Stanford To Keep Present Early Admissions Policy

Parents Forum
1

<p>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>Yup. A reasonable position. And he's going to feel soooo screwed over if Yale doesn't hold the line, too. (Even if Yale does stick with Stanford, I think handling 6-7,000 early apps apiece is going to stress them.)</p>

3

<p>This was posted on the Columbia forum, but no website was given, so I can't verify its accuracy:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Columbia University’s admissions policies are re-evaluated annually. To date, it has not been our experience that our early admission program has negatively impacted our ability to create a diverse class. For example, Columbia’s student of color representation and representation of students from lower income brackets has consistently been one of the highest among our peers. Through a constant review of our policies, we maintain our commitment to providing a fair and equitable review process for all applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

4

<p>Etchemendy is also a brilliant scholar. From a Basque family in Nevada. V. interesting story and an enormous asset to Stanford.</p>

<p><a href="http://www-csli.stanford.edu/hp/etchemendy.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-csli.stanford.edu/hp/etchemendy.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/september27/etchemendy-927.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/september27/etchemendy-927.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

5

<p>Etchemendy is a brilliant scholar, a famous logician, but I wonder if he is really aware of the DATA about early admissions, or just passing along an opinion he has heard from Stanford's admission office. The brilliant scholars who analyzed early admission a few years ago to prepare the book The Early Admissions Game are convinced, and they have convinced me, that an early round of consideration as practiced by Stanford, Yale, or Harvard provides an admission boost to early applicants, even if the applicants are matched for applicant characteristics that matter to admission offices. (Only MIT appears to be an exception to this pattern, in actual practice.) Etchemendy is a great logician, and he should know that when one writes about an empirical issue, it is important to LOOK AT THE DATA and see whether what one would assume to be logical is actually in accord with the facts. </p>

<p>With Stanford now consciously differing from Harvard and Princeton, there is some clear brand segmentation going on in the college admission market. Yes, it will be interesting to see whether or not Yale follows the example of Harvard, Princeton, and the U of VA.</p>

6

<p>SCEA works well for the ... accepted students. It does indeed reduce the stress of applicants who have a clear Number One school, and sail through the single application with positive results. However, one might consider the negative impact of receiving a single rejection and the self-doubt it generates between Christmas and April 1st? Does a student have enough confidence to try his or luck in one of the EDII programs? What if that yields yet another rejection? </p>

<p>It is undeniable that the period between January 1 and March 31 is very stressful. However, with one common announcement period, students have more chances to see a balance of good news, bad news, and no-news. </p>

<p>Just a thought!</p>

7

<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. "</p>

<p>They ASSUME nothing. The Presidents of Harvard and Princeton have the data. (I think he would do better sticking to his scholarship if this is the best he can do.)</p>

8

<p>Yes, I am not convinced by the letter either, my general Stanford bias notwithstanding. I think he ignores, too, the general "college savvy" and the gaming that goes on by well-informed and competitive families, that creates an "in" group of early admits that leaves others feeling out in the cold or too pressured to follow suit and try to find an early admit school too. And I agree with Xiggi.</p>

9

<p>The more I think about it, and the more I learn about it, I can think of absolutely nothing wrong with EA, single choice or no. I don't think HYPS have been admitting students they wouldn't have admitted anyway; if anything, I believe them when they say the standards (athletes and other special cases to the side) are higher.</p>

<p>The gaming, etc., goes on with ED, and the main culprits are the colleges: They set up the game, and kids play it. That's all.</p>

<p>Kids who get rejected or deferred ED are better off because (a) they got an earlier start on their applications, and (b) they get an early indication that they may have misjudged their market position, at a time when (barely) they have a chance to correct their mistakes. Also, if they were deferred they have at least let the ED school know that it was their first choice at some point, which probably helps a bit in March. I think those benefits are worth a bit of realistic stress during the winter, when the alternative is only a smidgen stress and and a lot less valuable information on both sides.</p>

10

<p>I think the guy from Stanford makes some valid points, especially the ones regarding acceptance rate vs "ease of acceptance". </p>

<p>All of the hand wringing about "gaming the system" and favoring the "priviledged" can soon take a different focus. Giving everyone their decisions at the same time is unlikely to change much of anything, other than it will put some thousands more applications into the system, and will benefit the applicants from well-off who were going to apply RD anyway and now will have a more wide open competiton for the spots that are rationed to them.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
The more I think about it, and the more I learn about it, I can think of absolutely nothing wrong with EA, single choice or no.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In the absence of some agreement among all CC participants here about absolute moral values, the proposition you type out can't be resolved. It is a proposition of value. As it happens, it appears that MIT's actual, real-world practice in nonexclusive EA admission is such that that it doesn't admit a different group of applicants from what it would admit in a single-deadline system, and certainly (as is true of any EA program), MIT's program doesn't bind applicants into making poor choices. </p>

<p>But Harvard, Princeton, and U of VA have concluded, as an empirical matter, that they were less likely to achieve an institutional goal of maximizing college opportunity for the smart-but-poor students around the world if they continued practicing SCEA or ED admission as they have practiced it. That is a data-based decision, and a decision that refers to institutional values, and I don't second-guess that decision. Indeed, I applaud that decision, although in any event the young people on my homeschooling group's math team whom I advise about college admission would have dealt with reality however it was in high school graduation year 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Right now the reality is that Stanford has chosen to differ from Harvard about having an early admission application round--which suggests a strategy to an applicant who is considering both schools--and other colleges are still considering whether or not to adapt their policies to the new reality.</p>

