Poll and Discussion: Will Early Decision Elimination Spread?

Applying to College
41

<p>Interesting Letter in NY Times from John Katzman of Princeton Review about the early admission imbroglio:</p>

<p>Ending Early Decision </p>

<p>Published: September 25, 2006
To the Editor:</p>

<p>The decisions by Harvard and Princeton to end early-decision admissions (news article, Sept. 19) are good news for everyone, from the overstressed overprivileged, to highly qualified students in need of financial aid, to colleges themselves, should the practice be more widely abandoned beyond the Ivy League. </p>

<p>It will help return the start of the admissions ordeal to the end of junior year, where it lived quite happily until recently, and perhaps lead to the end of the expensive, wasteful and stressful practice of having students sit for college entrance exams in their sophomore and even freshman year of high school.</p>

<p>Ironically, colleges seeking to enhance their reputation for “selectivity” (read “exclusivity”) will also benefit from the end of early decision: students whom an early acceptance would otherwise have removed from the general applicant pool will instead submit the dozen or so applications that are now the norm, providing colleges with more applicants to reject.</p>

<p>John Katzman
Founder and Chief Executive
Princeton Review
New York, Sept. 20, 2006</p>

42

<p>I just heard that UVa is dropping early decision in a year from now -- following Harvard and Princeton's lead. It sounds to me as if UVa has a binding early admission. Is this so? I don't know how prevalent binding ED is for state universities.</p>

43

<p>Et tu, UVA?</p>

<p>Washington Post article: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500636.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500636.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

44

<p>U. of Virginia Announces Plans to End Early-Decision Admissions
By ELIZABETH F. FARRELL</p>

<p>The University of Virginia has become the third highly competitive college in two weeks to announce plans to discontinue its early-decision admissions program. The policy change, announced on Monday, will go into effect in the next admissions cycle, beginning with students who apply to enroll in the fall of 2008. </p>

<p>Virginia's early-decision policy now gives students the options of an admissions decision by early December if they submit applications by November 1. Under the new policy, there will be one admissions deadline, in January. </p>

<p>John A. Blackburn, dean of undergraduate admission at Virginia, said his office had made its decision for the same reasons as those cited by Harvard and Princeton Universities, which also recently announced plans to eliminate early-decision programs. Those two universities said their goals were to level the playing field for students from low-income families and reduce the stress associated with the college-application process for all students. </p>

<p>"Early decision has not been designed to keep out low-income students," Mr. Blackburn said on Monday, "but what we've seen is that the population that were admitted under this program are very homogenous." </p>

<p>Last year, for instance, Virginia admitted 172 students whose family income was at 200 percent of the poverty level or below, but only one of those students had applied through the early-decision process. And of 948 students who applied for financial aid last year, only 20 were early-decision candidates. </p>

<p>Over all, about 30 percent of the 6,000 new freshmen accepted at Virginia last year were admitted through early decision. </p>

<p>Another objective cited by Harvard and Princeton officials was the hope that other institutions would follow their lead. In the past, most admissions officials have been reluctant to discontinue early-decision policies because the colleges they compete with for students also offer the option. </p>

<p>According to Mr. Blackburn, Virginia had been considering moving away from early-decision admissions for some time, and the steps taken by the two Ivy League institutions helped make it possible to go ahead with that move. </p>

<p>"Two weeks ago, I never would have imagined that colleges would do this," said Mr. Blackburn. "I didn't think anyone would break ranks, for reasons of their own self-protection." </p>

<p>While the recent actions may suggest that more colleges might make similar moves, some admissions experts doubted that the number of additional institutions would be that large. </p>

<p>"UVa's decision is guaranteed to extend the conversation about early decision," said David Hawkins, director of public policy at the National Association for College Admission Counseling, in an e-mail message. "I believe we will still have to wait to see whether such decisions reach beyond the top 25 most selective institutions, though, to truly assess the depth of the trend."</p>

45

<p>that article has gotten virginia's freshman class size wrong - so it seems a little worse than it is.</p>

<p>948 people applying for aid is approximately 30% of the freshman class - of course we have to assume there are people who applied for FA and went elsewhere.</p>

<p>30% of the freshman class of 6000 was not admitted through ED.
30% of the freshman class of 3100 was admitted through ED - 6000 total students were admitted.</p>

