Poll and Discussion: Will Early Decision Elimination Spread?

<p>Not only does Northwestern not have any plans to end ED, but it also says the program does NOT harm poor and minority students:</p>

<p><a href="http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2006/09/21/Campus/Administrators.Say.Early.Decision.Policy.Does.Not.Discriminate-2289842.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailynorthwestern.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2006/09/21/Campus/Administrators.Say.Early.Decision.Policy.Does.Not.Discriminate-2289842.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailynorthwestern.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>“In addition, Mills found that in the Early Decision pool, the racial and ethnic composition, the income levels of families, the ratio of public school to private school students and the Pell financial aid grants awarded were "almost identical" to those in the regular decision pool.”</p>

<p>Now, one can claim whatever he wants; he can claim that Northwestern would have more to lose than Harvard or Princeton if it ended early admissions, but, for now, there is no plan to do so; and the school also doesn’t believe that such a program is inherently harming certain students. All this bandwagon hate for early admissions is pretty silly.</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>What about students who are qualified to go to college, but don't come from areas or backgrounds where their peers or neighbors or parents have gone to college? What about students who attend schools where guidance counselors are able to devote time to each student? What about students who can't afford to visit schools to determine a #1 choice they are certain of (or even a top 5 where they would be happy)? </p>

<p>It's likely that a student might not be encouraged to attend college in general, let alone have the assistance to navigate the admissions and financial aid process.</p>

<p>Those who are able to visit schools, get quality counseling, talk to current college students, understand the admissions and financial aid process, etc. are likely to come from more privileged backgrounds. ED only exacerbates the discrepencies that already exist in applying to college in general.</p>

<p>I know that the stats show that the acceptance rate for ED/EA applicants is higher than for RD applicants. But is it also true that ED gives such a significant edge to unhooked applicants (non-legacy, non-athlete, non-URM) that those who apply RD are in fact disadvantaged? </p>

<p>And don't schools treat qualified "disadvantaged" kids as "hooked" applicants in the RD round?</p>

<p>Dear Wharton:</p>

<p>If a kid who lives in a rural area, with a sub par GC, with parents who cannot help with college process or afford college visits is so disadvantaged how is it that they are intellectually gifted enough to get great grades, super SAT's great ECs to the extent that they can get into Wharton School but not bright enough to know that Wharton is their number one choice and that they should apply ED. If a kid cannot afford a school without financial aid that's what needs blind admissions is all about. However if a child is able to formulate her reasoned decision as to her number one choice and can "afford"(a misnomer at best) to waive financial aid from a school then she should not be severed from the opportunity to apply ED with a chance to be secure in the knowledge that she will be where she dreams of being and that the school is damn lucky to have her. As I said above, either eliminate all special nods or eliminate none of them. By the way where is the announcement that UPenn thinks ED is unfair and they are ending it forthwith?</p>

<p>Respectfull, Dana's Dad</p>

<p>Another factor that I think we forget is that, at many less selective colleges (the kind that the vast majority of freshmen will be attending), the application date is not January 1st but much later. A guidance department that is geared to January 1st being the earlist deadline just isn't geared to supporting students with early application. My son's EA (non-binding) application was the first of the year (and for all I know the only early action app) out of a class of 275 kids. If a common body of knowledge regarding early applications is not present in a school or community, it is much less likely that a kid will be aware of this admissions advantage.</p>

<p>Dana's Dad:</p>

<p>Your D is white, and a female, has great grades, two parents who are professionals, family income is sufficient to afford a private college education, she has high marks on the SAT and is a candidate for Merit scholarships.</p>

<p>Your complaint that she is "Burdened" because it some instances some students with potential and promise but without the exposure to excellent schools, educated and prosperous parents, stable home environment and the support of a community structure are given consideration in the selection process!</p>

<p>Well your D sounds like a fine student, with excellent potential and I wish her the very best.</p>

<p>Her Dad sound like someone whose range of awareness and sense of fairness are non-existent.</p>

<p>danalynne - I am not here speaking for Wharton nor am I speaking for Penn. These are my personal opinions as a an administrator and student of higher education. I do not make the rules about ED at my institution so I wouldn't bother asking me where the announcement is.</p>

<p>"If a kid who lives in a rural area, with a sub par GC, with parents who cannot help with college process or afford college visits is so disadvantaged how is it that they are intellectually gifted enough to get great grades, super SAT's great ECs to the extent that they can get into Wharton School but not bright enough to know that Wharton is their number one choice and that they should apply ED."</p>

<p>I think there are a number of people who might find this statement offensive. It is disappointing that you think that students from such a background are not capable of shining academically or extracurricularly to the point where they could be accepted to a top school - Wharton or not. (As I said above, my opinions here have nothing to do with Wharton or Penn). </p>

