Stanford to Keep Present Early Admission Policy

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
1

<p>Stanford has no intention of changing his early admissions policy either. Some wisdom, finally. From the op-ed page of the New York Times:</p>

<p>Applied Science </p>

<p>By JOHN ETCHEMENDY
Published: September 27, 2006
Stanford, Calif.</p>

<p>HARVARD’S and Princeton’s recent announcements that they will soon end the early admission programs they now use to choose part of their freshman classes have garnered a great deal of attention, including editorials urging other institutions to follow their lead. It is a shame that the publicity, so abundant in its praise, has been so short on facts and clearheaded analysis. </p>

<p>There are two very different kinds of early admission programs offered by colleges and universities. Binding early admission contractually requires students who apply early and are accepted to attend the college that admitted them. Nonbinding early admission programs do not require admitted students to commit until the admission season ends in the spring. Students can meanwhile apply to other colleges in the regular round and make their decisions after they hear the results of those applications. Harvard, Stanford and Yale, for instance, have non-binding early programs; Princeton’s early program is binding.</p>

<p>One complaint about early programs is that students accepted early do not have the opportunity to compare competing financial aid packages — they are locked in to attending the college that has already accepted them. This is a legitimate criticism of binding early admission programs, but it simply does not apply to non-binding programs. Students accepted in nonbinding programs can and do compare aid packages from all the colleges to which they are admitted.</p>

<p>By far the most common criticism of early admission programs is, to quote the presidents of both Harvard and Princeton, that these programs “advantage the advantaged.” Critics point out that admission rates are somewhat higher in the early round than in the regular admission round. They assume that the pool of early applicants is disproportionately wealthier than those in the regular round. The conclusion seems inescapable: the wealthy are benefiting from the higher admission rates of early programs.</p>

<p>This reasoning is faulty, however. Consider an analogous situation. If you look at the pool of people who file income tax returns in January, you’ll find that a higher percentage get a refund than those who delay until April. Does this imply that the I.R.S. is giving an unfair advantage to those who file early, that filing early increases your chances of getting a refund?</p>

<p>Of course not: the I.R.S. refund standards are identical whether you file early or late. The difference is that those expecting a refund are more likely to file early, while those who owe money are inclined to wait. The pools are different; the standards are not. Those filing early are in no way “advantaged.”</p>

<p>There is nothing about early admissions, in itself, that gives an advantage to those who apply early. It all depends on whether the university imposes lower, the same, or higher standards to the early pool. Nor can you infer the standards by simply comparing admission rates in the early and late pools.</p>

<p>The admission rate is determined by two things: the standards applied and the qualifications of the applicants. If the early pool is, on average, more qualified, then applying precisely the same standard will result in a higher rate of acceptance.</p>

<p>At Stanford, we actually apply somewhat higher standards to our early pool, since we do not want to accept students early unless we’re confident they would get in during the regular round. This is reflected in the SAT scores for these students: they average 40 points higher than those of students admitted later. It is not, however, reflected in our early acceptance rate, which is indeed somewhat higher than in the regular round. </p>

<p>No doubt some schools give an advantage to early applicants. If so, they are advantaging those applicants; if not, not. The problem, in any event, doesn’t lie with early admissions programs but rather with the standards applied.</p>

<p>How about the assumption by critics that early programs are predominantly used by the wealthy? At Stanford, 36 percent to 40 percent of the students accepted early apply for financial aid; in the regular round only slightly more, 40 percent to 44 percent, seek aid. But even if our early pool were disproportionately well off, those applicants would not, as we have seen, get an admission advantage.</p>

<p>The final charge made by critics of early programs is that they increase the frenzy of the college admission process. This is certainly not true for those students who are clear about their first-choice college: they can apply to that institution early. If they get in, their admissions worries are over. If they do not, they can then submit applications to other schools, but are in no worse shape than if there were no early admission program.</p>

<p>Without such programs, many students who now apply to a single college will feel compelled to apply to 10 or more in order to be confident of an acceptance. This will increase the overall number of college applications, and that in turn will probably increase — not decrease — the pressure felt by all high school seniors going through the process.</p>

<p>Indeed, early admission programs were originally intended to decrease that pressure. Done right, the programs do not give any advantage to those who apply in the early round, and students who are uncertain about where they want to go shouldn’t feel that they must apply early.</p>

<p>The best way to decrease the frenzy of the admission season? Have colleges universally adopt nonbinding early admission programs, and then apply the same or higher standards to the early decisions as they do to the regular round. It’s a solution that’s fair for the students and practical for the colleges. </p>

<p>John Etchemendy is the provost of Stanford University.</p>

2

<p>I assume this was Etchmendy's way of saying he is no longer a candidate for the Harvard presidency!</p>

<p>But I do believe his letter requires a response on the merits.</p>

<p>He fails to acknowledge the real reason schools resort to early programs - their ability to goose the yield rate by reducing the size of overlap pools with competitors.</p>

