Princeton follows Harvard re: EA

<p>I don't think Princeton can unilaterally introduce merit aid. The Ivy League, as a group, has made a commitment to award need-based aid only. It would take the entire group of eight schools acting together to reverse this policy.</p>

<p>Some of the Ivies already do what they can to attract students with money within the limits of this system. The John Jay Scholars program at Columbia is an example. It offers a lot of subsidized special opportunities but no actual scholarship money. Similarly, Cornell has a special program that provides research funding for the cream of the cream. And it is said, though it may not have been openly confirmed, that some of the Ivies make sure that the bulk of a highly desired student's financial aid package consists of grants, while less desired students' packages may include substantial loans. This option, though, is not available to Princeton, which doesn't use loans anymore.</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>I agree with you, and as I have repeatedly noted, Princeton's "no-loan" policy is essentially a form of merit aid for those in the $100-$160k income range, aimed at preventing losing those students to schools like Vanderbilt which offer merit aid that is called "merit aid".</p>

<p>So I can readily see why they wouldn't want to increase the number of low- or middle-income (the middle quintile being $40k-$65) students. But that doesn't mean they couldn't if they so chose. The students are there, and the money is simply a matter of priorities, as Berea (with much lower alumni giving than most of the prestige schools) has amply demonstrated.</p>

<p>"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>

<p>Right. It would put them on the same footing as Swarthmore (only they would still be offering much more in the way of one-to-one teaching through the conservatory.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Some of the Ivies already do what they can to attract students with money within the limits of this system. The John Jay Scholars program at Columbia is an example.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's merit-discount bidding. Who do you think gets these packages? Students the school most wants to enroll and who are most likely to have other attractive offers. If you go back and find the rationale behind the implementation of these "preferential scholars packages" at the few remaining need-only schools, you will almost certainly find references to increasing pressure from explicit merit aid bidding.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This option, though, is not available to Princeton, which doesn't use loans anymore.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Loan free" across the board is also a significant form of merit-discounting bidding. Remember that at least half of the "loan free packages" are to families making above $80,000 per year.</p>

<p>So which Ivy is going to be the last holdout to keep an E-something program??</p>

<p>Taking all bets....but my money is on and at Penn!</p>

<p>Currently, once a student is enrolled at Princeton, she or he has a great deal of access to grant money for study abroad, summer internships, and research. In order to get these the student applies for each one, gets recommendations from professors, does interviews, etc., and this process has become more and more competitive as the class size grows and the number of top academic students increases. </p>

<p>If the university wanted to, it could easily designate a group of students James Madison Scholars or -- perish the thought! -- Bill Frist Scholars and guarantee them funds for study abroad the summer after freshman year, funds for an internship junior year, and funds for research during junior and senior years, along the lines of the honors scholars programs at the "public Ivies." They could also make it clearer to applicants that they have many opportunities to take advanced grad courses, like this student (whom I do not know), Glen Weyl: <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/79/09M54/index.xml?section=topstories%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/79/09M54/index.xml?section=topstories&lt;/a> This approach would not cost the university an extra cent and would not take away funds from students who qualify for financial aid on the basis of need. </p>

<p>They could also expand on concepts such as the summer humanities program, which has been mentioned by various students here on cc as a way of drawing top humanities students into the university.</p>

<p>By identifying and grooming top students in this way they are likely to increase their numbers of Rhodes Scholars, etc., which seems to be a big goal.</p>

<p>Do I love these ideas? Nope. As a Brown alum, I'm all in favor of college as a time when students should be able to explore like kids in a candy store, rather than be sorted and ranked the way they were in high school. But with Princeton eliminating the early option, I suspect they will offer these sweeteners in order to keep attracting superstars.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It would put them on the same footing as Swarthmore ...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not exactly. If binding ED ended across the board, it is my contention that the few remaining need-only schools would begin explicit use of merit-discount bidding. Let's call it the era of unrestricted free agency.</p>

<p>In a system of unrestricted free agency, the winners will be the schools with the largest per student endowments. That's why a school like Princeton is willing to take the "magnanimous" step of ending their ED program.</p>

<p>Oberlin will get killed in a bidding war. They are already challenged by the cost of bidding for students from less-selective colleges. Now, they have to bid against Swarthmore, which has nearly 4 times the per student endowment? Swarthmore has $29,000 per year in spendable cash money from the endowment for every student. Do you really think the big money schools are going to sit with their hands tied behind their backs and get outbid for the students they want?</p>

<p>They will today because the ED program ensures them of the class they want with the added benefit of having highly enthusiastic students. End that program and the school will find other means to get the class they want...largely at the expense of schools like Oberlin.</p>

<p>The losers in the free agency system will be low-income need-aid students and colleges with smaller per student endowments -- just like free agency in sports favors wealthy teams over small market teams and superstars over rank and file players.</p>

<hr>

<p>Here's a little background reading, an essay by Michael McPherson (Wiliams College) Morty Schapiro (Dean of USC at the time). It is specifically on the topic of LAC pricing, but the analysis applies equally to most private univerities as well:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/mcpherson_article.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/mcpherson_article.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here is an interesting article on the subject:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24901,filter.all/pub_detail.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24901,filter.all/pub_detail.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Re the above American Enterprise article:</p>

<p>"....potentially leading to a landslide against early admission, harming everyone." </p>

<p>[echoing Epiphany's brilliant post on this thread ;)]</p>

<p>The other thing to note -- sorry if it's been mentioned, haven't microscopically read the whole thread -- is that elimination of all early rounds (if there will be a domino effect) advantages the very wealthy with regard to application fees for all those extra apps. Presumably the low-income can still get their fee waivers, but most of the middle-income would not qualify, so the previous "advantage" I saw for them (in that they had no income hook for early rounds) is thereby reduced -- not for admission consideration but for strategizing which colleges they must eliminate do to family budget limitations.</p>

