<p>Just another heads up, there was an article in NewsWeek about this.</p>
<p>I have a different, more cynical take on the decisions by Harvard and Princeton to abolish ED. While there may be some marginal benefit to some socio-economic classes (I still have not figured out yet how/why anyone is disadvantaged by an EA program), Harvard, Princeton and the other top schools that follow are reaping a fabulous public relations windfall while the true cost to them is very, very low. H and P will still get their pick of the country's top students and their yields will not be hugely impacted as they win a high percentage of their cross-admit battles. </p>
<p>The true impact is going to be felt by the next tier of schools, ie, USNWR ranked schools approx 5-25. Consider the following: Take all of the early admittees to the top 5 schools in the country (estimate 500 admittees per school) and throw these students back into the RD application pool. Because the certainty of acceptance at their top choice is now not clear, these top students will be applying to a lot of other schools (probably anywhere from 5-15 more schools per student) to ensure that they have a college acceptance to a top school. This will have the effect of inflating the applicant pool at many schools in the next tier and making the competition for those spots even more difficult. This obviously hurts the other applicants and also makes the job of the admissions committee more difficult as the applicant pool is now larger and stronger. However, when RD decisions come out in the future, H an P and the 2-3 others at the very top will mostly get who they want. The other schools will probably end up admitting more students than they have historically, but they will see their yields decline (perhaps sharply). </p>
<p>The result of the new system is that it will create a "separation effect" that will reasonate even more strongly than it does today. The winners will be H and P as their prestige level will climb even higher (if that is possible), they will still get most of the kids that they wanted in the first place, and they will get tons of positive publicity for how "fair" they have made the admissions process. The other winner will be the handful of students who are theoretically being disadvantaged by the current system. (Key question: does anybody have any data that indicates just how many students really are hurt by the current system?) </p>
<p>As for the other Top 25 schools, perhaps they will be able to attract a few of the top students who otherwise would have committed to Princeton (ED) or indicated Harvard as their first choice (EA). But the reality is that, for the next tier of schools, the applicant pool is likely to be bigger and much stronger. And if the top students do ultimately get into Harvard or Princeton or one of the other very top schools that may decide to go this route, then the lower ranked schools will see their yields negatively impacted. This will be the separation effect that I mentioned earlier. </p>
<p>And if anyone thinks that the pressure is going to be lessened because of the stretching out of the process until April 1, I could not disagree more strongly. It is going to make for a very loooooong and tense senior year for many students who otherwise could have reduced some of this pressure via the early application process. </p>
<p>So, bottom-line, Harvard and Princeton are being cast as heroes when the true cost to them is minimal. IMO, the longerlasting and more meaningful impact of their abolition of ED/EA is that many, many more students may find the admissions process even more competitive at the next tier of schools.</p>
<p>That post is exactly what I was thinking.</p>
<p>We also have to look at how adcoms look at kids coming from an environment with few resources and kids that have had access to most everything. Winning the national tournament in speech is awesome, but it can only really happen if you have the resources to pay to get there and the school has the money to get a top speech coach. Doesn't that even the playing field?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We also have to look at how adcoms look at kids coming from an environment with few resources and kids that have had access to most everything. Winning the national tournament in speech is awesome, but it can only really happen if you have the resources to pay to get there and the school has the money to get a top speech coach. Doesn't that even the playing field?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The issue of equity has been brought up as an excuse to end early admissions (and early decision in general).</p>
<p>According to the 'experts', some (wealthier) people can afford to hire specialists and have better resources (e.g. counselors, teachers, opportunities, etc.). So, it's unfair to people who can't afford or simply do not have access to such options. Conclusion? End early admissions.</p>
<p>Wow! So it's not possible for a student to research a school by himself? He has to rely on other people to do it for him? I did not know that!</p>
<p>If a student from a poorer background has aspirations to attend Harvard, then I would imagine that he will research Harvard and its admissions process. Who gives a crap if his counselor can't help him? If he wants to go, then he'll try his best to learn the process on his own. People can take care of themselves.</p>
<p>fhimas, if you really want to even the playing field, then all those programs should stop because 'not everyone has a chance to participate in them.' That's right. USAMO, ISEF, high school research, they should all end just because some people don't have access to them.</p>
<p>But, that's the thing. I know who I'm competing if I apply to elite universities. I'm not competing against the valedictorian who worked the system at her school. I'm competing against Intel finalists, USAMO high scorers, students with published research, and so forth. That's the thing.</p>
<p>"Wow! So it's not possible for a student to research a school by himself? He has to rely on other people to do it for him? I did not know that!</p>
<p>If a student from a poorer background has aspirations to attend Harvard, then I would imagine that he will research Harvard and its admissions process. Who gives a crap if his counselor can't help him? If he wants to go, then he'll try his best to learn the process on his own. People can take care of themselves."</p>
<p>-Exactly...</p>
<p>Well, the point is, college admissions is never going to be fair. They can try to make it as fair as you want, but in the end, there are many things that are unfair. Like if your parents were alumni and donated a lot of money and you weren't as qualified as the other applicants...yeah, well, that's not fair either. And well, you're more likely to get in if you're like Hispanic rather than Asian...that's not fair either. Nothing's perfectly fair. There's just life.</p>
