<p>As long as you don't care about your immortal soul!</p>
<p>Winners always think the game was fair.</p>
<p>The quote Byerly referred to is "We've been living off the rejects of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton for two hundred years and doing very well." This is quoted in Looking Beyond the Ivy League by Loren Pope. The quote is prefaced by "[Amherst's]admissions dean used to say". The name isn't given, but I assume the dean is Eugene S. (Bill) Wilson, who was quoted many other times in the book.</p>
<p>Bill Wilson was Dean of Admissions at Amherst from 1946</a> until 1972. So the quote in question (which Byerly apparently paraphrased, contrary to his use of quotation marks) evidently refers to conditions some 34 to 60 years ago (not today, despite Byerly's addition of the invented phrase "and many years to come"). </p>
<p>I have no vested interest in supporting early decision; all my college applications were regular decision. So I am willing to consider arguments both for and against it. However, I would like to see points that are both relevant and accurately reported. This one fails on both counts.</p>
<p>Oh yeah? Well who's to say who is doing the accurate paraphrasing? I certainly didn't see this in anything written by Loren Pope, for whose well-worn bromides I have little regard.</p>
<p>The LACs are STILL living off Ivy rejects to a substantial degree, as evidenced by the fact that some of them have not one but TWO rounds of early decision - with the second round timed to scoop up Ivy early admission rejects at their most distraught and vulnerable stage. </p>
<p>Reminds me of ambulance chasing lawyers, or casket salesmen pouncing on the dear departed's next of kin!</p>
<p>Again, I'm amazed at how condescending you are to the bright young people applying to these colleges. Your comments suggest that you view them as idiots, rather than young adults who are perfectly capable of understanding early decision options and making decisions in their own best self-interest.</p>
<p>For example, several of the school's on my daughter's list immediate below her clear first choice offer Early Decision 2 options. As she was waiting for the Early Decision response from her first choice school, she was calmly and rationally considering whether or not she had a strong preference of her remaining schools to warrant ED2. She calmly and rationally decided that she wasn't ready to make that choice and was prepared to simply carry on with RD applications, if necessary.</p>
<p>The key criteria, at every step of the way, was, "did she have a strong, clear preference?"</p>
<p>I don't think she was unusual at all. Her roommate also applied Early Decision -- for exactly the same reason. She had a strong first choice over other schools.</p>
<p>"In an effort to level the undergraduate playing field and increase diversity, Harvard and Princeton recently abandoned their Early Action and Early Decision programs, respectively....</p>
<p>The recent eradication of early policies at Harvard and Princeton culminate a 10 year arms race by elite universities trying to gain a top U.S. News College ranking...</p>
<p>Wealthy students have been caught up in an arms race of their own hiring expensive consultants and tutors to fine tune college applications is now the norm. But the buildup in spending on pre-college expenses leaves behind a significant part of the applicant pool, as many applicants to top schools do not have the resources to hire consultants or attend schools with such strategically aware college counselors. MIT admits 26 percent of its class early, and the early admissions rate is significantly higher than the regular decision rate. At a top tier private high school, the norm is to apply early to a top school, thereby increasing ones chance of getting in. Conversely, at an inner city public school where the majority of the student body does not attend college, students are less likely to be encouraged to apply early. They should not be penalized in the application process.</p>
<p>An early application process forces students to play a strategy game with universities.... Having a standard admission procedure would remove some of the importance of strategy from the admissions process, forcing it to be more merit based. Moreover, having one admissions process in the spring could leave more time to recruit diversity in the fall....</p>
<p>If there is an opportunity to increase the legitimacy of the admissions process, it needs to be taken. If MIT and other institutions do not follow Harvard and Princetons lead, their efforts will have been wasted.</p>
<p>It has the capacity to change a lot of things in this business Its bold enough for other schools to really reconsider what theyre doing. I wish them so much luck in this, Marilee Jones, MIT dean of admissions, told The New York Times. Since MIT recognizes the prudence of the new policies, our admissions office should not allow apprehension about the risks involved to deter its implementation. Given MITs ability to attract students evidenced by a low admissions rate coupled with a high yield rate, we should have little to fear. ...</p>
<p>We should not set precedent by blindly following Harvard; however, in this case, we should follow their moral lead by eliminating our early action program."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wealthy students have been caught up in an arms race of their own — hiring expensive consultants and tutors to fine tune college applications is now the norm. But the buildup in spending on pre-college expenses leaves behind a significant part of the applicant pool, as many applicants to top schools do not have the resources to hire consultants or attend schools with such strategically aware college counselors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not in our household. Total spending on test prep included one inexpensive SAT course given at the public high school and the purchase of a few study-guide books.</p>
<p>No private college counselors.</p>
<p>We did spend some money visiting colleges -- two car trips with college visits intermingled with vacation, plus a second overnight visit to the ED school in October for in-depth confirmation before submitting the app.</p>
<p>In our case, ED saved somewhere between $300 to $500 in application fees ($60 each).</p>
<p>The fact that some consumers choose to approach college selection in the manner described above should not invalidate a very efficient mechanism for matching colleges with qualified students who most want to attend. The ED system works very, very well for students who approach college selection the old-fashioned way: doing research to find a good fit.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, dad, your approach has become increasingly atypical.</p>
