<p>
[quote]
The Boston suburbs have a wealth of excellent public schools whose students aspire to Harvard and MIT, like other public school students in the country and who qualify for admission. The same does not apply to the New Haven area.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You may be on to something here. I grew up in Connecticut, less than an hour's drive from New Haven. Nobody in my high school wanted to go to Yale. We knew what New Haven looked like.</p>
<p>Also posted on college admissions, but discussion is more active here and I really do wonder if others have a similar take.</p>
<p>I have a different, more cynical take on the decisions by Harvard and Princeton to abolish EA/ED. While there may be some marginal benefit to some socio-economic classes (I still have not figured out yet how/why anyone is disadvantaged by an EA program), Harvard, Princeton and the other top schools that follow are reaping a fabulous public relations windfall while the true cost to them is very, very low. H and P will still get their pick of the country's top students and their yields will not be hugely impacted as they win a high percentage of their cross-admit battles. </p>
<p>The true impact is going to be felt by the next tier of schools, ie, USNWR ranked schools approx 5-25. Consider the following: Take all of the early admittees to the top 5 schools in the country (estimate 500 admittees per school) and throw these students back into the RD application pool. Because the certainty of acceptance at their top choice is now not clear, these top students will be applying to a lot of other schools (probably anywhere from 5-15 more schools per student) to ensure that they have a college acceptance to a top school. This will have the effect of inflating the applicant pool at many schools in the next tier and making the competition for those spots even more difficult. This obviously hurts the other applicants and also makes the job of the admissions committee more difficult as the applicant pool is now larger and stronger. However, when RD decisions come out in the future, H an P and the 2-3 others at the very top will mostly get who they want. The other schools will probably end up admitting more students than they have historically, but they will see their yields decline (perhaps sharply). </p>
<p>The result of the new system is that it will create a "separation effect" that will reasonate even more strongly than it does today. The winners will be H and P as their prestige level will climb even higher (if that is possible), they will still get most of the kids that they wanted in the first place, and they will get tons of positive publicity for how "fair" they have made the admissions process. The other winner will be the handful of students who are theoretically being disadvantaged by the current system. (Key question: does anybody have any data that indicates just how many students really are hurt by the current system?) </p>
<p>As for the other Top 25 schools, perhaps they will be able to attract a few of the top students who otherwise would have committed to Princeton (ED) or indicated Harvard as their first choice (EA). But the reality is that, for the next tier of schools, the applicant pool is likely to be bigger and much stronger. And if the top students do ultimately get into Harvard or Princeton or one of the other very top schools that may decide to go this route, then the lower ranked schools will see their yields negatively impacted. This will be the separation effect that I mentioned earlier. </p>
<p>And if anyone thinks that the pressure is going to be lessened because of the stretching out of the process until April 1, I could not disagree more strongly. It is going to make for a very loooooong and tense senior year for many students who otherwise could have reduced some of this pressure via the early application process. </p>
<p>So, bottom-line, Harvard and Princeton are being cast as heroes when the true cost to them is minimal. IMO, the longerlasting and more meaningful impact of their abolition of ED/EA is that many, many more students may find the admissions process even more competitive at the next tier of schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think interesteddad is way off base if he thinks that private school and public school apps go into different piles at Harvard and Yale, or anywhere else for that matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think I ever said that. The public/private percentages are more a function of the size of the various piles at each school...and to, some extent, what kind of students decide to matriculate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mini and Int-Dad make it sound as if hooks are the first cut. And further, what's insulting about that is that it also implies that academic excellence is the last thing being considered (the "leftovers" in the pie). That is not the way the process works, as I have been told.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The inner workings really don't matter as long as the result is the same. Simply look at "admissions" as a black box that produces a consistent result year after year after year. The design details of the circuitry inside the black box is largely irrelevant; it's the result that mattters.</p>
<p>The slice of the pie analogy is important in understanding admissions. I had always been puzzled by all the hand wringing about how difficult admissions is today. Puzzled, because when you look at historic data, acceptance rates are no different than they were back in the 1970s.</p>
