Princeton follows Harvard re: EA

Parents Forum
61

<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "gaming the system" but I don't believe my kids have "gamed the system."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you saying that your kids picked their schools without any consideration of the admissions qualifications at the school and whether they would have any shot at admissions? Did they not consider having reaches, matches, and safeties on their lists?</p>

<p>Maybe your kids were so qualified that those aspects of the game did not need to be considered. My daughter was not so fortunate.</p>

<p>In that sense, my daughter did less "gaming" than most. Every school on her list but one was a reasonable match and I think she would have probably gotten into most, if not all of them. But, even then, she "gamed the system" by adding a stone-cold safety school to her list and making sure that she had expressed sufficient interest in attending.</p>

<p>She "gamed the system" by correctly understanding that her first choice school was a reach -- a plausible reach, but a reach -- and doing everything she could to maximize her chances of admissions.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
What is the basis for assuming that the end of SCEA or ED, respectively means the start of merit aid at these schools?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If binding ED were to end across the board, colleges and universities would essentially lose any ability to predict the composition of their classes. </p>

<p>Without binding ED, the most desireable admits at any need-only college will be presented with merit-aid discounts from less selective schools. In effect, they will be bidding for every single student in the freshman class. Remember, today's "need-only" schools have the largest endowments in the country. They are not going to stand by and lose too many bidding wars without changing their need-only policy.</p>

<p>Example: Today, if Princeton is your top choice and you can live with Princeton's definition of your need, you apply binding ED. Sure, you might have the application packet from Duke, but you don't mail it, once you get the ED acceptance letter from Princeton. Next year, you won't hear from Princeton until April. So you will mail the application to Duke, and WashU, and since you have no idea if your list is really targeted properly until months after the last apps are due, about 2 dozen more applications to an even broader range of schools. </p>

<p>So, now you get into Princeton, but you also get a $15,000 discount offer from Duke and a $30,000 offer at WashU-Stl and a full-ride at USC. Do you think Princeton, with the biggest per student endowment on the face of the earth is really going to stand by and let Duke or WashU or USC outbid them for students? </p>

<p>Nope. It won't take three years of that for Princeton to abandon its "need-only" aid policy and begin offering aggressive merit-discounts to wealthier students (either implicit or explicit). The budget is more or less fixed (notwithstanding Mini's believe that Princeton could become Berea). Ultimately, every dollar spent on merit-aid bidding wars is a dollar that is not available for need-based aid.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Are you saying that your kids picked their schools without any consideration of the admissions qualifications at the school and whether they would have any shot at admissions? Did they not consider having reaches, matches, and safeties on their lists?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They had high scores, good grades, APs and other credentials, but as Andison's rejection from Oberlin demonstrates, it's pretty tough to figure out what's a safety these days, aside from a state public school that admits by the numbers. (And yes, they each had/have one of those on the list--more as a financial safety than an admissions safety.)</p>

<p>Aside from the in-state public, there was/is a range of admissions selectivity in their choices, but we didn't think of them as reach/match/safety.</p>

<p>I told them both not to take anything for granted, to think of all of them (aside from in-state public) as reaches. </p>

<p>There are lots of factors not predictable by us--interviews, how the essays grab--or don't grab--the particular committee members assigned to read them, etc.</p>

<p>Older daughter was very lucky and got in everywhere. </p>

<p>We have told younger daughter not to necessarily expect the same (even though her choices happen to be slightly less selective than older sister's and her SATs and grades comparable to older sister's.) </p>

<p>Younger daughter has done some of her interviews and feels that the one that went worst was at a college that happens to be the least selective one on the list. She's planning to apply anyway, even though she's feeling a bit dubious as to whether she has a shot, given her perception of the interviewer's attitude towards her candidacy. (Interviewer was an admissions officer, not an alum.)</p>

