<p>Well... I'd take deference as good as a rejection. So I wouldn't even care... I'm not banking on an acceptance even now... </p>
<p>Now to work on my application to which all Ivy rejected Californians apply to... the UC schools...</p>
<p>I think EA programs are okay, ED on the other hand is blatantly discriminatory. That being said, even if Yale had ED its financial aid is of the caliber that no student should have to think twice about going for financial reasons (unless they are rich and just do not want to pay).</p>
<p>i have similar questions to milessmiles.</p>
<p>i wonder how early action opportunities are harder to find than, say, counselor rec forms or College Board score reporting procedures.</p>
<p>i'm sure UofC, Harvard, Princeton and even Yale analyze the income level of EA admitted students vs RD admitted sutdents - and obviously H and P acted on the info, but i fond it hard to believe bright "disadvantaged" students from "inner city schools" would have significant difficulties in applying early. with fee waivers, the Common App, readily available info online, and immediate score reporting - the college admissions process is, as a whole, becoming as even of a playing field as it can get (IMHO).</p>
<p>So fewer deferrals means more rejections?</p>
<p>inkjet, are you serious? Do you think midwestern public school students have the same advantages as elite public schools like Harvard-Westlake (California) or Stuyvesant (NYC)? Harvard is to be admired by ATTEMPTING to level the playing field for the students NOT from the well-known private and public high schools. That is one of the results of universities that have eliminated ED.</p>
<p>It is true that the internet has created beaucoup opportunities for many folks from many backgrounds. It is also true that some applicants who have spent thousands of dollars on "consultants" are not successful because they are not viewed by AdComs as authentic. However, affluent students or those with legacy ties or students from high schools with "ties" to the HYPS label, are all of them in a more advantageous position than those who are not.</p>
<p>I have read every book about college admissions to assist my children to give them a competitive advantage. I just want them to be able to attend the college of their choice (like all parents, I suppose!) and want to maximize their preparedness!</p>
<p>Let's all of us Obamacize the debate by being sympathetic to all viewpoints!</p>
<p>H and Ps stated reason for eliminating EA/ED was to attract more lower-income applicants who 1) lack strong guidance counseling and so are unfamiliar with the college application process, and 2) need to compare multiple financial aid offers and so are not able to apply ED. (The second reason applied to P only; Hs program was SCEA.)</p>
<p>As far as I know, neither H nor P has published any data to show that its goal was achieved, i.e., that by dropping EA/ED they did in fact attract more high quality, low-income applicants. I dont think either school has released reports on income distribution in the enrolled classes before and after dropping their early programs.</p>
<p>Theres a long, interesting discussion of this issue on this thread: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/519615-year-without-ea-recap-harvard-admissions-year.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/519615-year-without-ea-recap-harvard-admissions-year.html</a></p>
<p>I guess inkjet and milessmiles know a lot more about the admissions process than Harvard and Princeton do. You guys should apply for a job there.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, they're trying to level the playing field in an incredibly unfair process and ultimately, they have the data, we don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The increase in EA applications is not surprising. What was surprising was that their yield was 80% from EA. This means that a high % of accepted students are probably recruited athletes, legacies, or there is sufficient randomness in HYPS admissions that Harvard and Princeton select different students than Yale does.
[/quote]
Or it may be that getting admitted early, even EA, is a powerful incentive to choose that school at the end of the process. That could be one of the reasons Yale chose to keep it; it may help them enroll cross admits with H and P.</p>
<p>^^ Yes, indeed, Hunt. Yale has a powerful opportunity to court the students it admits early. For example, last year Yale created an elaborate internal Facebook-type site just for its early admittees. Those students had four months to bond with each other, as well as with current students and, I think, faculty who were on the site to answer their questions and just to chat. And bond they did. The 80% yield rate for SCEA admittees attests to that.</p>
<p>^^ I think you nailed it, Hunt. D1, admitted a year ago, was courted charmingly by Yale through their interactive admitted student website, and phone calls and notes from current students and admissions people. The cherry on top was Bulldog Days. I don't know many kids who could resist this extended pursuasion that starts on December 15th and builds loyalty and fondness for Yale. When other acceptances from great schools come through in March, it may be too late to shift affection.</p>
<p>The 80% yield on EA acceptees is a little less surprising in light of the fact that Yale's overall yield was over 70%. The yield on RD acceptees would have been about 65%. (Only a tiny handful of private colleges have RD yields over 50%.) All it would take to equate the two would be for about 140 of the SCEA admitted students to decide to treat it as ED and not to apply elsewhere. Based on what I've seen in the cases I know, that seems pretty likely.</p>
<p>Barristerdad,
I come from a low income family and yet I found Yale EA without "elite" guidance counselors. I really don't see what difference it makes whether the school knows or not; it's up to the student to find out. If they really like the school, i'm sure the student will actually look up information about it instead of staying in ignorance. In addition, if they started their common app applications they should've seen the "early action" box to be checked.