<p>Particularly revealing are stats showing that applicants at well-wired prep schools and upscale suburban high schools - especially in the Northeast - are many times more likely to apply early, because they, their counsellors, and perhaps their parents who, such as yourself, have a detailed understanding of the strategic benefits for those applying early.</p>
<p>That of course is just the point. Of course the process "works very, very well" for those in a position to exploit it; the problem is that the great majority of the potential applicant group, nationally, are, in consequence, disadvantaged.</p>
<p>The winners always think the game is fair.</p>
<p>Harvard did a good thing...for Harvard. They recognized that the way they've had things set up, they provided an "advantage to the advantaged". Nothing new for H. (or Williams for that matter), and if they wish to wring out that bit of advantage, so be it. The proof will be with whether they actually accept different candidates as a result.</p>
<p>I think the last thing H. wants is for Williams or Swarthmore to follow their lead. By having other schools retain ED, H. gets rid of candidates who would be perfectly happy elsewhere and have no particular reason to be at H. (other than prestige) to begin with. The number of applicants might go down, but "selectivity" (in terms of getting those applicants they really want and who want to be there), goes up. And W and S and others stand to gain by having some candidates now applying ED who don't want to otherwise game the system.</p>
<p>But it will have no impact on eliminating "advantage to the advantaged" unless different candidates are accepted as a result.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini. However, we can never know that the change at Harvard and Princeton results in accepting different applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, dad, your approach has become increasingly atypical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not atypical at top LACs at all.</p>
<p>But, hey, the Ivies have been living for decades off affluent students too concerned about prestige and rankings to consider a good undergrad college. I imagine they can continue to do so, with or without their early action plans.</p>
<p>Mini, I was with you right up to the point where you asserted that "W and S and other stand to gain by having some candidates now applying ED who don't want to otherwise game the system".</p>
<p>With all due respect, I'd say any ED applicants they gain as a result of H, P +Uva etc giving up the early admissions game will be PRECISELY those who "want to game the system"!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
But it will have no impact on eliminating "advantage to the advantaged" unless different candidates are accepted as a result.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. The decision given to the admissions office about how many full-pay students to enroll is totally independent from Early Decision. That mandate could be changed with or with ED.</p>
<p>This whole ED flap is most a PR deflection campaign. Build up a strawman and knock it down to demonstrate institutional concern.</p>
<p>The amazing thing to me is that anybody really cares what Harvard does. Harvard admissions are so far from the mainstream reality of college admissions as to be largely irrelevant to the process -- a point that the media misses completely. It's not even representative of the admissions climate across the schools in Harvard's football conference.</p>
<p>"I agree with Mini. However, we can never know that the change at Harvard and Princeton results in accepting different applicants."</p>
<p>Oh, yes we can, and will. When Princeton changed its admissions/financial aid policies about four years ago, there were immediate 1) small changes in the percentage of Pell Grant students, and 2) very, very large changes in the percentage of students from families with incomes between $100k-$160k. The result is that now the "median" family income of matriculating Princeton students is well below (likely by about $75-$100k) that of Williams students.</p>
<p>To date, few such changes have been seen at H. But they could be. We will just have to see.</p>
<p>You are quite wrong about Harvard, where the huge increase in financial aid for lower income applicants has resulted in a change in the matriculant group that is really quite extraordinary.</p>
<p>What may be equally significant is that the yield rate among those eligible for (and presumably matriculating because of) the new aid programs was an astounding 86.5% this year.</p>
<p>Where Harvard is acting its its own long-term interest (and other schools are failing to adjust to their peril) is in recognizing the substantial demographic shifts on the horizon - as the college-age population begins to come increasingly from the lowest economic quadrant and to become far less white, far less Northeasten, and far more Southern, Southwestern and Hispanic.</p>
<p>Early decision programs appeal to, and have generally been exploited by, a subset of the population declining in numbers and significance.</p>
<p>The amount of Amherst students receiving Pell Grants is about 5% higher than those at Harvard, I do believe. Amherst's president has been under a lot of fire for controversial initiatives (which many are afraid will "lower Amherst's US News ranking) to encourage representation at the college of very low-income students. I know there are quite a few high-achieving community college transfers at Amherst this year, and there will be many more in the years to come. Anthony Marx teaches my freshman seminar and has joked about the fire he has received for his initiatives. Amherst is also apparently very good about releasing people from their binding ED contract if they find the aid award to be insufficient. Stop trolling, Byerly, it doesn't reflect well on your alma mater. Harvard is sadly not the top choice for all students...including those who love another school enough to promise to attend if they are accepted.</p>
<p>Interesteddad makes an important point when he indicates that Harvard admissions are largely irrelevant to admissions everywhere else. In reality, this is true. In perception, the opposite is the case. Where Harvard leads others will follow and therein lies Harvard's motivation in its recent policy change.