<p>I feel confident something will work out for younger daughter. She is on the young side and spending another year at our local cc where she has been dual-enrolled and transferring from there in fall 08 would not at all be the end of the world. (She looks even younger than she is, and she thinks that may have been a concern for the interviewer mentioned above, though it didn't visibly bother other interviewers. It should be noted that she has lots of public speaking experience and can be quite poised in interviews, but does look quite young.)</p>

<p>So there are definitely non-quantifiable factors--I could easily see her getting into the more selective colleges on her list and not into the less selective ones.</p>

<p>But, in any event, we are quite confident that one way or another she will get a good education, because education is what you make of it--and, incidentally, some of her professors and some of her fellow students at the cc where she is dual-enrolled are quite stimulating and inspiring and enjoyable to work with. (She would seriously considering staying there for a four-year degree if they offered one, which they don't. But she knows she has solid transfer possibilities if she doesn't go away as a freshman in fall 07.)</p>

64

<p>I should add, by the way, interesteddad, that it would probably be quite easy for younger daughter to game the system. </p>

<p>I strongly suspect that she would be an ED shoo-in at most if not all of the places on her list, but she honestly doesn't feel ready to make a first choice right now. </p>

<p>And I'm glad she doesn't have a first choice right now...because it reflects an overall healthy attitude that there are lots of places where she could be happy and thrive--including another year at home attending classes at the cc and continuing her interesting work in the community. (Indeed, even if she is accepted into the freshman class entering in fall 07, she may well request deferral in any case. )</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Ultimately, every dollar spent on merit-aid bidding wars is a dollar that is not available for need-based aid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily.</p>

<p>It is possible that Princeton alumni will rise to the occasion and donate funds specifically earmarked for merit aid.</p>

<p>This would be comparable to Caltech, where the funds for their merit aid full rides for 30 entering freshmen come from a specially earmarked donation from Mr. and Mrs. Axline. It is not evident to me that if Caltech had told the Axlines they weren't going to offer merit aid that the Axlines would have said, "Well, use the money for need-based aid instead."</p>

<p>The same could be true at Princeton. If there is a threat of Princeton losing students to schools offering merit aid, it's possible that generous and loyal Princeton alums might come out of the woodwork to offer money to pay for Princeton's merit aid.</p>

<p>As I understand it, Princeton's need-based aid is currently funded entirely by endowment, which may well be restricted for that purpose. So a new merit aid initiative might have to come from new donor initiatives.</p>

66

<p>It takes roughly $1 million in additional endowment to fund each full-ride scholarship deal. So, 30 full-rides would be a $20 million to $30 million gift. That would be the largest gift ever made for all but a handful of colleges and universities.</p>

<p>Surely, any alumni making that kind of gift would be amenable to having the funds support need-based aid. If not, I would seriously question the values being instilled by the college or unversity.</p>

67

<p>In response to gaming the system, i think many kids just are unsure of commitment to second choice schools just due to higher admit rates. In our case D refused to apply anywhere ED because her first choice (by far) school only offered EA. With less than 13% acceptance she was well aware this decision could leave her at a third or lower choice school. This was not enough to up her odds by applying to EA schools she really did not care to much about. Bottom line, a definite first choice and a number of acceptable second choices. No gaming in sight.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
If binding ED were to end across the board, colleges and universities would essentially lose any ability to predict the composition of their classes.

[/quote]

But every place lives with that right now. All colleges rely on estimates of their yield to decide how large a class to admit. If the rules change then they have to adjust these estimates. It might mean that there will be some confusion in the early years-probably handled with greater use of waitlists, but after that, as long as the yield is relatively stable, they will be able to hit their targetted class size. </p>

<p>Of course it will be difficult for Princeton to draw many students from Harvard. Right now it gets a small percent of cross admits without merit aid, and one would expect the proportion to continue. Yes, there will be some who would have applied ED to Princeton, and gone there, who will now be admitted to Harvard. Of course there will also be some who would have applied ED somewhere else, and never to Princeton, who now will apply and be accepted to Princeton. </p>