Blaming it on socio-economic problems seems retarded as there are a myriad of opportunities to hear about a university and their programs. Frankly, you would have to be an idiot not to see the ubiquitous info opportunities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In cases of ED, like Princeton, it's exactly what Granny said--most normal kids have to wait to compare financial aid packages from the schools they get accepted to and can't commit unconditionally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even EA offers a really unfair advantage to children of legacies
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have any evidence to show that children of legacies who apply early have historically better acceptance rates than children of legacies who apply regular?</p>
<p>
[quote]
otherwise well-educated parents, and students who go to schools that have counselors good enough to inform students of EA options.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>milessmiles already touched on this, but I feel it deserves reiterating. Anyone who is interested enough in a school to apply should be willing to spend at least 5 minutes researching the particular school. 5 minutes of stumbling around on a college's website is all that is required to find that there exists an early program, and it takes just a few more minutes after that to find out how their early program works. And if the student doesn't even care enough to do that much, he or she is presented with the choice of early decision/action or regular decision when filling out the Common App. Anyone who doesn't know about early already would be able to see that, prompting them to find out the difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those are mostly kids who apply EA; I would wager more than 80% of my inner-city school has no idea that schools offer an early acceptance round, and they find out at the college information session in late October, way too late to get together an application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I've explained, the fact that there exists people who are unaware of early action does not mean it is unfair. And since you mention it, there is probably 80% of my school that is unaware about early action/decision programs also, but no one at my school who is actually willing to utilize such a program is negligent enough to not have found out about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would bet that the income of students accepted even EA is disproportionately higher than students accepted in the regular round, but that's just a guess. Either way, it's an unfair advantage, IMO...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if that were true, it does not imply an unfair advantage. Just because lower income applicants use EA less doesn't mean they are less able to use it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess inkjet and milessmiles know a lot more about the admissions process than Harvard and Princeton do. You guys should apply for a job there.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, they're trying to level the playing field in an incredibly unfair process and ultimately, they have the data, we don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, quipping back people who have merely added constructive views to a side of an issue neither adds anything to the conversation nor makes you look witty. Secondly, simply saying that the schools made their decisions and that therefore it must be for valid reasons does not add to the conversation at all. Discussing these schools' decisions is not worthless.</p>
<p>southeasttitan, upon asking my question, I did not intend to be greeted with such a worthless post. Imagine my surprise when I scrolled down the page just to see that you had more garbage left to leak.</p>
<p>if i came off sounding like i knew more that H and P, i do apologize. however, i am completely serious in wondering how much being from affluent communities/schools helps in the EARLY ACTION process.
i was under the impression that we were discussing EARLY ACTION (non binding, Nov 1 deadline)</p>
<p>wealthy applicants can certainly produce a "better" application. counseling, essay editing services, test prep etc of course help an application, but it does not make a difference whether one applies early or not.</p>
<p>affluent or prep high schools offer great services and counseling, but that doesnt make a difference when disucssing (specifially) EARLY APPLICATION. </p>
<p>a disadvantaged kid who has a common app account can tick the box for early action before november 1st. does a rich kid have a beter shot at ticking the box?</p>
<p>Yes inkjet -- I don't know if you've studied any social science in your high school years, but in many low income families many parents have not gone to college, and many children get much less support from their parents. Hence you get "ghettos" and the such. While some of those kids may be unusually talented, hard working, and compassionate, there is a much lower chance that they would even be aware of the possibility of applying to a school like Yale, when, because of their parents, they thought they would never apply to college, or go to a local school at the very best, as they've been doing their whole lives. Either way, I do find you a bit out of touch, on the verge of being obnoxious.</p>
<p>ok, if discussion isnt what this site is about, then i'll stop posting (aka politely disagreeing with your views)</p>
<p>if you are "in touch" and have experience, then forgive me - BUT...