<p>This year, Stanford's SCEA yield approached 90%, while its RD yield was about 55% - resulting in an overall 69% yield rate.</p>

<p>Similarly, at Yale, the SCEA yield approached 90%, while the RD yield was about 54.5%. By filling a larger fraction of the class from the early pool, however, Yale was able to achieve an overall yield rate of about 70% - a bit higher than Stanford's.</p>

<p>(Yale also, reportedly, admitted 13% of the SCEA deferreds - a far higher rate than that for "ordinary" RD applicants - which probably had a beneficial effect on the RD yield rate.)</p>

<p>Finally, the author of the article fails to point out that Stanford - which offers more so-called "athletic scholarships" than any other school in America - doesn't need to shoehorn its athletic recruits into the early pool, as the Ivies do: it already has them tied up via "letters of intent" which, in most cases, have been sent months earlier.</p>

<p>Particularly when an adjustment is made for the fact that the 5% of the class getting athletic scholarships need not be in its early pool, it is clear that the admit rate for applicants with comparable SAT scores remains at least twice as high for SCEA admits as it does for RD admits. This stuff about the edge being due to early applicants being "stronger" is so much bull - as "The Early Decision Game" graphically demonstrated.</p>

3

<p>Byerly, I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that you don't think those who apply early are stronger candidates?</p>

<p>I do believe that those who apply early are more confident in their abilities, often rightly so, and therefore meet the standard at a higher rate than the regular pool.</p>

4

<p>What I am saying is that candidates with similar profiles are far, far more likely to be admitted applying EA or ED than applying RD. </p>

<p>Admissions types never deny this fact directly, but typically seek to deflect the criticism by talking about the "strength" of the early pool. </p>

<p>I'm not singling out Stanford in this respect, since the same thing has always been true at most schools with early programs - with the possible exception of MIT, where other factors constrain the early pool admission rate.</p>

<p>And think about it: candidates are quite aware of the strategic edge they gain by applying early; if it was harder to get in early, then well-advised applicants wouldn't go this route.</p>

5

<p>Hmm. I could buy that, but honestly, I'm not sure if there's a way for us "outsiders" to deduce the truth about EA.</p>

6

<p>The truth is that for virtually every applicant to virtually every elite school there is a clear statistical advantage to applying early. </p>

<p>This is why most knowledgeable college counsellors advise kids to apply early some place ... <em>any</em> place ... whether or not it is your "dream school".</p>

7

<p><a href="http://www.cornellsun.com/comment/reply/18569%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cornellsun.com/comment/reply/18569&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

8

<p>
[quote]
At Stanford, we actually apply somewhat higher standards to our early pool, since we do not want to accept students early unless we’re confident they would get in during the regular round. This is reflected in the SAT scores for these students: they average 40 points higher than those of students admitted later. It is not, however, reflected in our early acceptance rate, which is indeed somewhat higher than in the regular round.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If this is true, then yes, what this article says is correct. But I suspect that Byerly may be closer to the truth in that many people who get in early would not get in RD. It doesn't make sense to have stronger applicants AND a higher admissions rate unless many strong students are applying early (EA, mind you) to Stanford, but not many strong students are applying RD.</p>

<p>And yes, I think at least part of Stanford's decision to keep EA is to retain its yield rate. EA is probably going to be the main thing that draws students to Stanford over Harvard now, and it doesn't want to lose that now does it?</p>

9

<p>I think that is an extremely short-sighted view for Stanford to take. IMHO, it is better able to go head-to-head with Harvard than any other school, and should not fear competition, as do the elites addicted to early decision programs.</p>

<p>In the coming decade, a far larger fraction of the college-age pool will consist of students whose families are in the bottom economic quadrant - disproportionately Latino.</p>

<p>Stanford shouldn't cling to a program built and operated for the benefit of upper income whites when it is well positioned to deal with the new realities - without the EA/ED crutch.</p>

<p>Perhaps USNews will feel a smidgen of PC pressure to reward schools who "do the right thing" ... and Stanford will move closer to the top - where it was 20 years ago.</p>

10

<p>Did I call it, or did I call it!</p>

<p><a href="http://daily.stanford.org/article/2006/9/28/breakingNewsEtchemendySaysHellStay%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://daily.stanford.org/article/2006/9/28/breakingNewsEtchemendySaysHellStay&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

11

<p>The Stanford yield rate is going to drop substantially if it is the only elite to retain EA. Let's say that Yale follows the lead of Harvard and Princeton. The 10,000 or so applicants who otherwise would have applied EA/ED to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton will now have nothing to lose by applying EA to Stanford. Therefore, the 800 or so students that Stanford admits EA will include far more students who's first choice is HYP than is the case now. The EA yield will certainly drop from 90% to who-knows-what. This is in addition to the inevitable drop in the RD yield. If Stanford was only concerned about its yield and could stomache the bad press (and it's conscience), it would switch to early decision. Within a year or so, Stanford will either stand by its conviction that EA is good for high school seniors, or it will drop EA as well. Maybe the solution is to de-emphasize yield as a measure of academic greatness.</p>

