<p>His coach seems to think the school may be OK ... if worse comes to worst:</p>
<p>"Even if hockey doesn't work out for him it's a wonderful education to have in your back pocket."</p>
<p>This highlights the hypocrisy of "no more early admissions". They have simply gone from a transparent system where anyone who wants to can apply early, to the older process where H will decide who to admit early with no accounting for the income distribution among the new group of early admits.</p>
<p>Note that although they clearly will continue early admits for athletes, they have NOT announced an end to early admits for others. They have just closed the formal early action process and moved it into a back room.</p>
<p>A good strategic move given the cross admit situation, but spare us the preaching about noble goals.</p>
<p>So you say it is ignoble to recruit athletes?</p>
<p>Maybe, but the point was that H has no intention of ending early admissions. It will continue to admit athletes early, in fact earlier than its soon-to-be discontinued EA admission date. It just will no longer present the option to the public, or publish the early admission figures. </p>
<p>If the early action program favored the well-to-do that was because of admissions decisions made by Harvard, not because of the program itself. Harvard could have done what it long claimed... admit in the fall only those who would be sure bets in the spring. If it did this, then it would not matter when these students applied, they would be admitted early, or in the spring.</p>
<p>The existence of these semi-pro leagues to help athletes lift, eat, grow and further separate themselves from regular students is troubling to say the least.</p>
<p>So, yes, it is ignoble to recruit athletes. The sports should be for the benefit of the students who enroll, not to give the University bragging rights. The example of the CFA colleges is hardly something H should emulate.</p>
<p>That's silly. </p>
<p>To stop utilizing a process (early admissions) that favors the wealthy, and to focus on recruiting more widely - particularly in areas and from schools that have not traditionally applied to elites, is not incompatible with having a sports program. </p>
<p>The reality is that if you aren't able to match "exploding offers" (ie, a "letter of intent" that guarantees the kid an athletic scholarship - often a fullride - if he or she accepts immediately, you will effectively have excluded that kid from your program.</p>
<p>The same thing may be true for a widely-recruited Intel winner or a top musician.</p>
<p>Utilizing a process designed to recruit more widely and increase diversity (particularly economic diversity) does not mean you have to forswear talented and desirable recruits who you would otherwiuse lose. That wouldn't make any sense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reality is that if you aren't able to match "exploding offers" (ie, a "letter of intent" that guarantees the kid an athletic scholarship - often a fullride - if he or she accepts immediately, you will effectively have excluded that kid from your program.</p>
<p>The same thing may be true for a widely-recruited Intel winner or a top musician.</p>
<p>Utilizing a process designed to recruit more widely and increase diversity (particularly economic diversity) does not mean you have to forswear talented and desirable recruits who you would otherwiuse lose. That wouldn't make any sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, I agree with all of the above. Which means that Harvard will NOT end its early admissions program. All it has done is change the name and the administrative details. So why all the fanfare about increasing diversity if in reality it will be business as usual? </p>
<p>If early action at Harvard favored wealthy applicants it was because Harvard chose to run it that way. It could have done what it claimed it did, and limit admissions to those who would have been admitted anyway. If it did this, then the composition of the admitted group would have been the same whether they were admitted in the fall or the spring.</p>
<p>Wait - I don't understand. It's not only Harvard that does this. Many other highly selective colleges do the same thing. In fact, the Ivy League has rules that state that an Ivy may make a formal offer if a non-Ivy college tries to snap the recruit up early in the process. It has ALWAYS been the case at not only Harvard, but Yale, Princeton, Columbia, UPenn, Dartmouth, etc. </p>
<p>Furthermore, big sports such as football increase socioeconomic and racial diversity at Harvard in many ways, fulfilling two missions the admissions office wants to fulfill overall. Most football players I have met along the way here (and there are quite many) say that football was their key to take a step up from their parents' socioeconomic background and create a better life.</p>
<p>If we were to point out an Ivy that had what you were referring to, it would be Dartmouth with its egregious use of likely letters. I would not be surprised if all of Dartmouth admits heard from the university through this conduit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many other highly selective colleges do the same thing.
[/quote]
Of course they do, but they are not now claiming that they are ending their early admissions programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
big sports such as football increase socioeconomic and racial diversity
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually no. The evidence is quite clear that the athletic tip for admissions does not favor URM's or lower socioeconomic status students.</p>
<p>Again, if Harvard wants to admit more students from lower SES groups there is nothing to stop them. MIT, with very similar academic expectations, enrolls a far higher percent of students from low SES groups. If Harvard found that fewer such students applied during EA, and that Harvard filled too many slots in EA, leaving too few for the RD round, then Harvard could easily cap the number of people admitted EA. If this left lots of high SES students who were definite admits in RD who were forced to wait for RD, then the low SES students are in exactly the same position they are now.</p>
<p>In other words, if Harvard has been applying the same admissions criteria and weights to EA as to RD, then moving more admissions to RD cannot change the composition of the class. Therefore, even if Harvard really WERE ending early admissions this, alone, would have no effect on the numbers of low SES students. If Harvard was in fact reducing admissions standards for EA, and all evidence suggests it was doing exactly that, then the solution is to change that practice, independent of whether it retains the early action mechanism.</p>
<p>Since Harvard is NOT ending early admisssions, then this is a lot of publicity over essentially nothing.</p>
<p>^^ Essentially nothing? Tell that to the thousands of kids who who normally apply through Harvard's SCEA program. That program really is going away, and that's something. The fact that they are keeping "likely letters" for athletes, a practice that they had well before EA ever came along, doesn't change the significance of that. </p>
<p>And there is no big secret here. You haven't blown the lid off some dark scandal. It's all been publicy stated by the school.</p>
<p>What a lot of silly talk. </p>
<p>The fact that there will, as usual, be between 48-78 "likely letters for recruited athletes - at various times between October 1 and March 15, bears absolutely no relation to ending an early admissions program that has attracted between 4,000 and 7,000 applications, and which was used to fill upwards of half the class of 1,650.</p>
<p>It's not just athletes. At least, I have not seen any declaration that "only athletes will receive likely letters." Or "starting next year, we will fill only 45-78 positions before April".</p>
<p>Clearly Byerly does not think it is limited to athletes
[quote]
The same thing may be true for a widely-recruited Intel winner or a top musician.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If they maintain their admissions criteria as they have claimed ("the only people who are admitted EA are those who would be sure to be admitted RD"), then they will admit the same people they are admitting now, many of them early, but simply not through an official EA program. A million people could APPLY early, but if the same people will be ADMITTED, then essentially nothing has changed.</p>
<p>I don't claim to be uncovering any secrets. Just pointing out that the hype over "ending early admission" is very far wide of the mark.</p>
<p>What a silly thing to say.</p>
<p>What a silly thing to say.</p>
<p>Ah. So you've come to your senses?</p>