<p>It is just not that important. High school students, except for a few hundred true superstars each year, are not that differentiated. So H will draw an even larger proportion of the "most desirable" students. So what? Is that a reason for every other elite to design its admission strategy around picking up Harvard's leftovers? Why not worry about educating the students who do enroll?</p>

<p>I don't see an argument for starting merit aid. The elites are never going to fail to fill their classes with top students. If they get a smaller portion of the superstars, then the rational response is to devote resources to making themselves more appealing to all students who have choices, rather than buying a handful of lucky lottery winners.</p>

69

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>Regarding post #35, you say that the increase in college tuition has out stripped inflation for the last few years. Unfortunately, it has outstripped inflation for as long as I can remember . . . and I went to college in the 70s.</p>

<p>I do agree that the overall cost of a college education is what she may be talking about. The measuring stick I would use is what percent of the population would qualify to pay full price. That number has been shrinking for years.</p>

70

<p>I agree with afan on the issue of merit aid. I don't really see the point of tying merit aid with the end of ED/SCEA. I know students as qualified as S in every way who applied to schools known to use merit aid to attract desirable students. They did not apply to Princeton or Harvard because they felt they needed the merit aid. S did not apply to schools where he would have gotten merit aid.
It's been said already that the top schools could fill their classes several times over from the applicants pool. So what if a few get into Duke or WUSTL with merit money? There will be still plenty of qualified students who will prefer going to H or Y anyway.</p>

71

<p>ID,</p>

<p>Unlike some of the others I have no issue with merit aid. Though I strongly prefer that schools meet 100% of the financial need of all their students first (whatever that is).</p>

<p>I have never liked ED. I always felt that it was an unenforcable contract because a major term of the "agreement" was left undefined.</p>

<p>Regardless of my opinion about ED, I like Harvard and Princeton dropping their SCEA and ED policies.</p>

72

<p>I'Dad, although I remain ambivalent about the Early Rounds, I agree with your Post #23. I particularly think that H's decision about EA does not advantage lower-income students.</p>

<p>When I said that eliminating all Early Rounds will hurt everybody, I was referring to the inevitable tsunami of applications -- how that affects the colleges (yield, predictability, etc.) and how it affects the students (multiplicity of apps, entering more lotteries compared against more "winners," greater difficulty standing out as an individual among an even larger herd, etc.)</p>

<p>In purely financial terms, if anyone "wins," it's the middle income applicant, who now doesn't have to be concerned with being non-hooked, income wise, at least for H and P.</p>

73

<p>I'm not sure I agree with the scenario that the Ivies and other elites will start offering merit aid, because so many of their students are top notch that figuring out who they offer awards to would be tough.</p>

<p>One thing the Ivies do not do, and I believe this is part of the initial contract that created the Ivies, is offer outright athletic scholarships. Under this new system, will they have to abandon that policy? Or will they offer merit awards to athletes?</p>

74

<p>In theory, I think it's wonderful that H and P are eliminating Early Admissions. It seems to be the right thing to do on many levels. But in practice, as the mom of a current junior, I'm a little concerned about the impact on admissions for his cohort.</p>

<p>We did not allow S1 to apply ED anywhere (wanted to see how the financial piece worked out) but he did apply EA. It was a relief when he had a few acceptances in hand in December. He also received one of Dartmouth's non-athletic likely letters, which reduced the anxiety in February. (and which was a factor in choosing Dartmouth in April.)</p>

<p>Now that I am finally comfortable with ED, and hoped that S2 would look at Dartmouth ED, the rules are changing. Maybe H and P's decision won't affect other selective schools, but I think there's a possibility of increased ED apps at the other Ivy's. Darn!</p>

75

<p>I don't think the colleges will implement a quiet program of merit aid. I think they are likely to follow the lead of Columbia, which has the John Jay Scholars program, designed to attract the top applicants with extra opportunities for travel, extra events, etc., and, I gather, some aid. </p>

<p>Jmmom, yes, that is the atmosphere I expect in our hs. Worse in some of the ultracompetitive schools around here...Wll the poor GCs find themselves writing recs for every top kid applying to every Ivy?</p>

