[/quote]
There is no single feature that uniquely separates Williams from all other top LACs. It's a combination of factors. This is probably true for any school.</p>
<p>Middlebury is clearly a top LAC, and like Williams it is known for its remote, mountainous location. The two schools are comparable in certain other respects as well, and probably share many cross-admits. </p>
<p>Perhaps the single most striking difference between Middlebury and Williams is financial. On a per-student</a> basis, the Williams endowment is nearly 2.5 times as large as the Middlebury endowment. Middlebury has a strong endowment, but Williams ranks among the wealthiest schools in the country.</p>
<p>According to The Williams Record of September 20, 2006:
Quote:
"I can never say we won't do it," said Dick Nesbit, Director of admission. "At AGAFA we'll be discussiong the cost-benefit analysis of what's good for students and what's good for Williams and where those two intersect."</p>
<p>The Record story also suggests that the Harvard and Princeton actions may significantly affect admissions at Williams. Williams already gets a significant number of cross-applicants with Harvard and Princeton, and the number could rise as these schools drop ED. For some reason, most cross-admitted students prefer Harvard or Princeton over Williams; the yield at Williams could therefore drop, and so Williams may have to consider increasing the acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Fortunately for Williams, the USNews rankings no longer consider "yield" as a factor in determining selectivity. Thus the school need only hope that the number of apps rises sufficiently to offset the need for additional admissions - keeping the overall "admit rate" satisfactorily low.</p>
<p>It will be important to stay in tandem with the more politically correct Amherst and Swat, who may feel intellectually and morally drawn to the Harvard/Princeton/UVa initiative.</p>
<p>The issue is not the USNEWS rankings. The issue is being able to identify the students who most want to attend the school -- a very important contributor to the campus culture at a small liberal arts college. A secondary issue would be the extreme difficult in consistently filling specific slots (oboe players, etc.) without early decision in a class of just 350 to 500 incoming freshmen.</p>
<p>I would be shocked if Amherst, Swarthmore, or Williams abandoned their early decision programs. These programs have worked well for 40 years and, today, are effective tools the schools use for increasing diversity on campus. For example, Williams has increased its minority and low income enrollment dramatically through the Questbridge program. Questbridge finalists all make a binding early decision commitment.</p>
<p>Actually it was the "little three" who pioneered the whole "early admissions scam. The thinking was: perhaps we can steal a few kids away from the Ivies, rather than ewaiting until they are finished making their selections, if we offer the a "bird in the Hand" in the form of guaranteed admission.</p>
<p>I believe it was a former president of Amherst who candidly observed: "We have been living very well for years on the Harvard leftovers, and hope to do so for many years to come!"</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe it was a former president of Amherst who candidly observed: "We have been living very well for years on the Harvard leftovers, and hope to do so for many years to come!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That would actually be an argument for ending Early Decision. The reality is that ED allows the LACs to identify applicants who are specifically expressing a preference for the small-scale, undergrad-oriented, interactive education of a liberal arts college.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't really understand the use of the word "scam". The applicants who apply to Williams, Swarthmore, and Amherst are quite able to understand the nature of the quid pro quo transaction.</p>
<p>You may call it "quid pro quo", but I call it a Faustean deal between a billion dollar corporation and a 17 or 18 year kid - with enormous differences in bargaining power. </p>
<p>Indeed, many legal experts have opined that a binding ED contract would never stand up in court - which is why, with all the bluster, colleges try to avoid a direct challenge.</p>
<p>Particularly distasteful are the tacit agreements to protect each other's "exclusive negotiating rights" by refusing to consider an application from a kid who has been inveigled into bargaining away his or her freedoms without the advice of counsel. </p>
<p>I liken these actions to free states cooperating with slave states under the pre-civil war Fugitive Slave Act - treating certain people as sub-human property "belonging" to others.</p>
<p>You don't give Early Decision applicants much credit, huh?</p>
<p>The three people I am most familiar with who applied Early Decision (me, my wife, and my daughter) were all very pleased with getting accepted to clear, first choice schools in December.</p>
<p>
[quote]
which is why, with all the bluster, colleges try to avoid a direct challenge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK, I have to call you on that one. What "bluster"?</p>
<p>Byerly is an interesting character, but one with an unfortunate tendency to cite incomplete or unsubstantiated information. </p>
<p>For a brief history of early decision, see Fallows (2001) on "The</a> Early-Decision Racket". It's apparently true that the first early decision plans were developed by the "Pentagonals", a group that did include the Little Three, but also Bowdoin and (Ivy) Dartmouth. However, Fallows further notes that "the first rough precursors of today's early system appeared in the 1950s, when Harvard, Yale, and Princeton applied what was known as the ABC system." HYP admissions officers would visit prep schools and other feeders and provide students with early advisories on the likelihood of admission. The Pentagonals dreamed up early decision in response to HYP's early advisories. </p>
<p>As for the quote from "the former president of Amherst", let's see if Byerly can show us any documentation for it. I was unable to find the quoted phase in Google, and so I'm wondering whether the words in quotes are really from an Amherst president, or whether they are actually Byerly's.</p>
<p>There are valid arguments for and against early admission. It's a pity that Byerly can't participate in the debate without gratuitously snubbing other schools in the process.</p>
<p>I am quite familiar with Fallows account, which is not entirely accurate in all relevant respects - with due respect to his status as a former Crimson editor. </p>
<p>The shadowy "ABC" system was a questionable market-splitting technique from a bygone era, but it is hardly akin to the early admission scam (or "racket", as Fallows dubbed it) but, is, rather, the precurser to today's "likely letter" technique for circumventing a specified date on which accepance notifications should be sent.</p>
<p>I'll "participate in the debate" all day, but I still think early decision programs of every stripe are an abomination, and I have been saying so for years.</p>
<p>As for the famous remark by the former president of Amherst, my recollection is that it appeared either in "The Early Admissions Game" or one of Avery's preliminary papers.</p>