Schools aren’t looking for a middle ground solution - they don’t have a problem. The only people who seem to have a problem are parents/students who thought EA meant getting an early acceptance, rather than getting an early response.
When you ask a question (will you accept me to your school?), you need to be prepared to hear any of the three possible responses - yes, no, maybe later. If you aren’t prepared to hear any of those responses, you weren’t really asking a question, you thought you were doing a pro-forma performance.
That isn’t on the schools, that’s on the student or parent.
There are a few problems with this…1) EA schools don’t want to admit students who are ultimately admitted to their ED school 2) that has resulted in many EA schools not giving out admissions decisions until January in the best case (UIUC for example is in Feb, and curiously is the same notification date as RD), and the number of EA schools pushing decisions later is increasing every year, and 3)some EA schools don’t fully disburse merit aid until the spring probably because they want to see the relative strength of RD admits.
I don’t think EA is reducing the number of overall apps anymore, especially for those who are merit hunting/want to compare FA offers.
If students truly want early options they need to look at rolling admissions schools. Although that’s not perfect either, as some FA packages are not fully clear until the spring because some merit awards come later, such as at Pitt.
Most colleges are going to continue to do what most benefits them/helps achieve their goals. Most of us would do the same if we were running them.
Interesting discussion with lot of good viewpoints.
I feel like we are all looking for some objectivity in a process that is very subjective with so many variables.
I often wonder if there should be ban on college rankings etc so that colleges don’t have to manage the metrics used for rankings.
It’s the same - whether you watch MSNBC, CNN, or Fox - all these “talking heads” that people rally around - that tell us the news when in fact they’re telling us opinions - vacinnes works. vaccines don’t. the economy is terrible. the economy is great, etc.
None of it is news. It’s all opinion - just like rankings are - although they have data to support their opinion - but there is no known actual proven formula to determine what is best - because best is different to everyone.
Even look at “campus” beauty rank. I see Berry College high on most lists - and yet their own students (per Niche) don’t rate it high. I see Bama as high on Niche…but on few lists.
In short, if we had no rank - we’d have no activity on the CC - and that wouldn’t be fun.
Not to mention it’d be a violation of pretty much everything our country stands for.
But i see where you are getting at - it’s dangerous. People choose schools for the wrong reason. People choose schools they can’t afford. People suffer a mental health crisis if they don’t get into the “ranked” school. And for what.
A top ranked school is a guarantee of nothing, similar to a nothing school.
I think that would be viewed legally as limiting an individuals right to free speech and expression as well restricting a free and independent press.
From a practical standpoint that would also suggest you can some how prevent people from ranking travel destinations, restaurants, etc and in essence “ban” sights like yelp.
Perhaps noble (I do think in some instances they serve a purpose) thought but not feasible.
I’ll play devil’s advocate- I found the rankings helpful when my kids GC encouraged them to look outside our own geographic region. GC was concerned about “bunching”- all the top tier kids applying to the same 15 schools, knowing that this was likely a strategy in disappointment for at least some of the kids- particularly those who were standouts academically but didn’t have the “wow” factor with their out of classroom stuff.
You’ve never heard of XYZ college? OK. But look- it’s ranked whatever- let’s investigate. You want to study Chem engineering and all your friends are applying to the same five colleges- how about THESE five colleges which you’ve never heard of (or have only vaguely heard of) which are in the same “tier” as the schools your friends are applying to?
And so forth. So I don’t see the rankings as bad, good, indifferent. They are a tool. You can’t use a screwdriver when you need a wrench, and you can electrocute yourself if you don’t know which tool to use for which job.
But don’t blame the tool! We found the rankings a quick way to expand our kids lists beyond “Pick a famous reach, pick the three matches in a 150 mile radius which have what you are looking for, our state flagship is your safety, done.”
For some kids, that’s all that’s necessary. For others, that’s not a very nuanced way to explore colleges. And guess what- California isn’t the only place to study CS. There are schools in Texas beyond Rice and SMU. There are liberal arts colleges which don’t begin with the letter “B” and are in the Northeast (thinking of you, Bowdoin, Bates and Bard) and there are wonderful music programs even if you can’t get into Julliard. The rankings do a good job of signaling- “this is a program people have heard of, even if you haven’t”.
I rather have rankings based on outcomes … job placement, research, graduation rate etc …that focus on quality of education of certain college. But having “yeild”, “applicants” etc as metrics seems forces behavior that has nothing to do with education outcome.