76

<p>I don't know why people are sneering at "gaming the system". Knowing the rules, following them, and making choices are good things, not bad things, even if you call it "gaming".</p>

<p>From my perspective, Wisteria's daughter is making great choices, but she is "gaming" as much as anyone. She understands that she could probably increase her chance of admission by committing to School X early, but she doesn't want to commit to School X, because she prefers (or suspects that she will prefer) School Y. That's a fine, rational response to the cues she is being given.</p>

<p>By the same token, I don't think there's anything tragically wrong with a student saying to him- or herself, "If the choice were totally up to me, I might prefer School Y to School X, but only narrowly. I believe that I can all but guarantee my admission at School X if I commit ED. School Y will be a crapshoot into April, and if I hold out for School Y I may lose my chance at School X, too. I'm confident that I will like School X and get a lot of benefit from it. So I'll apply ED to School X."</p>

<p>One can wax rhapsodic about "fit" and "choice", but my hypothetical student is probably right: there will be little evidence that School Y would actually be better for him or her than School X. Either one would be more than fine. What's more, once the student commits to School X ED (and especially once School X accepts the student), the student will discover 50 additional reasons why School X is perfect. And they will be bona fide reasons.</p>

<p>In my corner of the real world, kids not only know that they may not be accepted at their first, second, or third choices, and indeed that it may not be worth wasting a lot of energy and emotion on distinguishing among those. They also know that they will need to adjust themselves to whatever reality they ultimately face. That adjustment process begins with creating "the list" -- most kids understand instinctively not only that they should "love their safety", but that they should love their matches, too, and hold back a little on their reaches.</p>

77

<p>"Regarding post #35, you say that the increase in college tuition has out stripped inflation for the last few years. Unfortunately, it has outstripped inflation for as long as I can remember . . . and I went to college in the 70s."</p>

<p>In in the past 12-14 years, it has been well LOWER than inflation for those with income/assets in the top 3% of the population, where half or more than half the students at prestige colleges come from.</p>

78

<p>"Gordon Winston proved that there are lower income students with SAT scores above some threshold. However, his study did not demonstrate that these additional students have any interest, whatsoever, in attending snooty northeast colleges and universities."</p>

<p>For the most part, they don't know about them, and the colleges like it that way. Every prestige college that has gone after them has successfully increased (in some cases, radically) the number and percentage of low-income students who attend. </p>

<p>If they don't have them, they don't want 'em. No particular reason why they should, of course.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
Surely, any alumni making that kind of gift would be amenable to having the funds support need-based aid. If not, I would seriously question the values being instilled by the college or unversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Completely disagree with you, idad. I would embrace the school (and the generous doners) for their compassionate view toward middle class families who are shut out of the elites because of $$$$. I value hard work, sacrifice, and tenacity, all qualities needed for elite school admissions. When everyone is eligible for merit aid, no family is penalized for successes they have achieved. I highly doubt the ubiquitous needs-based aid will be drying up if some merit $$$ becomes available.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
Every prestige college that has gone after them has successfully increased (in some cases, radically) the number and percentage of low-income students who attend.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and now that we have recruiting for a fee firm finding the low income students, we can assign an economic cost. </p>

<p>Each additional low income student costs $40,000 (full-ride, loan free package) plus a $4,000 recruiting fee.</p>

<p>That same $44,000 would fund very attractive merit discounts to four very high-stat wealthy students. Colleges are willing to make the trade-off today because they are comfortable that they will yield sufficient high stat wealthy students. Take all predictability out of the system by ending early decision and the same schools may find themselves forced to bid to yield every student in the class.</p>

<p>The total tuition discount rates will not be allowed to rise without limits. Dollars will shift from need-based aid to merit-bidding.</p>

<p>Read the strategic plans of a few schools. Oberlin's plan to achieve financial equilibribum doesn't call for lopping off 100 slots for wealthy students or ending merit-bidding. It explicitly calls for cutting 100 need-aid slots.</p>