<p>Virginia is extremely cheap in comparison to schools like Harvard and Princeton. This is most likely just a marketing tool. I can understand a family not being able to afford going to Harvard when the pricetag is $42,000+ a year. Georgetown's website shows a $48,000/year pricetag. However a family in Virginia is looking at a $15,000 sticker - and an OOS family is looking at about a $35,000 sticker. Since most people are from Virginia - its much harder for people to contemplate filing FA when UVA costs 1/3 as some of its peer schools. Families within that 200% poverty line gap - or about $50,000/year or under, are already getting full rides to UVA. I don't really see that many families making under $50,000 a year in a somewhat wealthy state, and I don't see that many families who make $100,000+ (which I believe was something like 75% of UVa - i'd have to find the article from the school paper) filing for FA on $15,000.</p>

<p>Sorry - but I just think this eliminating ED/EA thing is stupid - and really is just a marketing plow - by all 3 schools. Its stupid because princeton and harvard don't need it</p>

46

<p>Down here in Virginia, W&L said it's considering following UVa while U. of Richmond won't, FWIW.
<a href="http://blogs.roanoke.com/campuswatch/archives/money/reforms_to_impr.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://blogs.roanoke.com/campuswatch/archives/money/reforms_to_impr.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

47

<p>hot off the press: Notre Dame has announced that it has no intention of eliminating Early admissions in the future. Read it online</p>

<p><a href="http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/09/26/News/Nd.To.Continue.Using.Early.Action-2308019.shtml?sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/09/26/News/Nd.To.Continue.Using.Early.Action-2308019.shtml?sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

48

<p>Stanford likewise has no intention of changing his early admissions policy either. Some wisdom, finally. From the op-ed page of the New York Times:</p>

<p>Applied Science </p>

<p>By JOHN ETCHEMENDY
Published: September 27, 2006
Stanford, Calif.</p>

<p>HARVARD’S and Princeton’s recent announcements that they will soon end the early admission programs they now use to choose part of their freshman classes have garnered a great deal of attention, including editorials urging other institutions to follow their lead. It is a shame that the publicity, so abundant in its praise, has been so short on facts and clearheaded analysis. </p>

<p>There are two very different kinds of early admission programs offered by colleges and universities. Binding early admission contractually requires students who apply early and are accepted to attend the college that admitted them. Nonbinding early admission programs do not require admitted students to commit until the admission season ends in the spring. Students can meanwhile apply to other colleges in the regular round and make their decisions after they hear the results of those applications. Harvard, Stanford and Yale, for instance, have non-binding early programs; Princeton’s early program is binding.</p>

<p>One complaint about early programs is that students accepted early do not have the opportunity to compare competing financial aid packages — they are locked in to attending the college that has already accepted them. This is a legitimate criticism of binding early admission programs, but it simply does not apply to non-binding programs. Students accepted in nonbinding programs can and do compare aid packages from all the colleges to which they are admitted.</p>

<p>By far the most common criticism of early admission programs is, to quote the presidents of both Harvard and Princeton, that these programs “advantage the advantaged.” Critics point out that admission rates are somewhat higher in the early round than in the regular admission round. They assume that the pool of early applicants is disproportionately wealthier than those in the regular round. The conclusion seems inescapable: the wealthy are benefiting from the higher admission rates of early programs.</p>

<p>This reasoning is faulty, however. Consider an analogous situation. If you look at the pool of people who file income tax returns in January, you’ll find that a higher percentage get a refund than those who delay until April. Does this imply that the I.R.S. is giving an unfair advantage to those who file early, that filing early increases your chances of getting a refund?</p>

<p>Of course not: the I.R.S. refund standards are identical whether you file early or late. The difference is that those expecting a refund are more likely to file early, while those who owe money are inclined to wait. The pools are different; the standards are not. Those filing early are in no way “advantaged.”</p>

<p>There is nothing about early admissions, in itself, that gives an advantage to those who apply early. It all depends on whether the university imposes lower, the same, or higher standards to the early pool. Nor can you infer the standards by simply comparing admission rates in the early and late pools.</p>

<p>The admission rate is determined by two things: the standards applied and the qualifications of the applicants. If the early pool is, on average, more qualified, then applying precisely the same standard will result in a higher rate of acceptance.</p>

<p>At Stanford, we actually apply somewhat higher standards to our early pool, since we do not want to accept students early unless we’re confident they would get in during the regular round. This is reflected in the SAT scores for these students: they average 40 points higher than those of students admitted later. It is not, however, reflected in our early acceptance rate, which is indeed somewhat higher than in the regular round. </p>

<p>No doubt some schools give an advantage to early applicants. If so, they are advantaging those applicants; if not, not. The problem, in any event, doesn’t lie with early admissions programs but rather with the standards applied.</p>

