princeton vs. yale

<p>Cambridge and Oxford have long followed an only-apply-to-one policy. Although I am familiar with the explanation Byerly has, I will say that one of the admission committee members put it in a very simple way: she said, look, in November we have x number of committee members reading 2000 applications. In April we have the same number reading approx 12000 (or whatever the number is). Which ones do you think are going to get the more careful reading?</p>

<p>The year Yale went SCEA and was deluged with applications, so many of the poor kids on these boards were devastated. I don't think that upping the early apps drastically is a service to students, actually. It leaves their options open for later and helps financial aid students (and btw years ago I was a finaid student who did not apply early for just that reason, so I know all about this argument) but it makes for a much less thoughtful process. </p>

<p>A more progressive approach would be to simply get rid of early admissions altogether.</p>

<p>Well, Byerly. Feeling a little sensitive lately? Actually, that is exactly how these events happened. After Princeton publicly stated its intention (and reasons) for switching to early decision, Yale’s then Dean of Admissions Shaw (who has since become Stanford’s admissions dean) requested a copy of the paper that had been written by Fred Hargadon at Princeton. Fred sent it very willingly to Yale and Shaw made the decision not long after that to make the switch as well. </p>

<p>As Hargadon has written, (excerpted from his response to Karabel printed in a recent issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly):</p>

<p>“As far as Early Decision vs. Early Action admissions programs are concerned, my suggesting that Princeton should change from the latter to the former had absolutely nothing to do with “competition” with other schools, improving yield, attempting to appear more selective, or any other ulterior motive attributed by Mr. Karabel, albeit his imaginings are very similar to the opinions of other critics that have appeared in the media from time to time over the years. No, I had simply reached the conclusion that Early Action didn’t make sense to me for Princeton. </p>

<p>“For my first 20 years as an admissions dean (five at Swarthmore and 15 at Stanford), we had no early admission program of any kind. In fact, the only time I was aware of such programs in the Ivies would be when a Stanford applicant who had received a positive early nod from one or another Ivy would send a letter to that effect for inclusion in his or her Stanford application, presumably in an effort to impress us and maybe improve his or her chances for admission to Stanford. Of course, when I arrived at Princeton, an Early Action program was already in place. Well, after a few years of stopping everything on Nov. 1 to devote all of our time to reading and evaluating and making decisions on early applicants in time to let them know of our decisions the first week in December, I questioned the rationale for such a program. I asked myself why the admissions staff should drop everything on Nov. 1 to read and evaluate and make decisions on one group of applicants, so that they could be notified of our decisions a mere five weeks after the deadline for submitting their applications, those being offered admission then being given four and a half months to let us know whether they’d be enrolling or not, while the bulk of our applicants would not learn of our decisions until at least three months after the deadline for submitting their applications, those of that group being offered admissions then given about three weeks in which to let us know whether they’d be enrolling or not. </p>

<p>[…] I also suggested some additional positive effects of an Early Decision program. One would be that of reducing the multiple application pipeline, since those admitted ED would be withdrawing any applications they may have already submitted to other colleges and/or not submitting any other applications at all. In other words, if we admitted 500 students ED, that would reduce the multiple application pipeline by anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 applications, assuming applicants at that time were filing, on average, anywhere from four to six applications (an average that has jumped considerably in recent years, in part because of how easy it’s become to apply to a larger number of colleges by using the Common Application). And if one further added the number of ED admits of the group of similar colleges with such programs, the number of applications by which the multiple application pipeline would be reduced would not be insignificant. I also suggested that it was even likely that a school like Princeton having an ED program might make life better for those colleges who frequently were spending a lot of staff time and effort dealing with applicants who were treating them as a backup in the event they did not gain admission to, in this case, Princeton. </p>

<p>[…] The fact that Yale requested, and I sent them, a copy of my position paper on this issue before they, too, decided to move from EA to ED at the same time, should have made it obvious to Mr. Karabel that I was not even remotely proposing ED as a means of competing with Harvard and Yale. Nor was I persuaded by the various criticisms leveled at ED, not all of them completely disinterested. For instance, I have seen no evidence that EA applicant groups or EA admit groups are significantly more heterogeneous than ED applicant or admit groups. And if I’m not mistaken, some EA schools fill the same percentage of freshman class slots with those admitted early as Princeton does with those admitted ED.”</p>

<hr>

<p>Yale’s stated reasons for switching to early decision (announced shortly after Princeton had made its announcement) echo those made by Hargadon. See Shaw’s comments in the following Yale Daily News article.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=7911%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=7911&lt;/a> </p>

<p>"We are never quite sure how many of our early candidates are really serious about coming here," said Richard Shaw Jr., dean of undergraduate admissions and financial aid. "This early decision procedure allows us to be fairly absolute about how many students will be coming."</p>

<p>“The early action option had been a boon to students but a hassle for admissions staff.</p>

<p>“For students, early action provided a risk-free way to ease senior year stress. But for admissions officers, having large numbers of undecided accepted students meant constantly hedging the number of other students they admitted.</p>

<p>[…] "We find that a large number of students continue to collect acceptances even after they have been admitted early," Shaw said. Under the early decision system, that's not a possibility.”</p>