<p>Then, I considered the pie and it all makes perfect sense. For a century or more, the exclusive customers of "elite" colleges were affluent white families from the northeast corridor. Now, the traditional exclusive customer base has seen its slice of the pie at these schools decline by 30%, 40%, or even more. So, of course, admissions looks "more difficult" to this group. They are not necessarily inclined to consider that elite college admissions is infinitely MORE accessible to groups who were historically barred at the door.</p>
<p>'been sayin' the same, dajada. :)</p>
<p>Interesteddad, good follow-up points. (Particularly about the hand-wringing & the illlusion of significantly greater competition versus formerly.) I do think it is significantly less <em>predictable</em>, though, & that is the difference & that causes the "hand-wringing."</p>
<p>Obviously, I agree with dajada, having said the same thing several times.</p>
<p>We have spent so much time discussing Yale and Stanford (I think their SCEA programs will have to die) and Brown and Penn, etc. (who will probably keep ED for a year at least to see what happens), but no one has speculated on what happens at the "elite EA" schools: Chicago, MIT, Georgetown (and Cal Tech, too, although it's much smaller). </p>
<p>When Harvard went from EA to SCEA in 2003, Chicago's early applications decreased by 17% and Georgetown's and MIT's by 20% (which, frankly, is surprisingly little). So that is a pretty good measure of the Harvard effect, standing alone. But the previous decline was in the context of all the rest of the Ivies, Stanford and Duke having ED programs. And early applications at all three schools have pretty much rebounded to just-shy-of-2002-peak levels. </p>
<p>It is hard to imagine that in a world where HYPS have no early admission program, and the rest of the pack stays with ED, Chicago and MIT wouldn't see a huge increase in their EA applications. That is about 10,000 early applicants up for grabs. Assume 1,000 of them apply to ED schools that do not permit simultaneous EA applications, there are still 9,000 kids who could file one or more EA applications at these schools, which currently get about 3,000-4,000 EA applications apiece, and which have a huge overlap in target market with HYPS. It's hard to imagine less than a 50% increase, and not at all hard to imagine their numbers doubling.</p>
<p>Can the existing staff process this? But, more importantly, what the hell do they do with another 2,000-3,000 applications, all from students who (statistically) would prefer HYPS, and a significant portion of which will in fact be accepted at HYPS? Especially since it won't be possible to tell an "I would have applied EA to MIT anyway" application from an "I would have applied ED to Princeton if I could" application. Now, at least they know that all of their EA applicants have decided not to apply EA/ED to HYPS (and, in Georgetown's case, not to apply ED anywhere).</p>
<p>And, of course, if the rest of the Ivies and Duke follow Harvard's path, that probably bumps the potential EA applicant pool by ANOTHER 12,000-14,000. Yikes! </p>
<p>It's not as bad as all that, of course. A big part of any increase would just be a shift from RD to EA. Of the 10,000 (or 24,000) potential additional EA applicants, probably 7,500 (18,000) would not have been accepted EA/ED at HYPS (Ivies+Duke), and so would have been potential RD applicants at Chicago, etc., anyway. The net application increase at these schools may only be a couple thousand apiece. But, still, that's plenty enough to cause some real confusion about acceptance standards and yields.</p>
<p>I don't think Harvard and Princeton intend that to happen, by the way. But I do think it's an immediate consequence of their actions.</p>
<p>No, it's a little worse now.</p>
<p>I studied this in detail about three years ago, and concluded then that it was only moderately more competitive at a lot of the more selective schools than when I applied. Although there were definitely classes of winners and losers. The trend overall was towards more competition though, I had to admit. I was hoping to prove we had it just as tough.</p>
<p>But in the years since I did that comparison it's become tougher still.</p>
<p>Yes, on second thought, monydad, I do think you're right about the level of competition -- because I've seen statistical studies on this. However, I think it's the "illogic" and unpredictably of it that does cause the most hand-wringing. When one analyzes results, including hook factors, admissions are a lot more logical, however, than first appearances would indicate. And the factoring in of hooks being much more prevalent than even 5+ yrs ago, combined with larger #'s of qualified applicants applying, does objectively make it more competitive, beyond the subjective "feel" of it all.</p>
<p>JHS, you may have to factor that if a school sees an increase of 100% or 200% in its EA pool, but a similar decrease in its yield, they may very well drop the early admission altogether. Why go through an exercise that does not yield benefits for the institution itself? </p>
<p>And for what it is worth, except for schools where ED is not viewed as much a prize (read 75% admission rate) the early admission is mostly based on the statistical BENEFIT of applying early. An explosion in the early applications results in a more competitive (lower) admission rate and ... POOF, here goes the main reason for applying early. </p>
<p>The move by Harvard and Princeton is bold and somewhat risky, but the repercussions of the ripple effects will be compounded down the food chain. The silver lining for other schools will lose its luster in no time. Unless Harvard and Princeton reevaluate their position, the days of EA and ED are numbered.</p>
