<p>I still do not understand this reasoning. Most students, regardless of socioeconomic position, will be "up" on admissions requirements and application timelines to their school(s) of choice. If the problem is lack of information or of inadequate counsiling in their schools then an additional two months to apply does not seem to be a good way to address the problem. Do you think anyone who did not apply ED but who wanted to go to PU didn't apply RD? If the problem is lack of diversity in the ED round, that could easily be handled by the admission comittee in selecting a more diverse group. It would seem that the solution to the problem PU is citing for their change in policy would be to do a better job of getting the word out about how ED works and to promote ED among the population they are trying to attract.</p>
<p>Windworth,</p>
<p>Princeton faced two related but ultimate separate problems with ED. First, for those who were aware of the details of the ED program and well-informed about the college process, some declined to apply ED because they feared that it would eliminate their leverage to increase financial aid by playing schools off against each other. Nassau Hall partially rectified this by establishing extremely generous and highly promoted financial aid policies (such as the elimination of loans), but nevertheless the perception remains among many low-income applicants who are in the know that being accepted ED will put them at a severe disadvantage in bargaining with the university. While no statistics have been released to support this view, I believe it has some merit. Moreover, for those whose primary concern is financing college, getting a more generous package from a slightly lesser institution is often a better deal than paying more for a school like Princeton. Being accepted ED takes away the chance for them to compare offers, not to mention bargain with the financial aid office.</p>
<p>So that means that no matter how much information is put out, the ED pool will permanently remain highly biased toward middle and upper income applicants. The only (theoretical) way to reduce this structural bias is to institute an EA policy. However, as I noted above, EA is also imperfect. This is where lack of information is important. It's true that improved marketing and information distribution (which Princeton and its peers have been doing) alleviates this somewhat, but that strategy has serious limitations. Princeton has limited recruitment resources and a limited window in which to deploy them. Thus, by necessity, recruitment focuses on dense urban and inner-city areas where the university will get the most for its efforts. To be sure, this captures some significant percentage of potential low-income applicants, but far from a majority. Most low-income students who would be ideally suited to Princeton are those of exceptional and unusual talent who are one-in-a-generation within their communities. So a town in, say, the northwest might have one Princeton-caliber student every ten years. And each year it'll be a different town that has a graduate with the aptitute to qualify for admission. So there's no economical way to reach these people and educate them about the reality of EA. Instead, they get their information (often faulty) from guidence staff and friends, and end up shying away from early admission (or not even being aware of it). There's no feasible way to correct this except through guidence counselor education, and even then most guidence counselors at these places wouldn't have any experience with Princeton admissions and thus themselves be prone to believing myths.</p>
<p>The one constant here is regular decision: everyone knows about it and thus everyone who wants to Princeton would at least apply RD. This makes the regular round the best time to capture disadvantaged applicants.</p>
<p>You suggest selecting a more diverse group during ED. Directly, this isn't possible. There are a dearth of qualified underrepresented applicants during early decision, and the school isn't about to lower its standards by admitting unqualified people. One possible solution, playing on that, is to restrict admission during the early round so that more spots could be allocated during regular decision. This is, to an extent, what happens now: legacies, athletes, middle and upper class students, etc. are predominantly admitted during the early round, and minorities are highly admitted during the regular round (cf. The</a> Early Admissions Game).</p>
<p>However, this strategy hasn't worked as well as planned. Although I can't say for sure, I speculate that schools are hesitant to defer students they ultimately might admit en masse. At the moment, the prevailing attitude is that early admission is essentially the same as (or more generous than) regular in that schools admit those who are qualified and defer / reject those who are not. To unilaterally convert it into a system where only the most elite applicants are selected (in order to save space for more diversity later) wouldn't play well with those who are strong enough to probably be admitted but some of whom the university might want to set aside in favor of minority applicants. So, for example, suppose that 50% of the currently accepted early students weren't strong enough to be guaranteed admission over all others. Ideally, then, the university might prefer to defer them and then accept maybe 75% of them, filling the other spots with underrepresented candidates that are preferred. These 50% would not be pleased to be deferred. In fact, some would certainly be upset and hold a grudge against the school: you didn't want me, so now I don't you. Moreover, deferral forces them to take a serious look at other schools, which they might even come to like better (maybe they psychologically invest themselves in an alternative school in order to cushion themselves from the threat of rejection from Princeton). I personally know of someone who applied ED to Princeton, was deferred, and then took a preference to Harvard instead. In any case, some of these desirable applicants who'd be admitted in the regular round after deferral would turn away from Princeton, leaving the pool of accepted students weaker overall. With admission restricted to just regular decision, those psychological factors wouldn't come into play.</p>