<hr>

<p>I hope this clears it up. Byerly, I doubt that you have any personal knowledge of these events at other schools and are probably relying on Mr. Karabel’s speculative comments. (By the way isn’t Karabel both a Harvard College alumnus and a Harvard Graduate School alumnus?) Either Karabel never bothered to interview Hargadon before making his claims or he simply dismissed whatever Hargadon had to say. I agree with a previous poster who stated that anyone who knows Hargadon personally would know just how straightforward a man he is. If you have any citations from either Princeton or Yale that offer a picture different from the one presented above, we’d love to see them. (Lately, you Harvard grads - and students - seem to be showing a real disdain for citations!)</p>

<p>I see you buy Dean Fred's self justifying version of the truth hook line and sinker!</p>

<p>That's OK ... you gotta RIGHT!</p>

<p>All this has been laid out in a number of posts here and elsewhere, and I hardly feel it would be productive to go through it further with a true believer and Hargadon worshiper. It never pays to argue religion.</p>

<p>There are, however, those at Princeton who don't share your devout nature, even at the super-respectful Daily Princetonian!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/04/05/news/10132.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/04/05/news/10132.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Oh come now, Byerly, no response on substance; just an attack on character? You can do better than that.</p>

<p>Nah ....not an attack on "character" at all; just a lack of desire to debate religion with a true believer.</p>

<p>Frankly, watching the NFL draft - even the second round - is more exciting at the moment than than poking holes in the dubious rationalizations of binding ED defenders.</p>

<p>Well Byerly, I’m sure that the readers of CC will have their own opinions regarding “religion” and “true believers” among our happy group of posters, but if you have no countervailing facts to present regarding the issues I was discussing then I’ll simply let mine stand. The “dubious rationalizations” of those silly administrators at both Princeton and Yale will just have to be judged on their own merits. </p>

<p>Oh yes, and actually, I never said I was a supporter of ED. (You really should read more critically, Byerly.) I rather think SCEA is a better idea. Even better, as an earlier poster said, would be doing away with early decisions entirely.</p>

<p>By the way, with the ticklish matter of authenticity and Harvard students currently the subject of a raging debate on the Harvard board, shouldn’t you be spending more time in that cathedral? How’s the draft going?</p>

<p>The draft is going great from my point of view.</p>

<p>The Patsies get Lawrence Moroney - a steal at #21 IMHO. I saw him singlehandedly dismantle Michigan in the Big House - and then traded up to get Chad Jackson - the consensus best WR available.</p>

<p>Glad to hear you're not a shill for binding ED - even if you shill for Dean Fred, whose career focussed on exploiting binding ED and searching for the "Princeton type" to artificially goose the yield rate.</p>

<p>And SCEA is hardly better - a phony reform indeed.</p>

<p>I'm impressed, Byerly. Clearly, you have more than one passion! I've always enjoyed college ball more than the pros. More mistakes lead to more opportunities for exciting plays.</p>

<p>Are we in agreement that doing away with early decisions of all types would be best?</p>

<p>Shill indeed. Be nice, Byerly.</p>

<p>What would be "best" and what will be likely to happen are different things.</p>

<p>What will supplant ED and EA, IMHO, will not be a principled agreement on the April 1 notification date but just the opposite: a disorderly decline into chaos with some form of "rolling admissions" everywhere.</p>

<p>Just as the NBA is signing high school freshmen, the colleges will be going after hot recruits earlier and earlier. </p>

<p>The battle for top URMs, academic superstars, the limited number competent students in the lowest economic quadrant, and those representing "diversity" of every stripe will soon make the recruiting of athletes look like a virtuous excercise by comparison.</p>

<p>As it is, the "likely letter" (a Princeton invention, by the way) has gone far beyond ED and EA in making the April 1 admissions date a dead letter. It is honored in the breach, at the Ivies and elsewhere.</p>

<p>Both Princeton and Yale admit they send 'em in droves now, and not just to jocks. Dartmouth sent out * six hundred * of them ... enough, together with the ED admits, to fill their entire freshman class!</p>

<p>At Yale, when you add the "likely" recipients to the SCEA admits and the SCEA applicants deferred and admitted later, you account for virtually the entire class. Princeton is more secretive with its numbers, but the same may be true there as well. This is the way things are going, generally.</p>

<p>Even Stanford - formerly content to rely on geography to do their heavy recruiting of non-jocks, sent out nearly 200 "likelies" this year - split between "academic superstars" and "top URMs."</p>

<p>Byerly, I notice you fail to mention that Harvard also sends out these soul-sucking likely letters. For what it's worth, the only school that sent me a likely letter was Harvard (Yale and Princeton didn't). That says something, doesn't it?</p>

<p>I don't know what it says. </p>

<p>ALL Ivies send "likelies" - though not to the extent that Dartmouth does currently, or to the extent that Williams and some of the "Little Ivies" do. </p>

<p>Again, one of those dubious "work-arounds" that, regardless of who started it, undercuts the nominal agreement to send out all admissions notifications on the same day.</p>

<p>I don't know if anyone is still on the original topic here. Pton is the best there is in a lot of respects. But our kid's academic advising (through soph year now) has been lousy.</p>

<p>Re advising, I would def agree with that. The advisors seem to be selected in a somewhat random way. I hear of many students requesting a new advisor. The residential colleges do offer a staff of deans who can be helpful and they bring in reps from the various departments to speak about majoring, but many students do a lot of their learning from other students and from profs with whom they make a connection.</p>