<p>How about the assumption by critics that early programs are predominantly used by the wealthy? At Stanford, 36 percent to 40 percent of the students accepted early apply for financial aid; in the regular round only slightly more, 40 percent to 44 percent, seek aid. But even if our early pool were disproportionately well off, those applicants would not, as we have seen, get an admission advantage.</p>

<p>The final charge made by critics of early programs is that they increase the frenzy of the college admission process. This is certainly not true for those students who are clear about their first-choice college: they can apply to that institution early. If they get in, their admissions worries are over. If they do not, they can then submit applications to other schools, but are in no worse shape than if there were no early admission program.</p>

<p>Without such programs, many students who now apply to a single college will feel compelled to apply to 10 or more in order to be confident of an acceptance. This will increase the overall number of college applications, and that in turn will probably increase — not decrease — the pressure felt by all high school seniors going through the process.</p>

<p>Indeed, early admission programs were originally intended to decrease that pressure. Done right, the programs do not give any advantage to those who apply in the early round, and students who are uncertain about where they want to go shouldn’t feel that they must apply early.</p>

<p>The best way to decrease the frenzy of the admission season? Have colleges universally adopt nonbinding early admission programs, and then apply the same or higher standards to the early decisions as they do to the regular round. It’s a solution that’s fair for the students and practical for the colleges. </p>

<p>John Etchemendy is the provost of Stanford University.</p>

49

<p>I assume this was Etchmendy's way of saying he is no longer a candidate for the Harvard presidency!</p>

<p>But I do believe his letter requires a response on the merits.</p>

<p>He fails to acknowledge the real reason schools resort to early programs - their ability to goose the yield rate by reducing the size of overlap pools with competitors.</p>

<p>This year, Stanford's SCEA yield approached 90%, while its RD yield was about 55% - resulting in an overall 69% yield rate.</p>

<p>Similarly, at Yale, the SCEA yield approached 90%, while the RD yield was about 54.5%. By filling a larger fraction of the class from the early pool, however, Yale was able to achieve an overall yield rate of about 70% - a bit higher than Stanford's.</p>

<p>(Yale also, reportedly, admitted 13% of the SCEA deferreds - a far higher rate than that for "ordinary" RD applicants - which probably had a beneficial effect on the RD yield rate.)</p>

<p>Finally, the author of the article fails to point out that Stanford - which offers more so-called "athletic scholarships" than any other school in America - doesn't need to shoehorn its athletic recruits into the early pool, as the Ivies do: it already has them tied up via "letters of intent" which, in most cases, have been sent months earlier.</p>

<p>Particularly when an adjustment is made for the fact that the 5% of the class getting athletic scholarships need not be in its early pool, it is clear that the admit rate for applicants with comparable SAT scores remains at least twice as high for SCEA admits as it does for RD admits. This stuff about the edge being due to early applicants being "stronger" is so much bull - as "The Early Decision Game" graphically demonstrated.</p>

50

<p>A large disparity between early pool yield (which can approach 99% in the case of binding ED) and "regular pool" yield, certainly explains the reluctance of certain schools to consider following the Harvard lead here:</p>

<p>In addition to the Yale and Stanford numbers in the prior post, I can give class of 2009 numbers for a few other schools, including Columbia and Penn - which fill virtually half the class via binding ED:</p>

<p>RD yields: Penn, 48.4%; Columbia, 46.8%; Brown, 46.3%; Dartmouth, 40.5%; Cornell, 36.7%.</p>

<p>If these schools abolish their early programs, they will have to admit substantially more applicants to fill the available seats, and their reported admit rates will rise - very possibly affecting their USNews rankings adversely.</p>

51

<p>NOTRE DAME TO CONTINUE USING EARLY ACTION</p>

<p>Princeton and Harvard eliminate early admissions programs, University encourages students to apply when best prepared</p>

<p>By: ROHAN ANAND
Issue date: 9/26/06 Section: News</p>

<p>A few days before Christmas 2005, freshman Chris Holland arrived at his Louisville home to see that his mom had posted a Notre Dame flag in his front yard. Inside was an official acceptance letter granting him admission to the University's Class of 2010 via the Early Action program.</p>

<p>"I was ecstatic," he said. "Not only because Notre Dame was my dream school, but because the whole college admissions process was finally over."</p>

<p>Just as Holland's white-knuckled months of sleepless nights ended, his current roommate, Conor Troy, discovered his Early Action application was deferred to the regular decision pool. </p>