12

<p>A well-designed computer program should be able to spotlight "true" HYP candidates with a relatively high degree of certainty. Just waitlist 'em!</p>

<p>And don't overlook the powerful edge gained by being the school to give applicants their "first kiss" and having them all to yourself for a 90-day exclusive negotiating period! </p>

<p>I'm sure plans are being hatched at this very moment to fly 1,000 SCEA admits to San Jose and then wow them at an elaborate "ProFro" weekend. </p>

<p>Who knows? Maybe the Stanford Band will be allowed off probation to entertain the recruits!</p>

13

<p>


</p>

<p>Byerly, that's an interesting comment to FarmDad's post (which largely states what I think is likely to happen). What would be the tell-tale signs of a Stanford SCEA applicant who "really" desires to attend HYP after a regular round application?</p>

14

<p>Many schools retain so-called "enrollment management" firms to aid them in developing their admissions strategy. Princeton, in fact, retained such a firm to evaluate the impact of dropping binding ED.</p>

<p>They can calculate the odds that student X will or will not enroll based on a long list of factors, including his zip code, previous actions by cross-admits from his school, etc.</p>

<p>I think Princeton concluded, in the end, that it was well positioned to battle for common admits because of its generous financial aid packages, which only Harvard can come close to matching.</p>

<p>I'd expect to see these two schools throw so much "need-based" aid at applicants that it will look like the Yankees vs the Red Sox in a free-agent bidding contest!</p>

<p>Despite their recent endowment success, Yale and Stanford may be wary of entering this particular competition without having a fair idea how they're doing with their early admit group first.</p>

15

<p>So every wicked smaht, non-engineering/computer sci, non-Olympics bound high school senior from Fenway Park to Camden Yards who applies to Stanford EA will be deferred. But will Stanford and Yale have the time and resources to evaluate properly what might be a doubling of their EA applicant pools?</p>

16

<p>"In the coming decade, a far larger fraction of the college-age pool will consist of students whose families are in the bottom economic quadrant - disproportionately Latino."</p>

<p>Stanford is already well situated to compete with the other elite schools for Latinos. It's closer to areas with some of the US's largest Latino populations (except Florida and NYC)...and being somewhat close to home is important for many 1st generation kids (or...at least their families!)</p>

17

<p>Sounds like they're salivating for the opportunity!</p>

<p>To boysima:</p>

<p>Exactly my point.</p>

18

<p>“Stanford is not, at this time, going to make any change to its early admission program,” Etchemendy wrote in (an e-mail to the Crimson). “My greatest fear, however, is that with Harvard and Princeton ending their early programs, the applications to Stanford’s early program will explode, making it unmanageable. That remains to be seen.”</p>

<p>In the op-ed, Etchemendy called the fanfare accompanying Harvard’s and Princeton’s decisions “short on facts and clearheaded analysis.”</p>

<p>“There is nothing about early admission, in itself, that gives an advantage to those who apply early,” Etchemendy wrote, countering Interim President Derek C. Bok’s statement that early admission programs “tend to advantage the advantaged.”</p>

<p>“The pools are different,” Etchemendy added. “The standards are not.”</p>

<p>But the Stanford provost did not propose simply to leave early admission policies as they stand now. Instead, he wrote, colleges should “universally adopt nonbinding early admission programs, and then apply the same or higher standards to the early decisions as they do to the regular round. It’s a solution that’s fair for the students and practical for the colleges.”</p>

<p>But Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education Howard E. Gardner ’65 wrote in an e-mail yesterday that Etchemendy’s argument, while logical, “misses the point.”</p>

<p>“The current terrain is complex and unfair,” Gardner wrote. “It was gutsy for a few universities to take the lead, risk losing some good students, to try to push the overall system in positive (less complex, fairer) directions.”</p>

<p>And, Gardner added, Etchemendy’s “argument—insensitive to the human dimensions of both college applicants and competing colleges—makes him less viable as a candidate for the Harvard presidency.”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514543%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514543&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

19

<p>That is exactly the point I made about Etchemendy in another thread. He is undoubtedly a brilliant logician. But in our criminal justice system, we don't load up juries with logicians in an effort to seek justice. We need people with REAL-WORLD DATA to apply reasoning to policy, and Etchemendy's editorial is not responsive to the data found in the study that resulted in the book The Early Admissions Game.</p>

20

<p>Right.</p>

<p>Like every administrator compelled to defend his school's reliance on an early admissions program, and the huge edge it gives to those who apply early rather than RD, he dodges a direct response and gives us the standard, irrelevant stuff about the "strength" of the early pool!</p>

<p>At least Penn, to its credit, acknowledges the truth about the ED edge, and about its rationale for granting that edge.</p>