I’m sorry, still not getting it. What damage have you observed? Specifically?
1 Like
Actually, I choose not to present myself as a victim (with no discernible damages) or hapless innocent. I have the ability to interpret and understand the dynamics at play.
I don’t need some public declaration from an institution to confirm that there is no free lunch such as EA. The option to participate resides entirely with the individual. Willful blindness to the obvious is…
3 Likes
Other than bruised feelings, I still don’t get where the damages are here. Is the contention that a kid who believed the falsehoods perpetrated by a college about their ED/EA/RD admissions policies ends up NOT going to college, i.e. get accepted at zero schools because of the misleading/inaccurate/vague statements? I’d be curious if such a case exists-- and that there were no safeguards (like a guidance counselor) saying “You have to have a safety school”.
Every year there are thousands of kids shut out from their first, second, third etc. choice college. Is it the belief here that this is the fault of the colleges which rejected these kids? Even Andison (the poster kid for “I got in nowhere” on CC) learned during his Gap year that it was his application strategy which was at fault- nothing wrong with him, nothing wrong with what the colleges were telling him (basically every college was a reach).
When a college states that their admissions rate is 10%, I guess they should also post that this means that their rejection rate is 90%. Is that clear enough?
5 Likes
Early application strategy is often critical to a student’s success in her college applications these days. Where and how she chooses to play her early application card is one of the few things she could do to enhance her chance of admissions. If she applies EA to CWRU, she may have to give up some other opportunities (e.g. an application to another restricted EA program), not to mention the time and money she may have to spend on an EA application that’s likely to lead to nowhere.
Trying to game a system which can’t be gamed is a waste of time. I’d be telling that student to focus on a couple of safety schools which she’s excited about, to apply to CWRU RD (along with a few other matchy/reachy schools) and enjoy the rest of senior year. What leads to nowhere is trying to find an “edge”.
She could be enhancing her chances of admissions in September, October and November by excelling at her studies, contributing meaningfully to the EC’s she’s involved in, and rewriting/editing her essays so that they reflect the best “self” that she has. How much time and energy has she put into “playing her early application card” (where is that card and how do I get a deck?) at the expense of actually being the kind of student CWRU is trying to attract???
1 Like
Can you provide an example of a college that would prohibit a non binding EA CWRU applicant from applying to their binding EA program? I may be wrong but I thought most restricted EA options were similar to Georgetown which is as follows…
“In keeping with this principle, students applying under the Early Action program may not apply to any binding Early Decision programs since they then would not be free to choose Georgetown if admitted. Students are, however, allowed to apply to other Early Action or other Regular Decision programs while simultaneously applying to Georgetown’s Early Action program.”
So an EA applicant such that you describe wouldn’t suffer the damage you describe. Which schools are you describing?
1 Like
If you call it a game, it’s a game designed by the colleges and students are forced to play. Why do these colleges even do early applications (EA or ED)? Personally, I’d prefer everyone applying RD, but that’s not the reality. In this highly (and unnecessarily) competitive environment of college admissions, students also value getting their acceptances before the year-end holidays. And colleges know that.
Let’s put names on this.
I think you are saying that a kid somewhere who prioritized applying EA to CWRU over Stanford SCEA, but if only that enticing non-binding CWRU EA option weren’t dangled in front of her, she would have taken her chances on that dream school, but now that option (which somehow would have been more likely to succeed than either Stanford RD or CWRU EA despite there being no evidence of that) is foreclosed and now there’s no way she would consider RD for Stanford and that unfair deferral from CWRU made her chances worse at CWRU in the RD round (despite there being no evidence of that), so her options are now diminished.
Do I have that right? Because Even if that kid exists, that seems like faulty thinking and terrible gamesmanship. If the kid had Stanford as the dream school, isn’t the play to apply SCEA to Stanford if there is a snowball’s chance in heck of getting in, and forego the EA round at the lesser schools? And if there isn’t a snowball’s chance, then there is no opportunity loss by applying EA to CWRU and no diminished chance at admission RD.
3 Likes
Harvard SCEA prohibits EA to CWRU (because CWRU is a private college):
If you apply to Harvard under our Restrictive Early Action program, you may also apply early to non-binding public or foreign colleges/universities (no Early Decision programs), but you may not apply early (in any form) to U.S. private colleges/universities.
Yale is similar: https://admissions.yale.edu/single-choice-early-action
And Princeton: Application Dates & Deadlines | Princeton Admission
And Stanford: Regular Decision and Restrictive Early Action : Stanford University
That might be it in terms of restrictive EA options that would prohibit a CWRU EA. So, a de minimis impact on the vast majority of applicants.
ETA: Cross post with catecaparent
1 Like
The colleges didn’t design a game. The colleges provide a mechanism for a kid with a clear first choice in a college, to apply and possibly get an answer before the holidays- as you note.
In the hypothetical you stated, the young woman is trying to decide where to “play her early card”. Clearly- not to her first choice college, since then there’d be no decision! The colleges didn’t create the “early card”- parents and students did. With some enabling by clueless guidance counselors.