<p>"I was clearly discouraged at first because Notre Dame was my first choice," Troy said. "But I also realized it was a big application pool and I was hopeful for the regular decision results, so I focused on working hard senior year and keeping my grades up."</p>

<p>Both Holland and Troy's scenarios point to the ambiguity involved in the college-admissions process - and, more specifically, the debate sparked by Princeton University and Harvard College, two schools that just cut their early admission programs for classes entering in the fall of 2008.</p>

<p>With the rising competition to gain admission into highly selective universities like Notre Dame, the University's Early Action program is not just a method to increase yield, said Son Nguyen, assistant director of the Office of Undergraduate Admissions.</p>

<p>"The hype for American colleges is increasing, and people want more and want to know sooner," Nguyen said. "But here at Notre Dame, we want our Early Action program to be a service to our students." </p>

<p>Notification under Early Action gives students - whose credentials are considered in the context of a smaller application pool - a clear admissions decision early in their college application process, even if it causes unhappiness, said Assistant Provost for Admissions Dan Saracino.</p>

<p>"Under the Early Action program, to notify denied students before Christmas allows them more time to start focusing on other colleges," Saracino said. "High school counselors have called us and asked for us to keep it because it really works towards students' advantage."</p>

<p>Applicants who wish to be considered under Early Action typically submit their completed application file by Nov. 1 and receive a response by mid-December about whether they were admitted, deferred to the regular decision pool or denied. </p>

<p>Notre Dame's unrestrictive Early Action program differs from those of other institutions, which typically offer either a binding Early Decision agreement or Single-Choice Early Action. </p>

<p>While the other two choices generally prohibit students from applying early to more than one institution, Notre Dame's program permits Early Action students to apply early to as many schools as they wish.</p>

<p>"With regards to Notre Dame, the Undergraduate Admissions office wants a student to apply early when they feel that their profile is at its best," said Associate Director of Undergraduate Admissions Gil Martinez. "It's the fairest and kindest method available for them." </p>

<p>But it's likely that Notre Dame's Board of Trustees and admissions officers are taking note of the Princeton and Harvard decisions.</p>

<p>In a statement released on Sept. 18, Princeton President Shirley Tilghman said Princeton's binding Early Decision program "advantages the advantaged" and a single admissions process would insure greater equality in determining each class.</p>

<p>As a result, colleges nationwide have found themselves scurrying to re-evaluate their systems and decide whether they should follow suit. Ivy League schools in particular - like Cornell - are under pressure to begin monitoring the pros and cons of their respective programs. </p>

<p>Senior Tim Chlon, who was accepted under Early Action during his senior year of high school, said the early notification and the non-binding commitment was convenient for him. </p>

<p>"I don't think that Early Action benefits the advantaged anymore than anyone else, because it's just an application, and it doesn't require any more money to send it in earlier or later," Chlon said. "Instead, it gives you as many options as possible." </p>

<p>Martinez also said the process of Early Action doesn't put any students at a disadvantage.</p>

<p>"While it's true that upper class applicants may have more resources than lower class students, the choice is usually up to the students," he said. "If they understand the process, they make the choice."</p>

<p>Nguyen said students who can no longer apply early to other schools may look more into places like Notre Dame that retain the Early Action program.</p>

<p>"We like where we stand by offering our applicants a lot of flexibility compared to other schools," he said. "Then again, for now, we're only dealing with Harvard and Princeton, so we'll wait to see what's going to happen later on."</p>

52

<p>I think that this definitely has the potential to become a trend. I don't really want it to be one, though. As a Sophomore, these changed affect me directly. There are two schools I really want to go to (Northwestern and Washington University in St. Louis) and I'll probably apply early to one. However, if one of those schools drops their program, then I have no way of proving that I really, really want to go, thus lowering the liklihood of being admitted. In short, not good. Not good at all.</p>

<p>Although, schools that have recently built new housing facilities can't drop their early program, because then admission rates will decline. At least that's what Vanderbilt said in a college visit to my sister's school. But how much can I really know, being a Sophomore and all? :P</p>

53

<p>Despite what you may hear to the contrary from certain campus advocates, ED is primarily a tool to benefit the <em>colleges</em>, and not you as an applicant. </p>

<p>Its a "Heads we win, tails you lose" sort of a proposition. Don't let them bully or attempt to bribe you into playing their game. </p>

<p>In most cases, they want you to strategically settle for them as a bird-in-the-hand option - giving up the chance to aim higher on the academic food chain - although its a one-way deal: they are under no obligation to accept you, but you are legally bound to them if they deign to do so.</p>