<p>As an aside, I actually believe that Princeton should adopt an SCEA policy. I think it would encourage more diversity while at the same time preserving greater control over class composition and giving students the opportunity to be accepted early to their first choice and thus have less stress and more security during their senior year. However, the university has valid reasons behind elminating ED, and in light of Nassau Hall's goals it's certainly an improvement over the status quo.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most students, regardless of socioeconomic position, will be "up" on admissions requirements and application timelines to their school(s) of choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>College Confidential itself continually illustrates that many high school students are slow in gaining helpful information about the college application process. But the minority of all high school students who post questions here are much luckier than many high school students--including many high school students Princeton would be happy to admit--with poorer information channels. I trust Princeton's reasons for going to single-deadline admissions were stated sincerely, and I commend Princeton for adopting that policy.</p>
<p>yeah, it's really sad how little kids know about the college info. process at my school. terms that we throw around CC are completely foreign to them. I know if I weren't self-motivated I would be like the rest of the kids at my school. </p>
<p>I think ridding of e.d. will give them at least a little more time to catch up and figure out what's going on.</p>
<p>I think that after analyzing the process in a few years Princeton will discover that removing ED didn't really benefit anyone, and reinstate some kind of early problem, most likely (hopefully) some kind of EA program.</p>
<p>hmm... you may be right. after all, Princeton may be losing kids to Yale...</p>
<p>Though eventually Princeton may once again adopt some form of early admissions, I doubt it will come so soon. Pride, if anything else, will prevent the current administration from admitting to a blunder that cuts to the core of its grand vision of the Unviersity. Moreover, while eliminating ED may not prove especially beneficial (though we'll see), the downside potential is not much more than a sting: tolerable and not compelling enough to rouse up serious opposition. Until then, institutional inertia prevails.</p>
<p>Personally I think it is just as likely that the Princeton peers will join Princeton in going to a single-deadline system. I expect Harvard to stick with a single-deadline system, and that's good company for Princeton.</p>
<p>I'd really like to know how Princeton intends on maintaining a yield of just under 70% without ED.</p>
<p>Since the yield from ED applicants is essentially 100% and this comprises roughly 50% of the incoming class, the current RD yield is around 50% (give or take a couple percent). To me it looks like getting rid of ED (even with increased use of the waitlist) is going to increase the acceptance rate and decrease the yield significantly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd really like to know how Princeton intends on maintaining a yield of just under 70% without ED.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't, at least not in the near-future.</p>
<p>I think it's an odd combination. With a yield traditionally lower than those of H and Y, why would Princeton get rid of ED and shoot themselves even more in the foot? They've got to know that acceptance rates are going to climb and their no. 1 spot on USNEWS is going down...not that it means anything.</p>
<p>Perhaps Pton will be easier to get into than Wharton RD</p>
<p>I don't expect Princeton to become especially easy to get into next year, and I don't expect it to be outrageously beat up on yield. It is still Princeton. With all of Harvard's applicant pool and all of Princeton's on a single-deadline system, students who strongly prefer one over the other can best do that by not applying at all the less preferred school, but both the Princeton and the Harvard admission offices will deal with more uncertainty next year. But as long as Princeton is the same kind of college it has been for quite a while, it will still be able to attract a great group of applicants, many of whom will matriculate if offered admission.</p>
<p>Arguably it already is easier to get into.</p>
<p>How do you figure?</p>
<p>Well from personal experience I got rejected from Wharton (ED, deferred then rejected RD) and accepted to Princeton.</p>
<p>Really though they're about equal percentage wise and the strength of the applicants is fairly equal so it's a tough call.</p>
<p>wharton had a 5% rd and a 9% overall rate (~475/5500). so they're comparable - i got rejected to princeton and accepted to wharton. at that level, it's just luck...</p>
<p>There you go...lol.</p>
<p>With regards to P and H being on a single deadline system now, bear in mind that Harvard has been using non-binding EA so I don't imagine the single deadline will have any impact on its yield.</p>
<p>P is a great school and you have to be fantastic to get in, but the stats show that H and Y are preferred. However, they used ED to fill a large proportion of the class, and I am pretty sure they will see a dip in yield (though not a big hit.) Just look at that Calculus fellow - ED to Princeton and he still wanted to get out of it!</p>
<p>Actually, P might try to be like Penn and game yield i.e. reject those whom they think are going to H and Y. I have a feeling expressed interest is going to be even more important this year.</p>
<p>I doubt any Tuft's Syndrome will come into play with Princeton considering very many cross admits to Harvard and Yale (although a minority in Harvard's case and Princeton with a slight disadvantage to Yale) still choose Princeton every year. I don't think the admissions office would weaken the incoming class to that degree just to get a higher yield. More likely they will accept all the very strongest applicants with an eye on a yield a couple percent below this year's (maybe around 60-65%), but not expecting the actual yield to reach that number, then fill out the class with the waiting list.</p>
<p>Good luck getting into Penn btw PennFan2012...but don't get too attached. It seems competition has heated up alot these past couple years.</p>