<p>Brown, Dartmouth and Penn will stick with ED (at least for now)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Getting rid of early admissions won't make it any easier to get into Harvard, which will still reject nine out of ten applicants. But it may make it more difficult for some students to get into college at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, what a profound conclusion from THE expert!</p>
<p>stanford still supporting EA..., Stanford maybe able to avoid drinking H's politically-correct cool aid, since their early app is due (Nov 1) only four weeks prior to the UC apps (Nov 30). Since 40+% of Stanford's matriculants are from California, its hard to make the same case that their EA program disadvantages many students, IMO.</p>
<p>"The dust had barely settled on Harvard College's announcement that it was discontinuing its early action program next year before educators and worried parents began speculating about which elite schools might follow suit. </p>
<p>Not Stanford, said Dean of Admissions Richard Shaw, at least not for now.</p>
<p>"We gave lots of thought to implementing [our] system, and it's a pretty good one," he said."</p>
<p>Epiphany:</p>
<p>Yes. Admissions is more difficult (euphemistically referred to as "less predictable" or more of a "crapshoot") for the category of white affluent students. They've seen their share of slots decline from nearly 100% to 60% or so. But, isn't it infinitely better (i.e. "more predictable") for a Cuban valedictorian from a public high school in Dade County, FL? That applicant was essentially barred at the door of the elite colleges 40 years ago. Heck, there were still "Jew quotas" at many of these colleges.</p>
<p>I just saw this (looking for something else): </p>
<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epaw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_021506hargadon.html">http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_021506hargadon.html</a> </p>
<p>It's an angry comment by Fred Hargadon (ex-Princeton, Stanford, and Swarthmore admissions dean -- definitely someone who has been there and done that, repeatedly, a very articulate establishment spokesman, and a lovely, intelligent person) on the Karabell book a few years ago. In the course of it he explains his preference for ED over EA and his skepticism about E-anything. He also says that he never saw significant demographic differences in the ED and RD pools, and that ED helped rather than hindered his goal of increasing diversity at Princeton.</p>
<p>Also, in 30 years at Stanford and Princeton, he never considered competitive effect vs. Harvard as a criterion to evaluate anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admissions is more difficult (euphemistically referred to as "less predictable" or more of a "crapshoot") for the category of white affluent students. They've seen their share of slots decline from nearly 100% to 60% or so
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you consider "white affluent MALE students," then their share has declined from nearly 100% to 30% or so . (EDIT: This is at the Ivy League schools plus Amherst & Williams. Clearly it's different at Swarthmore, Stanford, and Chicago, which have long been coed.)</p>
<p>I'm sure you meant the question rhetorically, I-Dad, but I have no problem answering an enthusiastic Yes. </p>
<p>"In my day," it wasn't so much a question of competition for slots (although that was a Given), as it was legacies. Whether myth or reality, the common belief was that you didn't apply to HYP unless you had connections there of some sort. Therefore, qualified, top students (including Anglo Caucasian) simply didn't apply from our region if they had no known "inside track." Cost was a separate factor but not even the primary factor. Access was about connections & legacies. Period.</p>
<p>I am interested in the backup for the comment that Ivies are as selective now as they were in the 1970s. I have long had it in my mind that when I applied to Yale in 1974, it got about 5,000 applications and accepted about 2,000 for a class of 1,300, but I can't find a source for that. (I did see, however, that the 25-75 SAT range for my class was about 1300-1490, which indicates that standards have come up a bit since then.) I do know that absolutely no one thought I was nuts to apply only to Yale and Harvard, with a profile that would have anyone on CC debating whether Northwestern was a match or a reach today. And that Princeton (to which my school had sent my transcript and recommendations, and where I had interviewed before deciding not to apply) wrote me a letter after the application deadline had passed saying that I didn't have to write the essays if I didn't want to, but that they couldn't admit me if I didn't pay the application fee. So SOMETHING had to have been different then.</p>
<p>JHS:</p>
<p>Hargadon's piece is a great read. Thanks.</p>
<p>He strikes a real chord for me with his contention that reducing the number of multiple applications in the pipeline is a benefit of binding Early Decision. Applications to colleges from students with no real desire to attend bog the system down and must be the bane of admissions offices across the country.</p>
<p>To the extent that ED can pull a significant number of these apps out of the pipeline, the entire system becomes "more predicatable".</p>
<p>JHS :</p>
<p>If you wre thinking about HYP in 1970s. Did you attend an exclusive private school or what? Just curious.</p>
<p>JHS, those were the days before the SAT was recentered. <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/equiv/rt027027.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/equiv/rt027027.html</a> We are all smarter than we might have thought. ;) And I regularly meet people in our age cohort who applied only to one or two schools and got in. It's a different world now...</p>
<p>I attended Stanford in the late 70's. I distinctly remember 9500 applications, with 2500 admitted.</p>