54

<p>Marilee Jones cited at the end of this AP story about keeping early admissions.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060929/LIFESTYLE01/609290321/1031%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060929/LIFESTYLE01/609290321/1031&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

55

<p>The bottom line is: more stress for future (1st tier-competitive) college seniors</p>

56

<p>Harvey Mudd threw around the idea this last year but decided that the most passionate students applied ED and that's what they wanted more than anything else.</p>

57

<p>"Passionate" applicants, I assume, is another way of describing applicants who will come in at a higher yield rate. </p>

<p>When the overall yield rate is 28%, that is not an unimportant consideration - which may explain why ED applicants are admitted at twice the rate for "regular" applicants.</p>

58

<p>Well, HMC's definition of a passionate student is moreso:
1. Has demonstrated genuine and outstanding interest in subject-matter outside of school and by one's own accord.
2. Has a character that matches that of the HMC body. And by that, holds promise to uphold the Honor Code.
3. Understands the scope and importance of the interests pursued...and by that is readying his/herself to be the leadership of tomorrow.
4. Enthusiastic to contribute to the HMC community.</p>

<p>Byerly, with HMC's ongoing strategic planning, you'll find HMC climbing the ranks, as it has been.</p>

<p>Don't pull the yield hooha. The applicant pool is preselected. Because of its absence from pop-culture, the only people who apply to HMC are those who are in the know of math/science/engineering. </p>

<p>Not smart students? Hmm...this is odd...
MCM/ICM competition:
(numbers for "outstanding winner", roughly 10 are awarded each year of ~750 teams)
2006
MIT: 1 team
HMC: 1 team
2005
MIT: 1 team
HMC: 1 team
2004
MIT: 1 team
HMC: 3 teams
2003
MIT: 0 teams
HMC: 1 team
2002
MIT: 0 teams
HMC: 1 team
Now, this shows that HMC must be doing something right if they can compete this strongly with MIT even though it has 1/10 the students.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2006/results/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2006/results/&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2005/results/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2005/results/&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2004/results/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2004/results/&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2003/results/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2003/results/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

59

<p>Huh? If the only people who apply are "pre-selected" and "in the know", why do nearly 3/4 of those admitted say "no thanks" and go elsewhere?</p>

60

<p>"Huh? If the only people who apply are "pre-selected" and "in the know", why do nearly 3/4 of those admitted say "no thanks" and go elsewhere?"</p>

<p>Where else are they going to get into? The possibilities are Stanford, Caltech, MIT, Ivies, etc. It makes statistical sense that you would get into several other top schools and that (coupled with a $46,000 price tag) will yield 1/4.</p>

<p><<
A, B, C, D, E are schools that have similar applicant pools but have different selectivity:
A<B<C<D<E</p>

<p>Student X will be accepted to A, B, C, D, E.
Student Y will be accepted to A, B, C, D
Student Z will be accepted to A, B, C</p>

<p>Student X will get good money from A and B but little from C, D, E. As an approximation, let's say that Student X's favor order goes like this:
B>E>D>A>C</p>

<p>Student Y will get good money from A, but little money from B, C, D. This student's order may be:
A>D>C>B</p>

<p>Student Z will get no money from A, B, C. Their order may be:
C>B>A</p>

<p>Now,perhaps the probability that a student would attend a college diminished by a factor of two for every college down the list but maintained a net probability of 1.
Example: A>B>C, thus a student is twice as likely to go to A than B, and twice as likely to go to B than C. </p>

<p>Because it is normalized, however, the actual probability follows the form of:
P = [2^(n-1)]/[(2^(k-1))<em>((2^n) -1)]
which reduces to P = [e^(ln(2)</em>(n-k))] / ((2^n) - 1)
where n>=k.
n is the number of schools in a list.
k is the respective school placement in that list.</p>

<p>As an example, if a student got into one school. n=1, k =1, P =1.
Or if a student got into two schools and you wanted to find the probability that they'd go to the second school... n=2, k =2, P = 1/3.</p>

<p>So, going back to our rough example with all the schools, we can compute the individual rough probability:
In this case, let's focus on the probability school B will be attended.
Student X:
n = 5, k = 1, P= 16/31
Student Y:
n = 4, k = 4, P = 1/15
Student Z:
n = 3, k = 2, P = 2/7</p>

<p>And as you know, the mean probability can therefore be computed by:
(16/31 + 1/15 + 2/7)/3 = 0.29</p>

<p>As you could tell, school B was Harvey Mudd</p>

<p>Wow. You totally just got owned.</p>

<p>Do me a favor and don't waste my time anymore, Byerly.</p>