<p>Additionally, being talented enough to get into a school has nothing to with being "bright enough" to realize that a school is a 1st choice or that one should apply ED. If you aren't at a school that holds your hand through the college search process from the time you are a sophomore or a junior, you might not have adequate time to determine a 1st choice or fully understand the intricacies of the admissions process.</p>

<p>Even if a student is clear about their #1 choice, if financial aid is going to be an important factor in their decision because their family income gives them no choice, it is not in their best interest to apply ED. Having multiple financial aid offers in hand is extremely important when negotiating for a better aid package. You don't have that luxury of multiple offers if you apply ED.</p>

<p>And while a lot of institutions are "need blind" every institution measures financial need differently and offers can and do differ greatly from school to school. Regardless, if you don't know anything about financial aid, don't know anyone who does, navigating financial aid can be extremely difficult. That problem is especially difficult for 1st generation Americans whose parents need their child to translate all this information for them.</p>

<p>Finally, I never said that ED was bad for your child. For some people, it is great. However those that it works for tend to come from an advantaged background. What I AM saying is that ED exacerbates disparities that already exist due to the differences in cultural, social, and economic capital of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.</p>

<p>"What I AM saying is that ED exacerbates disparities that already exist due to the differences in cultural, social, and economic capital of students from disadvantaged backgrounds."</p>

<p>-“In addition, Mills found that in the Early Decision pool, the racial and ethnic composition, the income levels of families, the ratio of public school to private school students and the Pell financial aid grants awarded were "almost identical" to those in the regular decision pool.”</p>

<p>This is what an administrator at one school claims. This seems to be the exact opposite of what you are arguing.</p>

<p>Dear Wharton
Nowhere in my post did I denigrate anyone.As a matter of fact my point was that bright kids who would think in terms of early decision no matter what their circumstances are exceptional young people. If those who suggest I am being politically incorrect or callous re-read my posts I would suggest that my input was more egalitarian in that I suggest that all special leg ups should be eliminated or none of them should be. I never said that qualified kids should be denied financial support. They should be financially supported to the maximum capabilities of the institution. As 99% of all colleges and university are keeping ED for now I stand in the company of educators who know more than any of us. However, not one of my prior comments in any way evidence a discriminatory position even for the most politically correct of any of of you who disagree with my underlying thesis.I think that I have exhausted my point but I enjoyed raising an opinion that annoyed some of you. That's a risk someone in my profession takes from time to time. I respect you all. Dana's Dad</p>

<p>One reason I think that Harvard's action will not start a trend is that its change is going into effect for a trial period. It would be silly for those schools getting benefits out of ED/EA to automatically drop the early process. More likely, schools would come out in favor of Harvard's action and indicate that they will see how Harvard's and Princeton's trial run works.</p>

<p>No one answered my question, above, about to what degree does ED/EA operate as a significant advantage once hooked applicants (legacies, URM's, athletes, etc.) are removed from the equation? I know that with them in, the rate of acceptance is markedly higher for early applicants than for regular applicants. Anyone know? Have the studies removed these hooked applicants from their analysis?</p>

<p>the other ivy league schools might end their ED for their colleges...but that's just the ivies...i doubt any other school will do it also</p>

<p>I don't see why Penn and Columbia would do that. Then they couldn't display their absurdly inflated yields.</p>

<p>Harvard and Princeton are companies, and by doing this, clearly demonstrate they are the best of breed.</p>

<p>I disagree with the decision to remove early admissions, I'd much rather have Princeton focus on making the tuition cheaper for those not on finaid...</p>

<p>cornell is officially considering it. yale might be too.</p>

<p>dartmouth penn brown and columbia have made no comment, really.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cornellsun.com/comment/reply/18454%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cornellsun.com/comment/reply/18454&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>see? mostly the ivy leagues are gonna do it..if princeton did it after harvard did, and as college-woot! stated that cornell is offically considering it as well as yale</p>

<p>I see ED and EA as the one tiny bit of sanity in an insane system - how DARE these elite purveyers of irrational dreams take them away. They won't be happy until each kid is applying to 50 schools.</p>

<p>A NY times article came out not so long ago that stated that when students are faced with a choice between Harvard and another Ivy, as high as 97 percent of the time, students chose Harvard over the other ivy (the 97 percent stat refers to students choosing harvard over columbia). So it seems that it really doesn't make sense for the other ivies to follow this trend Harvard, their competitor, started because Harvard essentially gave them an advantage. If they can get more top kids through keeping ED/EA, then they'll likely keep it.</p>

<p>Scrapping Early Admissions Sparks Debate
By JUSTIN POPE (AP Education Writer)
From Associated Press
September 23, 2006 4:27 PM EDT
The recent decisions by Harvard and Princeton to drop early admissions have reignited a spirited debate: is ending the practice a recipe for making the college application process better, or worse?</p>

<p>Starting with the class entering in 2008, the Ivy League schools will cut programs common at many American universities that give high school seniors who apply in the fall a decision by mid-December - before most universities' regular admissions application deadlines.</p>

