofficial visits" could have been taken at an earlier time, i.e., summer, fall. does the coach now say to the recruited athlete ........."I'd like to invite you to apply regular decision"............?????</p>
<p>will the loss of the ED or EA change the recruiting process in any way for the schools with selective/competitive admissions?</p>
<p>Here's one reason why it won't spread:</p>
<p>I was always skeptical of ED because I thought it made kids make decisions prematurely--then I had a kid with "one true love" and the privileged situation where "need" was not in play. That changed my perspective. I also could see how for the school he selected (somewhat remote, not in the NE and with a huge emphasis on the character of the community) that taking a hefty proportion ED was constructive. Their yield in RD will always be lower because they are a quality "safety/match" and they are motivated to draw kids who truly want to be there as a priority. Meanwhile, the bias against need really does bother me...I think we need to get creative and figure out how ED can be more equitable and accessible for students with need. Many of the same schools that find ED supports a strong community of committed students also want diversity in all forms. How do we preserve the healthy aspects of ED (less stressed sr. yr for decisive students) without contributing to the "gaming" aspects? (phrases like "played the ED option" seem contrary to the original ED intent...</p>