12

<p>"I don't think HYPS have been admitting students they wouldn't have admitted anyway; if anything, I believe them when they say the standards (athletes and other special cases to the side) are higher."</p>

<p>By that reasoning, HPV have now made a determination that either 1) the standards are wrong; or 2) they want to admit students with lower standards.</p>

<p>They HAVE the data, and know what they are doing.</p>

13

<p>"They HAVE the data, and know what they are doing."</p>

<p>mini,
verifiable data or not, there is nothing other than press statements to signify conclusively the actual reason(s) and benefits for change in Early policies, by any institution. That is not to say necessarily that the reasons are suspect, but only that the institutions' private reasons may not coincide with your disapproval of Early rounds.</p>

<p>I agree with JHS & have not seen that Early <em>Action</em> harms students of any economic status. As to ED, I remain divided. And I believe the "final consequences" aspect of ED gives it a high-risk status & high-risk implications (more than EA) that can have a very negative impact on the rejected or deferred student of any economic background. We've seen some exceptions posted on CC -- where students, parents have mentioned that a rejection was motivating. I've just never personally come across those cases. To a person, students I've known have experienced ED rejection or deferral as a psychological setback that it was very challenging to recover from, or at least delayed the recovery of self-confidence & a clear path to the RD round.</p>

14

<p>"It is undeniable that the period between January 1 and March 31 is very stressful. However, with one common announcement period, students have more chances to see a balance of good news, bad news, and no-news. "</p>

<p>Harvard, Yale and Stanford all used non-athlete "likely" letters before March 31 this past year...so there wasn't really one common announcement period. It can be expected that Harvard will continue this practice...and probably even increase their use...if comparable schools keep their EA/ED programs. These letters are similar to EA....but the school chooses who is EA, not the applicant. </p>

<p>These letters increase stress, and could very well be how schools will deal with the marketing issues associated with abandoning SCEA/EA/ED.</p>

15

<p>"mini,
verifiable data or not, there is nothing other than press statements to signify conclusively the actual reason(s) and benefits for change in Early policies, by any institution. That is not to say necessarily that the reasons are suspect, but only that the institutions' private reasons may not coincide with your disapproval of Early rounds."</p>

<p>Who said I disapprove of early rounds? Maybe you have me mistaken with someone else? I think private colleges should do what they think best. I just don't have any reason to believe that with such high-powered admissions offices with decades and decades of experience and hard data, and college presidents that like to make decisions based on experience and data, that they are to be disbelieved so cavalierly. If they say these programs "advantage the advantaged", they have the data to prove it. And, certainly, they don't seem to have minded in the past (and there's no particular reason why they should have.) Now that they've decided to "lower standards", who knows?</p>

<p>As to whether anything they do should or should not apply to any other institution, I rather doubt it. I would be quite confident that H and P don't want other schools to abandon ED - by having students going ED elsewhere, it takes the stress off them, and actually makes them MORE selective, more likely to matriculate students who truly want and have a good reason to be there.</p>

16

<p>A school which practices ED is not very selective as it needs ED to protect its yield. It is afraid of competition. Look at Princeton they proved they can compete. If any college thinks they can compete, they will come out at least EA and allow students to apply to other colleges in RD round.</p>

17

<p>I disagree that this is a data-based decision, whatever Harvard says. Their justifications were just too thin to hold up. I think from Harvard's standpoint, this was a PR/"do something, anything!" move. For Princeton, it may have been data-based, but it's a completely different move: it abandoned an ED program, and probably THE most abusive ED program (because of accepting half the class that way, and probably more if deferrals are taken into account). I don't know what UVa was doing, other than imitating Harvard, with the cover that some significant competitors (UNC, Princeton) had already done the same thing.</p>

18

<p>MIT will also keep its Early Admissions policy in tact; Marilee Jones is cited toward the end of this AP article.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060929/LIFESTYLE01/609290321/1031%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060929/LIFESTYLE01/609290321/1031&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

19

<p>I find nothing objectionable about EA admissions, it is ED, because of the restriction on financial aid comparisons that is the problem for many.</p>

20

<p>Xiggi - students can make that choice for themselves if they want - they can decide whether or not to hear a smattering news or get it all at once.</p>

<p>One of the big issues in admissions is building a class. Every school needs to keep its proportion of English majors, chem majors, bassonists, oboeists, soccer players, track stars, kids from international areas, kids from South Dakota, etc. EA allows schools to fill in slots for their classes. So there is an advantage conferred upon early applicants - basically, it's less of a lottery if they can add something to the campus.</p>

<p>I'm a big proponent of early admissions, even though I was deferred and rejected by my first choice. I do think that it helps to get kids to precipitate out of the application pool. I do think that it allows students to demonstrate a clear first choice - and for many students, this is a big deal. Harvard is not the paradigm for all college admissions - it is the exception. Look down even a tier and early admissions is great. Many high school students have a clear first choice in a Fordham, Haverford, Brandeis, etc.</p>