<p>Finally, I still don't see what's wrong with EA. If someone really wants to attend Harvard or whatever, all you have to do is ask for information. And since you can still compare financial aid, that's not a huge issue either. It just lets hardworking students get an opportunity to relieve some of their stress about college early, and also shows their interest in the school.</p>
<p>fabrizio,</p>
<p>Re: 14, Sorry but there are a number of studies and books that show otherwise. The most popular of these is the early admissions game. They have a number of statistics that basically show that applying ED is equal to an increase of 150 SAT points and EA is equal to an increase of 100 SAT points.</p>
<p>ED is a policy that favors more well off students. SCEA less so and EA even less than that. I agree with Carolyn that posted in another thread, the schools are moving in this direction before govenment action moves them in this direction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
fabrizio,</p>
<p>Re: 14, Sorry but there are a number of studies and books that show otherwise. The most popular of these is the early admissions game. They have a number of statistics that basically show that applying ED is equal to an increase of 150 SAT points and EA is equal to an increase of 100 SAT points.</p>
<p>ED is a policy that favors more well off students. SCEA less so and EA even less than that. I agree with Carolyn that posted in another thread, the schools are moving in this direction before govenment action moves them in this direction.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know, the more I think about it, the more ridiculous the excuses get.</p>
<p>The equity is just a pack of lies. Thats the worst excuse.</p>
<p>The only remotely viable one is the comparison of financial aid. Under early decision, youre bound to attend one school if admitted. Theres no way of knowing if another school could have given a better deal. But, why go all the way and end early admissions in general? Switch to single choice / early action if thats the problem.</p>
<p>So whats the real issue? Either Harvard has really convinced people that their excuses are their reasons or people just dont want to admit it.</p>
<p>For every 100 students admitted to both Duke and Harvard, Duke loses 97. Harvard can do whatever they want to do, and theyll still get the best students this nation produces. Other schools simply cannot. They have to use other means, and early decision is one of them. It locks in high-quality students early on.</p>
<p>I dont see what your point is about ED favoring well off students. If they can afford it, then more power to them. If less well of students cant afford it, then theres regular decision and the only applicants from the early decision pool that they compete against are the deferred students.</p>
<p>For some students SCEA is a limitation because they can not qualify for merit aid at some schools unless they apply early action. SCEA prevents them from doing this.</p>
<p>From my perspective, SCEA is pretty fair. The student gets to apply early but does not have to decide until May1.</p>
<p>Yea, I think there are plus and minuses in applying early....for instance, most kids that DO apply early are probably the stronger and more informed students that know applying early means better chance of acceptance...and when you know this, it's most likely that you've done your homework...aka good student. So you are compared against them! hahah...like me.</p>
<p>I wouldn't go that far. Although I don't know if it's true, I'm hearing that applying ED/EA is NOT good for top students who aren't legacies, athletic recruits, etc. because colleges use most of their acceptance quota for those kids and NOT the top students.</p>
<p>Eliminating ED and EA will help those kids who are disadvantaged in college information from home, peers and school. Eliminating ED also levels the playing field for those who want or need to compare aid offers. The other group of kids that will be favorably affected by getting rid of the early programs are those who are later in getting it together to apply for college. They did not start studying the SAT till later, they were in very general classes where the knowledge base and reading levels were not as high in freshman and sophomore year, but they track into AP courses once junior year starts. It does open up the field a little. It also places a big onus on the first semester senior grades.<br>
As to completely getting rid of early apps, it seems to me that each year the colleges, and I am including some of the most selective schools are giving their favorite applicants earlier and earlier acceptances, well before the date the decisions are supposed to be announced. There are special early admissions for athletes even in the ivies with likely letters. So certain groups of applicants will have early notification even if the early action/decision programs are discontinued. Also the trend in just the last several years has been to expand early acceptances with things like ED2, Interim Decisions and other variations on that them.</p>
<p>Early on someone asked about the 1 in 4 colleges accepting students in the summer - there's also a quote that 68% of colleges admit students early. The writer is comparing apples and grapefruit! One of our flagship state unis has such limited on campus housing, that the counselor at our high school recommends students apply in June or July before senior year if they want to try for on campus housing. The example given in the article is a LAC that is not ultra selective. These are a different world, with a different set of concerns than the highly selective schools.</p>
<p>Maybe the whole admission process in this country could improve by simply moving up the deadline for applications to, say, Thanksgiving time, then in turn letting students know of their acceptance status at the beginning of their 2nd semester in high school. This would keep seniors on their toes, as 1st quarter, if not 1st semester grades would be considered. The stress of waiting until April to hear would be eliminated for all. If all students and High Schools started really exploring college in the jr year, they'd be ready to apply to college early in the fall, instead of wasting the summer before sr year. Working over the summer on apps is certainly preferential to cramming it into a hectic, AP filled sr. yr.</p>
<p>ok debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>