<p>"although it isnt a 'major' factor as they say, why should that give a student more of a right to attend over someone equally qualified just because their parent was there 30 years earlier?"</p>
<p>Nobody has a "right" to anything beyond a high school education. The important thing to remember is that institutions don't make their decisions based on social justice criteria, or simple belief in meritocracy, or because of their fancy mission statements, but because it's in their self-interest to do so. Often times, that overlaps (or appears to overlap) with the aforementioned goals. Other times, it doesn't.</p>
<p>I still don't get it. Why can't minorities get online at their school or something and look up schools to figure out which have ED/EA and apply to them just like the rich people with advisors do? I feel like Princeton wants to accept more people who need financial aid. I definitely understand the reasoning that no one is entitled to a college education, but I still really don't think this is fair in general. I can't qualify for financial aid but I'm not rich. I don't have any tutors or college advisors or anything. My parents just have some money in the bank because we've been saving for college since I was born and not spending a lot. Plus I'm white. Therefore, I am screwed.</p>
<p>People who apply ED don't HAVE to. They're not being forced. I'm pretty sure most people try to lock up their dream school early, anyway, not their backups, unless it's by EA.</p>
<p>With regards to Princeton, remember that although it may have exteremely generous finAid, (a) how many very-low-income families want to go through the hassle of being locked-in with one finAid offer, and (b) how many low income families have information about Princeton's finAid? In both cases, not too many. Hey, I know of some very bright people who never applied to any elite RD because they felt they couldn't afford it (even though they definitely would've received a lot of aid); it's no surprise ED only makes this tougher. Remeber that the rest of the US scarcely has the same perspective as CC.</p>
<p>You've also got to remember that the vast majority of this "college-frenzy" is confined to the upper income levels. Almost every worthwhile private school pushes ("strongly recommends") students to apply early, since counselors here know about the advantage ED/SCEA confers. In a good public school, attitudes tend to be more lax...some counselors will suggest it, others will recommend students to "relax" a bit more during admission season and not do so. In any event, few public schools have the kind of counselor to student ratio that would allow counselors to give tailored advice to individual students. So while good students from good public schools will still apply ED/SCEA, many will not.</p>
<p>The problem becomes much worse when you get to low income schools. Counselors, burdened enough as it is with a horrendously large number of students, simply don't have the time or resources to give adequate advice to college-bound seniors. Their job entails dealing with emotional and disciplinary issues much more than caring about if or what college a student attends (and it's not really their fault, even).</p>
<p>The kinds of advice students get regarding ED/SCEA (if any), in other words, varies wildly and is strongly correlated with a student's economic class (not always, but often). Given the fact that the elites fill as much as 49% of their classes during the early rounds, it makes perfect sense that they're concerned about the economic-diversity of their incoming classes.</p>
<p>I’ll say here what I said in the Harvard forum. I don’t believe AT ALL that economic diversity is the reason behind these decisions. </p>
<p>This problem seems to have less to do with income than a person’s research of the schools to which he is applying. </p>
<p>The only nearly-valid reason I can see for saying that it has to do with income is that students aren’t granted the freedom to “shop around” financial aid offerings. Most of the schools in question, however, meet 100% of students’ demonstrated need; so it would seem to me that the financial aid decisions for poorer students wouldn’t be vastly different among the schools.</p>
<p>Honestly, it’s very easy to learn about ED, EA, SCEA, etc. People are making it seem like this is the most difficult concept in the world to grasp. This is BASIC college admissions information, along with taking standardized test, getting recommendations, etc. Does a lack of wealth really stop a student from going to a library and researching colleges? If a person has the drive to learn (about college admissions), then he can and shall do so.</p>
<p>The fact is, it is rare indeed for two schools to award exactly the same amount of financial aid, whether or not purporting to meet "100% of need" as they define it.</p>
<p>Just among applicants this year on CC who have shared their financial awards with me, it has often been the case that awards have varied substantially; Harvard and Princeton can vary in the case of the same applicant, and, in certain cases some other school can top them both!</p>
<p>This "100% of need" business is still more an art than a science.</p>
<p>I think everyone is forgetting that by going to single-deadline admissions both Harvard and Princeton open up their application pool to a broader array of highly qualified international students, who are generally poorer than Americans but often have awesome stats.</p>