A school with a high yield will broadcast it - hey everybody, those students we let in will come.
A school with a low yield - CWRU - is not broadcasting it - because few that they admit will come. And it’s why their wait list was offered to 9,760 out of 29K applicants - fully a third - because they know they’ll likely need more.
You can rank based on anything - but again, who determines what weighting each should have. In that sense, it’s still opinion - and each student has different needs, therefore a different “personal” rank.
Perhaps individual category rankings is what you’re getting to - but no compilation.
But again - that’s what makes America great.
Without rankings, without manipulation by schools and families, without need aware, without so many things - this chain would have ended 330 messages ago - and heck, this whole website might not exist
College admission - particularly admission to super selective schools - is not a meritocracy. It has little to do with fairness and a lot to do with fulfilling institutional needs - those needs might include diversity, a good xyz team, a certain % of full pay students, an oboist for the orchestra and so on. Colleges use EA, ED, ED2 etc as ways to meet some of the needs that are important to them. As a result, many students who look super competitive on paper will not be admitted to some of the schools they apply to because they do not fill one of that school’s institutional needs. If a student applies to a variety of schools, this won’t matter because they will be admitted to some of their choices even if it isn’t choice #1. Frankly, this whole EA/ED issue is only important to a small subset of students - high performers who are looking to maximize their chances at a given school (whether that is for prestige or when chasing merit). Most kids don’t have that luxury - they are focused on finding an affordable college option which is often their local public institution.
Why shouldn’t it focus on the university’s institutional needs?
MOMA doesn’t have its curators attending auctions for Dutch Masters or for Pre-Columbian artifacts. That’s not its mission. St. Patrick’s Cathedral isn’t running a festive Diwali dinner, and the Cleveland Symphony doesn’t have Brittney Spears as its Artist in Residence.
Most people understand that college’s get to focus on their own institutional priorities and mission, EXCEPT when it comes to little Susie or Jonny not getting to choose between 15 well known colleges with massive merit aid. Then they go beserk that the process is broken and that admissions officers lie… etc. Do they object when their local Head Start program declines to provide home care to Alzheimer’s patients? No. They get it. Every institution has its own mission, and by definition, that means some part of the population won’t get served.
Let’s start a petition to get the Bolshoi Ballet to start training dancers who are clumsy and overweight, shall we? I’ll sign first!
I agree with you. Unfortunately, much of the kvetching on CC (whether it’s EA, yield protection, ED, TO) seems to revolve around the perceived “unfairness” of elite college admissions when, in my view, fairness doesn’t even enter the equation.
Wow, this post more succinctly described the concerns I tried to raise earlier upthread. Yes, I know an EA school has no obligation to accept my kid. What bothers me is that the EA/ED schools leverage the psychology of insecurity that attends this process.
Here’s how I see the progression and underlying psychology: First, we hurry up and apply EA to a bunch of schools. (Exciting but stressful). Then, if we’re lucky, we hear back in December that our kid has been deferred to RD, but if we really want to show commitment, we should convert EA to ED. Teeth gnashing ensues.
If it’s December, we may be feeling nervous and now we are wondering if we should pull the ripcord and convert to ED2. After all, it’s so easy - all we have to do is click a little box on our computer screen. And ever since we applied EA, we have received so many nice emails and brochures. Forget merit. Let’s convert to ED2 and be done with this process!
To me, that represents a seductive means of persuading some parents/students who never would have applied ED back in September to change their minds in December. Is that a bad thing? Maybe not if you assume we are acting rationally and with the benefit of more info.
But another way to see it is that we have been slow-walked into applying ED. Even worse, if I tell my kid to say no to the conversion (“sorry, we don’t want ED, we will wait for RD”), I’m going to wonder if I have placed my kid in a worse position or whether we would have been better off not applying EA in the first place.
Neither yield nor acceptance rate is used in the rankings of USNWR, Forbes, Washington Monthly or Wall Street Journal. Yield is used as a minimal factor in the Money rankings (1.5%). Schools are not trying to maximize yield nor minimize acceptance rate with the goal of impacting rankings. Each has its own benefit to the schools, but neither is a significant factor influencing rankings.
Look, you can’t have your cake and eat it too… This is all a way for both parties to manage risk /uncertainty in this process. Do your homework, know what the game that you’re playing. There’s a saying in poker: if you don’t know that a game is being played, then you are the game!