Consider that in its press release the university indicated that it was abolishing early admissions to address the inequities suffered by those seeking financial aid. In reality, those inequities are irrelevant to Harvard's nonbinding SCEA program.<br>
The university tried to explain this apparent inconsistency by stating that many applicants were being confused by the system and were having difficulty distinguishing between binding ED and nonbinding SCEA. It is hard to imagine a serious Harvard applicant who would be confused by this.
It is likely that Harvard was acting more out of a desire to see other schools abolish binding ED programs that are unfair to FA applicants, than to substantively change its own system of admissions.
Is it fair for Harvard, with its infinite resources and its 80% yield, to try and "manipulate" the admissions policies at other less powerful institutions? When it is motivated by a sense of noblesse oblige and a desire to bring about postitive changes in the system it is admirable.</p>
<p>"You are quite wrong about Harvard, where the huge increase in financial aid for lower income applicants has resulted in a change in the matriculant group that is really quite extraordinary."</p>
<p>Data, please. (I have the Princeton Pell Grant data, and the percentage of those receiving need-based aid.) For more than a decade, H. has had the lowest percentage of Pell Grant recipients of any major prestige institution (ranking it with Davidson, and above Washington & Lee); half the student body has been receiving need-based aid (which is more than Yale is, and significantly more than P. was, but, from the little data I have, not anymore.)</p>
<p>"The amount of Amherst students receiving Pell Grants is about 5% higher than those at Harvard, I do believe." Actually, a little over 8% from the data I have seen most recently. But, the percentage of Amherst students receiving need-based aid is still well under 50% (as it has been at Williams), so there are (relatively) few middle income students.</p>
<p>"Expanding financial aid for low- and middle-income families</p>
<p>Reinforcing its commitment to opportunity and excellence across the economic spectrum, Harvard announced on March 30 a significant expansion of its 2004 Financial Aid Initiative for low- and middle-income families. Parents with incomes of less than $60,000 will no longer be expected to contribute to the cost of their children attending Harvard. In addition, Harvard will reduce the contributions of families with incomes between $60,000 and $80,000.</p>
<p>The new income thresholds build on the program announced two years ago, which provided that families with incomes below $40,000 would not be expected to contribute to the cost of education, with a reduced contribution for families with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000. The number of students enrolled at Harvard from these income brackets increased by 24 percent for the class entering this past fall - the first full year of the program. Under the enhanced program, it is expected that nearly 25 percent of Harvard freshmen will be included...</p>
<p>Harvard also revised its policy on outside awards won by incoming students, ranging from scholarships provided by local community groups to programs such as the National Merit and Gates Millennium scholarships. Students now are able to apply these awards to eliminate their summer savings obligations. Previously, outside awards could be used to offset the $3,650 self-help expectation, but not the summer savings contribution, which ranges from $1,500 to $2,400.</p>
<p>Overall financial aid</p>
<p>"We are very pleased to offer such exceptional financial support to our undergraduates," said William C. Kirby, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which oversees Harvard College. "Even before these enhancements, the financial aid budget for next year was projected at $90 million, a 6.2 percent increase over last year, and a 65 percent increase over the past six years. This new initiative will add an additional $2.4 million annually. Although many students and families might find this hard to believe, Harvard is actually more affordable for many students than public colleges or universities."</p>
<p>Two-thirds of Harvard students receive financial aid, with 50 percent of the student body receiving need-based institutional grant aid. The average grant award for next year is expected to be more than $30,000, or 65 percent of the total cost of attendance. In the past decade, Harvard has reduced the median four-year debt for graduating seniors from more than $16,000 to $6,400 - less than one-third of the national average of $20,000..." </p>
<p>"But, the percentage of Amherst students receiving need-based aid is still well under 50% (as it has been at Williams), so there are (relatively) few middle income students."</p>
<p>Amherst's website claims that "58% of students receive financial aid" I think that the percentage for the freshman class must be higher than that, and it is continuing to rise..of course, given that Amherst's comprehensive fees are about $47,000, I think that indicates an outrageously wealthy student body, but I'd say that Amherst is still far better than most at levelling the playing field.</p>