<p>One thing I don't understand about Princeton's move, is that in a NYTimes article, when applicants get into both Harvard and another ivy, (I only remember the stat about Columbia, but it applies to princeton), or say Columbia, 97 PERCENT OF THE TIME they will choose Harvard (princton's stat may be a bit lower, but it's still way up there)! So why would ivies like princeton want to destroy the edge they might get from keeping ED and letting Harvard go its separate way? I understand the benefits of eliminating ED, but we all act on incentive, and I don't get why princeton would give up its chance to get even more highly qualified applicants.</p>
<p>Remember, there are thousands of strong students out there, and even if Harvard gets first pick, it has its own institutional needs - athletes, legacies, URMs, gender balance, economic diversity, geographic diversity, etc etc - so that the potential overlap is far lower than a typical Harvard class of 1,650 or so.</p>
<p>There is plenty of room to recruit a number of superstar classes from those for whom Harvard has no room.</p>
<p>And in most cases, Princeton's large endowment and highly-competitive financial aid program will give it an edge with the cross admits it shares with other schools.</p>
<p>As Byerly always eagerly points out, Harvard will always edge out Princeton and Yale on cross admits due to its prestige and name recognition.</p>
<p>Hopefully 110 West will still be able to construct a class of kids who really love Princeton instead of applicants who spread their nets with the common app hoping to reel one in.</p>
<p>I still think that getting rid of EA for Harvard was pointless. Poor people can apply early just as well as the next person, and in the case of EA they can compare Harvard's financial aid with the aid offered by other colleges in RD because they don't have to commit to Harvard.</p>
<p>And, as the Time article concerning this issue ("When Early College Admissions Go Extreme" - linked in a different thread), EA does give college app readers more time, and I don't think you want to rush them. EA has no impact on financial aid packages, only ED does. It would have been wiser for Princeton to just go to SCEA/EA.</p>
<p>I do not doubt that without ED those of us who just crave lawns will still choose Princeton over Harvard and Yale and selectivity/yield etc. will not be so terrible. Harvard is a wonderful institution but not everyone that Harvard might want will want them. Not everyone who is brilliant and destined for success will want Harvard. Lawns and quiet and a visible social life can be quite compelling.</p>
<p>I must say that I too fail to see the ED drop as a method to create a more diverse and inclusive class. If the admission process is truely need blind then the time at which one applies, early or regular, (based solely on income) would have no effect, in theory, on acceptance chances. If the criteria for diversity is along the lines of cultural, nationality, religious etc. then students wishing this to be a part of their application "hook" should be encouraged by PU to highlight this in their application. The application would then have a section asking each applicant to tell how they would make P a more diverse community. Any of these selection criteria could be used to construct a very diverse class during ED, SCEA, or Regular or with any of these combined. The bottom line with need blind admissions (if really used) is that PU doesn't have a clue what your need is prior to extending you an acceptance. The only way that doing away with ED would be helpful to the economically disadvantaged applicants would be if P or H knew in advance what your economical need was. Maybe they should do away with need blind admissions and institute need eyes open admissions where each applicant is evlauted on need as a part of the admissions process. If you are going to have affirmative action as a part of the process then go hole hog and quit beating around the bushes.</p>
<p>Well I think getting rid of ED is great but for the schools that use EA (like Harvard) I don't understand getting rid of it.The student is not commiting that he or she will attend-they are simply finding out earlier than normal that the school they would like to attend will admit them.It is still the students decision whether to attend or not so how ending EA benefits students eludes me.</p>
<p>Understand that when the early admit rate is only 20%, that 4 out of 5 applicants are not "benefitted" at all - but start their college search with a massive disappointment from which they may be unable to recover for many months.</p>
<p>As result, many panic and apply to far more schools RD than is really necessary, since they must wander the corridors of their high schools for an extended period with a big L for loser figuratively tattooed on their brows.</p>
<p>The primary "benefit" is to the school, which either "owns" the early recruits (ED) or is entitled to a 90-day period within which to negotiate with them exclusively (EA or SCEA).</p>
<p>this is so good .... i think that within a couple of years the ED system will be completely abolished ....
i think ED breeds planning and strategizing .... ppl apply ED to boost their chances and not because they love a particular school... so its excellent this is happening ....</p>
<p>For those who have made a study of this, what are your predictions in terms of the number of applicants, percent admitted, and yield for the class of 2011 versus the class of 2012? Big deal or little change?</p>
<p>i'm not sure on the specifics of the yield etc, but i would imagine that they would do a 'dry run' this year, and accept fewer ED than normal (circa6000, and defer many to RD. This way they can see how well they will cope next year, and refine everything.</p>