<p>Now, they will evaluate all students in the same pool, and notify everyone together in the spring.</p>

<p>The schools argued that early admissions informally discriminates against disadvantaged students and fuels anxiety.</p>

<p>Only a tiny sliver of college-bound students will be affected by Harvard's and Princeton's decisions, but the schools' prominence - and the prospect of other schools following suit - have sparked debate among educators and alumni about whether scrapping early admissions will improve the application process.</p>

<p>Most universities admit some students through early admissions, though the rules vary from school to school. Harvard, for instance, has used "early action," which gives high school seniors who apply in the fall a decision by mid-December, but still allows them to apply elsewhere in the spring. Princeton was among the schools using "early decision," in which fall applicants commit to attending if accepted.</p>

<p>Many support the changes, saying early admissions - particularly early decision - "structurally" discriminates against disadvantaged students. They say poorer families won't risk committing to one school without seeing what kind of financial aid they are offered elsewhere. And their guidance counselors may lack the expertise to properly advise them.</p>

<p>A study of applications to 14 elite colleges by Christopher Avery, a Harvard professor, found early pools do have a higher concentration of students who do not need financial aid (he also estimated early applicants got an admissions boost equal to about 100 SAT points). But so far, most schools have concluded the relatively low number of low-income applicants is not a problem that changing early admissions will solve.</p>

<p>The money worries may be misplaced at Harvard and Princeton, the world's wealthiest universities (by total endowment and endowment per student, respectively). Both meet full applicant need. But in practice, the schools say, less-wealthy applicants don't apply early. They are considered on the same merits in the regular round, but the schools say the differences between the pools are inherently troubling.</p>

<p>"If you really need a lot of financial aid, even if Princeton says you're going to get it, these parents in many cases are looking at a bill that's more than they earn," Princeton dean of admission Janet Rapelye said in an interview this week</p>

<p>More than half of Princeton students receive aid, and all of it through grants, as no student is required to borrow. But "for the vast majority of families who need aid, hearing that in September or October was not enough time for them to process that information in time to get their children into the pool," she said.</p>

<p>But others predict the decisions to scrap early admissions - particularly if other universities follow suit - will add to applicants' overall anxiety. They say applicants would lose a chance to get the process over with, and, uncertain where they stand, will end up applying to more schools.</p>

<p>"In terms of the frenzy part of it, what this is going to do is just shift it all to the end of the year," said Peter Neely, associated director of college counseling and director of studies at Thayer Academy in Braintree, Mass.</p>

<p>The University of Delaware also dropped early decision this year, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill went to early action in 2002. But many of Harvard and Princeton's immediate peers - including Yale, MIT, Stanford (early action) and the University of Pennsylvania (early decision) - have indicated they will keep current policies. Less selective universities are unlikely to follow because they use early decision to hit class size targets and identify which applicants most want to attend.</p>

<p>That's one reason the move has already faced some resistance from some at Princeton.</p>

<p>"Everyone I know who applied early did so because they love Princeton, and you wind up with a lot of students who come because they really love (the school) and want to make the most of it," said Brian Brown, a senior from Sunnyvale, Calif. and member of a new group that quickly sprung up the Web site Facebook.com called "Princetonians for the Preservation of Early Decision."</p>

<p>Early admissions critics argue that schools can identify eager applicants through application essays.</p>

<p>A number of high school counselors have applauded the universities' intentions but said much depends on how others respond. And they acknowledged any change will have winners and losers.</p>

<p>"There's no easy answer," said Marybeth Kravets, college counselor at Deerfield High School in suburban Chicago. "For the right kid and the right school, (early admission) is a blessing. And yet you want this to be a level playing field."</p>

<p>One common complaint about abolishing ED seems to be that it was the only compensating device available to those who face the serious disadvantage of being a middle class white (or asian) from the northeast.<br>
What happened to two wrongs not making a right? The system needs reform but those of us who face "demographic challenges" have to remember a few realities.
Inequality of opportunity is a problem we are facing and tackling in every facet of american life, not just higher education. In addition, admission committees have made it clear that they admit students to selective colleges more on the basis of what the student has to offer a school, rather than on the basis of a fair comparison of the relative strength of their high school achievements. I believe that it is legitimate to admit a student because he adds diversity or adds a chance for the football team to have a winning season.
What seems illegitimate to me is the way schools allow influential alumni and big donors to steamroll the sytem by arranging for the admission of students who sometimes not only offer nothing but often detract from the school's environment. I am talking about top schools being willing to overlook not only a subpar academic record but even a healthy disciplinary record if the price is right or the parent is sufficiently entrenched in the system.
A recent New York Times interview with President Tilghman indicated that Princeton could pay every student's tuition on only 1/3 of the income of its endowment. If financial necessity ever justified the system of "legacies and developmentals" this is clearly no longer the case at many top schools.</p>

<p>I thought Yale's EA was under review now</p>