Because not every kid can afford to commit early without seeing potential financial aid offers from other schools- even when NOT their first choice (since that’s a luxury that not every kid can afford) and called it EA. And again- parents and students created yet ANOTHER game, where they have multiple first choice schools- one ED, a few non-restrictive EA, and then RD or rolling for the places they don’t care about and don’t want to attend.
Again-creating the game. Playing the cards. The colleges just trying to provide a mechanism for kids with a CLEAR first choice to find out early.
My kids GC’s were adamant- NO early anything without a clear first choice, period full stop. You can’t wander in and ponder “should I “waste” my early card on Colgate since it looks like I can get in there anyway?”. No. No cards, no game. First choice- ED. If you need to evaluate multiple financial aid offers, one EA application to the clearcut favorite. No first choice? Apply regular.
Fantastic, excellent, exceptional results and MUCH less stress and anxiety.
2 Likes
I disagree only one EA. For the 99.9% not applying to schools that don’t restrict EA like was just shown by Harvard, there’s no reason not to apply non-binding EA.
Now you mention Colgate. They have RD and ED. Similar schools like Middlebury and Hamilton are the same. They offer no EA.
Now if you look at larger private schools…Miami, Tulane, Northeastern, Richmond, SMU, etc they have EA and it is non binding.
Perhaps you’ll get an acceptance or denial b4 the holidays. Perhaps one will be deferred.
But knowing early can help, especially if combined with merit aid - or finding out there is no merit aid. Or especially if a presumed yes is now a no. You’d have time to adjust and get in final applications to assure a more realistic option.
In my mind, EA, where possible, is always the better option vs RD.
4 Likes
Here’s one thing I liked about the EA process: essays to these schools were finished in October for November 1 deadline. Kid was accepted at one EA school and deferred at one EA school. The deferral prompted kid to re-evaluate and revise the essays after letting them sit for almost 2 months. The essays are better now. Kid is disappointed in the deferral, but not getting in ended up improving the application to the RD schools. If there were no EA options, there’s no feedback.
7 Likes
Also multiple EA’s/rolling helps applicants time manage better by forcing at least some apps to be done by end of October. Common App will most likely be done, with some time to reassess the Common App essay before RD after putting it in a drawer for a few weeks in addition to possible changes arising from EA results.
1 Like
Also wanted to add that even way back in the 70s, my sibs and I all applied ED to just get it over with. It’s not just the "hyper-competitive nature " that has “forced” kids into this. Even then, it was nice to know early. And not to have to type all those additional apps.
Our CC advised that DS,apply EA wherever they had it to get an answer sooner, either to help him alter his strategy or to take the heat off by showing him that there was an option. It was never suggested as a way to have a better chance. As a bonus, earlier decisions allowed earlier revisits which made April a tad less crazy.
5 Likes
Since this post was originally about yield management, not EA, I wonder how people feel about schools that try to protect their yield that don’t have early rounds. USC would be an example of a school that is accused of actively managing their yield by denying highly qualified applicants.
1 Like
Unfortunately so some EA schools are going to a post Jan 1 notification (UIUC, Mich, and Wisc in this group), which takes away the advantage of getting a read on one’s app and a possible acceptance in hand prior to all of the RD due dates.
I expect that more EA schools will go to a post-Jan 1 notification date because none of them want to admit students who will ultimately get an ED acceptance.
1 Like
But again - what’s highly qualified. And what if there’s too many of the same.
In other words, they’re building a baseball team. They don’t need 5,000 first baseman.
To me, they are actually being fairer with the Dec 1st only date - ok, Jan 15 but they’re really saying Dec 1 for merit.
Per the CDS, they don’t track interest.
So I would think this is entirely the opposite case of yield protection - no ED to ensure a definite attendee. No requirement of interest.
They are taking a big risk but banking on their name.
You can’t penalize both sides - meaning the EA/ED people and now the one deadline school - can you??
I haven’t heard this accusation before (not saying it’s not real).
This sounds like the position that people who want pure stats based admission rather than holistic admission take. All highly rejective schools, like USC, turn away many high stats applicants each year for any number of reasons, including a simple concept that the applicants (no matter how high their GPA and test scores) didn’t fit that year’s institutional priorities.
Agreed. This is a market where both parties (colleges and applicants) meet and transact and hedge their risks, with both sides obtaining and foregoing benefits. Nobody is forced to play this game, and it seems like a bit of sour grapes here. “Win or lose, everybody gets what they want out of the market.”
1 Like
I was just using it an example. There’re other scenarios where one can argue that the student has been disadvantaged. For example, the student prefers EA over ED (who wouldn’t?) so she thought CWRU EA offered her an alternative to her applying ED to another school (which doesn’t offer EA). But she didn’t know EA to CWRU was no better than RD. As a result, she missed the opportunity to ED the other school which she may have had a much better chance, in addition to the time and money she wasted on her EA application.
We seem to be trying hard to find excuses for some colleges’ bad (though legal) behaviors.