have you thought of the possibility that i could be what you call a "disadvantaged" kid, sitting in library, who has researched EA plans and is proud of her abilities to get past her less than rich, educated, or ivy-attending parets' background. i need help with financial aid (for sure) but I love/like/and thrive on the opportunity to show my enthusiasm for a school like Yale by applying early. not only that, i truly appreciate the chance for me to find out before, as this cuts down other costs for my family.</p>
<p>i understand my sitution is anecdotal, but i'm certain there are others like me out there.</p>
<p>I'll start by saying that I fundamentally agree with all of you that EA does not inherently favor the rich and privileged. I thought Harvard's statement when it terminated its EA program was incoherent. My kids went to an urban public school with non-great counselors and many low-income students, and every student who might conceivably be a candidate for Harvard or Yale understood the EA/ED differences and opportunities.</p>
<p>But.</p>
<p>I think there's no question that EA applicants are wealthier and more sophisticated, on average, than RD applicants, and EA applicants get admitted at a higher rate than RD applicants. It's perfectly legitimate to say "So what?" to that, since the system does not inherently favor the wealthy, except to the extent that the wealthy are better at acquiring the credentials that super-selective colleges value. So a wealthier, more sophisticated pool will be a stronger pool, as well, and will "deserve" a higher admission rate. But it's also legitimate to care about the difference (as Derek Bok and William Bowman clearly did).</p>
<p>If you hang out on CC, if you go to a high school with other people who apply to Yale or you otherwise know people like that, it's easy to miss that lots of students just have no clue about lots of things in elite college admissions, and no clue that they should be paying attention to find out about things until well into their senior years. How many of those students are really bona fide candidates for Yale or Harvard is open to question, but I'm sure there are some out there. (If you watch CC enough, you will see lots and lots of kids who had no idea what a SAT II was until well into their senior years. At most high schools, for most students, SAT IIs are not even a topic of discussion.) Harvard, at least, ultimately decided that it mattered more to reach as many of those students as it could and to evaluate them on an equal footing with everyone else than it did to offer the convenience of EA. </p>
<p>And really that's all EA is for Yale or Harvard -- a convenience offered to strong students. Yale and Harvard don't need EA for marketing. Harvard did fine without it. There IS some attractiveness to the notion that an admissions department should evaluate everyone at the same time, on the same basis, rather than in two tranches. </p>
<p>Back in my day, none of the Ivies had any early decision/action program, and the world worked just fine. I think EA is a good idea, but it's hard to tell what Yale gets out of it. It's really just a nice thing to do for strong students who know what they want, and if even a few strong but unsophisticated candidates get disadvantaged by it, that may be enough to call it into question.</p>
<p>In defense of EA and even ED programs, so little of the college process, which is just one of the many processes of life, is fair. Certain people born into certain situations have got to work twice as hard. That is just life and it isn't a level playing field. That being said, HPYSes have made the process fairer by doing what little things they can do. To find out about Yale EA you have to A) have access to a computer for about 5 minutes and check out Yale's website. B) give them your mailbox. You will receive information about application options. C) Talk to your HS GC - if they do not know about early action's existence, then they are unqualified for their job. </p>
<p>The fact that richer kids are producing better early applications and thus having better chances at elite universities is because richer kids tend to produce better applications. This is not because of the college, this is because of standard issues that have been talked about before, such as tutors, consultants, and in general, greater family resources dedicated to education. Thats just the way it is. It's no great secret that 1000 things are tougher when you are poorer - all the complaints about EA and ED i;ve seen are just derived from the universal disadvantages of being... disadvantaged. </p>
<p>Except for the fact that in some ED programs, you cannot apply for financial aid. In that case, you are blatantly disadvantaged if you cannot pay - more so than the average disadvantagedness associated with not being able to pay. However, in most ED cases, you can still apply, and they will give you a fa offer, and you can accept of decline attendence if anf only if you can prove you cant afford it. So while ED is particularly nasty to disadvantaged kids, it isn't significant;y nastier than normal RD or EA. And the US college process as a whole is nicer and less biased than so, so many other processes.</p>
<p>(And I apologize that none of this is pertinent to the decreasing early admission %)</p>