<p>FYI:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/09/19/opinion/15834.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/09/19/opinion/15834.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Columbia just announced today that it also is eliminating loans for students from families earning under $50,000 a year. Keep in mind that Columbia is the most expensive of the Ivies, and also already has the largest percentage of Pell Grant recipients enrolled. Link:<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/06/09/lenfest.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.columbia.edu/cu/news/06/09/lenfest.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The AEI article is fine, but it only focuses on student pain, not the ripple effect for the colleges of adding maybe 100,000 applications, among maybe 40-50 schools, from students who are highly qualified, but without adding any more actual applicants.</p>

<p>By the way, there already is a form of merit being doled out at all of these supposedly "need only" schools. It is the preferential packaging of financial aid, based on the desirability of the student. This is one of the answers to Mini's excellent, and much asked question, as to why the amount of institutional financial aid doled out from year to year doesn't change much at the elite schools if they're supposedly need-blind. The answer is simple: every admitted student with equal need does NOT get the same financial aid package. Those deemed most "desirable" get the better package (i.e., grants, little or no loans). This is, in my opinion, no different than need-based "merit scholarships." </p>

<p>Of course, even the wealthiest school does not have unlimited resources so they have to set goals for doling out the funds. Obviously, like any business, you're going to apply your expenditures where they best help you meet your objectives and needs.</p>

<p>Chefmom:</p>

<p>I totally agree with the alumni letter to the editor. Taking Harvard's bait is a lose/lose for Princeton.</p>

<p>In many ways, the whole issue smacks of "sloganeering" instead of hard policy choices in political campaigns. There are many reasons that elite colleges favor the wealthy in admissions. Early Decision is a convenient straw-man to deflect attention from the real issues.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The AEI article is fine, but it only focuses on student pain, not the ripple effect for the colleges of adding maybe 100,000 applications, among maybe 40-50 schools, from students who are highly qualified, but without adding any more actual applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's the real shame. The biggest problem with the system is that it is so inefficient in self-selection. Students who most want to attend a college and the college that most wants that student really struggle to match up with each other. Everyone is buried under too many applications, often from students the college doesn't want and to colleges the student doesn't want.</p>

<p>Early decision is the only part of the system that functions efficiently for students who have researched colleges and found one that lights their fire. It's a win/win for the student and the college.</p>

<p>Yet, this seems to be the part of the system that is on the verge of being discarded. How will that improve the process?</p>

<p>Marian's post #27 ... brilliant!</p>

<p>ED forces kids to make hard-eyed, calculating choices about what school they have a "real shot" of getting into. These are kids. They should dream, not calculate. ED crushes the soul.</p>

<p>I think "dreaming" about schools is ridiculous, though that's only me. (I still have nightmares about the 4th grade, though.)</p>

<p>"The biggest problem with the system is that it is so inefficient in self-selection. Students who most want to attend a college and the college that most wants that student really struggle to match up with each other. Everyone is buried under too many applications, often from students the college doesn't want and to colleges the student doesn't want."</p>

<p>I think you are spot-on, and it is why I continue to insist that the fact that a college rejects more students doesn't actually make it more "selective". But this is why the elimination of early applications may be very good for H. and P. (and 3 or 4 others), where "lick-and-prayer" applications are thrown in for folks who have no particular reason for attending the school other than "prestige", but may not be universally applicable. If I were the admissions office at H., I would hope that no schools follow my lead.</p>

<p>And it won't make one iota of difference to low or middle-income ($40k-$65k) students unless there are changes in the admissions office itself.</p>

<p>
[quote]
ED forces kids to make hard-eyed, calculating choices about what school they have a "real shot" of getting into. These are kids. They should dream, not calculate. ED crushes the soul.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With all due respect, oh puhleeze.</p>

<p>This isn't torture in a CIA prison.</p>

<p>Kid visits colleges. Kid really likes one the best. Kid determines that he or she is a plausible applicant to the college. Kid applies Early Decision. Kid gets acceptance letter on December 15 and enjoys the final months of high school with zero college application pressure.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]

Yes. (ten chars)</p>

<p>From the American Enterprise article (the "him" refers to a hypothetical applicant:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Early admission makes him better off even if he is rejected. After rejection, he can revise his pool of applications to other schools accordingly. In particular, he can focus his efforts on schools that are slightly below his first choice in the rankings, but good fits nonetheless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is nonsense, written by someone who hasn't been anywhere near a real high school guidance office lately. In the real world, high school guidance offices need weeks to process their portions of students' applications. They set deadlines by which students must submit requests for transcripts and guidance counselor recommendations. Those deadlines are usually a month or more before the college's deadline. Many competitive colleges have RD application deadlines in early January. At my daughter's school, the deadline for transcript/GC recommendation requests for schools with January deadlines is the day before Thanksgiving -- well before the dates when students receive their ED decisions. Thus, students don't have the opportunity to add additional colleges to their lists after an ED rejection arrives.</p>

<p>In fact, in some instances, it's ALREADY too late for students who are applying ED to modify their lists of RD backups. At my daughter's school, requests for teacher recommendations must be made a month before the college's application deadline, and many of the teachers require students to submit all of their requests and stamped envelopes at once, both ED and RD. Thus, the list is set in stone by October 1, one month before the usual November 1 ED deadline. My daughter submitted all of her recommendation requests to the two teachers who will be writing recommendations for her last week (and it's a good thing she did; one of those teachers has already reached her recommendation quota and is now turning students down). For her, the "choosing colleges" part of the process, for both ED and RD, was over by September 15.</p>