Scrapping Early Admissions

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of Pennsylvania
1

<p>It might seem ironical at a time when all of us are biting our nails waiting for our ED results to come out, but do you think we should do away with the concept altogether? This was something originally suggested by the Yale Dean of Admissions, and even though I have “exploited” this system, I cannot help but agree with him.</p>

<p>Rationale 1: It makes the regular round, which should be the primary source of admission, far more difficult, and discourages more applications. It places immense pressure on seniors, who apply early because of peer pressure. Case in point here is the SAT averages for Penn, last year it was 1413 for EDers and 1434 for the entire class. That means it was 1455 for RDers. This clearly points to a more competitive regular round, and the early applicant pool isn’t as competitive as it’s made out to be. Also, Penn clearly states that 47% of its batch is to be filled by early admits, even before the applications are read. And the ratio of early:regular applicants works out to 2:7, so clearly again that’s a sure sign indication that it would be easier to get in ED. When you have the same number of seats for 4000 applicants and 14000 applicants, we all know where that’s heading…</p>

<p>Rationale 2: Financial Aid offers cannot be “bargained” for under ED schemes, and even under EA, when a school knows they’re your first choice, they’re likely to be in a less than bargaining mood. This makes ED/EA a process skewed in favour of the financially gifted, thereby discriminating against the lower socio-economic classes. Surely this sort of bias can be done without.</p>

<p>Rationale 3: While all of us on this board would bleed the red and blue of Penn if cut (okay maybe not blue!), there are lots of folks who apply early just because of the strategic advantage it gives them, and the boost it provides to their application. I’m sure not all of the 4148 early applicants to Penn this year have Penn as their dream school - a lot of them would have applied merely because it’s perhaps easier to get into Penn, than say, MIT, which has a 10% early acceptance rate. This defeats the basic purpose of ED: to give colleges students who view them as #1. There are a number of students who would compromise on their dream school for a boost to a more realistic school; for example give up Harvard by applying to Tufts early, to “get it done with”.</p>

<p>Early Action is a compromise, but surely even this is dogged by all the flaws listed above. We need a unified admissions procedure, where all applicants are placed on a level field, and not compelled into making choices. A possible Golden Mean: have only one decision process – but let a student notify the College Board of his one and only dream school, a piece of information which is then passed on to the college. If colleges really want to know whether they are an applicant’s #1 or not, this is the way to do it, not through a strategic chess game….on the part of colleges to ensure a higher yield rate, and on the part of students to position their applications better.</p>

<p>For now though, it’s back to biting our nails!</p>

<p>Would welcome your opinions.</p>

2

<p>keeping ED but not advertising it as 'the easy way in' and keeping standards up oughtta be the way. otherwise, i think it does bring forward people with 'subpar' stats to the table for better consideration as these people are often the ones with something to offer. otherwise i hardly think that a 50 point average SAT difference means that ED people are subpar. no doubt this year's applicant pool went up because of the perception of it being 'easier' to get in tho.</p>

3

<p>I actually wanted to add a line saying that I know SAT scores aren't the sole yardstick: but a 50 point difference in favour of RD applicants shows that ED applicants aren't better qualified after all, perhaps it's the other way round. ED applicants bank on the Early Bird advantage significantly. As for the "easy way in" conception, if you have a predetermined 47% of seats to be filled, how can you say it's not the easy way in? College officials should keep 47% as the limit, but not the target. Only kids who meet the basic standards should be allowed in. Then again, everybody wants a higher yield, and what better way to do it</p>

4

<p>agreed... 47% being the target and not the standard is the way to go. other than that i can not see in anyway how you can justify the SAT being a sign of qualification. My SAT is 1290 and yet i took a class at harvard that most harvard students wince at the notion of taking (never mind the fact that it's accelerated over the summer in 8 weeks.) I got a B+. I consinder someone judging ability through the SAT to be quite sad; ivy league would lose some of it's brightest students if adcoms saw it that way.</p>

5

<p>Just a thought - If average SAT for ED is 1413 and average SAT overall is 1434 and considering there is not 100% yield for RD - more acceptances to gain the same enrollment, I would think that RD SATs are closer to the overall(there are more of them). </p>

<p>Also, since many ED acceptances are from legacy and recruited athletes -the real difference in SATs is probably not that much for a non-hook applicant.</p>

<p>You make some great points, though.</p>

6

<p>"Also, since many ED acceptances are from legacy and recruited athletes -the real difference in SATs is probably not that much for a non-hook applicant."</p>

<p>That's the key. It is easier to get in ED, but the scope of it is highly exaggerated.</p>

7

<p>Yea I think when you factor in athletes and legacy, its really not as easy as most people thing for the rest of the applicants. I think Early Action is completely stupid, not a compromise. Even if there are people who pick ED strategically, I'd say most apply because Penn is their top choice. With EA, you can apply strategically, and not have commitment. You still have a shot at your top choice.</p>

8

<p>Your points about legacies and athletes are extremely sound, and I accept that the ED average is perhaps pulled down there. </p>

<p>Also, another point against EA specifically: When a student has been accepted by his top-choice school and still applies to other schools, he is still more likely to go to his top-choice school. This brings down the yield of the RD school he applies to. In this manner, all schools are bringing down each other's yield through EA. And as post #7 pointed out, you have no commitment to EA, so it's even more strategic than ED.</p>