<p>But it is other colleges, Levin readily admits, that the University must convince to drop their early-admission programs if Yale is to eliminate its own. "It's difficult for Yale to act unilaterally here," Levin said. "For us to drop our program and to have our competitors keep theirs would give them a huge advantage." </p>
<br>
<p>Don't know why xiggi is "blaming" Yale per se.
Clearly it's an all-college issue.
If some colleges at the same level will not give up ED/EA, then the other colleges will be compelled to keep some form of Early Admit.</p>
<p>Re xiggi's post--no question, right now, applying EA is a HUGE advantage, no matter what they tell you. For non-legacy, non URM's, the difference in acceptance rate between EA and RD is something like 4 fold. And I don't believe it has much or anything to do with the quality of the applicant pools, rather, it is, I believe, two things: first, about yield: they know EA applicants are way more likely to come. second: as they're constructing a balanced class of diverse students (in terms of interests), the first bunch of terrifically qualified pianists, debaters, researchers, singers, etc. can start to fill slots. During RD, they may already have just about enough of those particular "types" of students, and so the next bunch of those terrifically qualified pianists, debaters, researchers, singers, etc. are going to have a much tougher time being admitted.</p>
<p>"Don't know why xiggi is "blaming" Yale per se."</p>
<p>I am not "blaming" Levin nor Yale, but pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming to want to see changes in the early admission "game" while admitting close to 70% of the freshman class from the early pool. If ED/EA/SCEA is important to the school, just say so. In this regard, it is worthwhile to read the declarations of officials at Dartmouth. </p>
<p>As far as a school inability to implement changes without the support of all others, I believe that the changes between EA and ED have been made in the past without much of a consensus. In this case, the programs do not have to change entirely as much as a reduction in the ED/EA preferences. What would be wrong to cap the early birds admissions to a REAL 20 or 30 percent of the entering class? Yale does not need Harvard's or Princeton's permission to do that, don't they? </p>
<p>The bottom line is that schools do what it is in their BEST interest. If Yale -or HPS- could find a new twist that develops a competitive advantage, it would not take them long to implement it. And to this, I'd say POWER TO them. They are private schools and can do as they please. As far as I am concerned, HYPS could fill their entire class from the early admission pool ... as long as it comes with a full disclosure and acknowledgement. </p>
<p>In the meantime, it is not improper for one to expect the school officials to keep a tad of honesty and integrity in discussing their inside policies. </p>
<p>You should read the entire article on Levin that was posted previously.
He said specifically that Early admit is FOR the university's benefit;
and he wants/hopes to change it.</p>
<p>"You should read the entire article on Levin that was posted previously.
He said specifically that Early admit is FOR the university's benefit;
and he wants/hopes to change it."</p>
<p>Maybe, YOU should read the entire article as well as what I wrote. </p>
<p>As far as "Levin wants or hopes to change it," you would need a microscope to find any concrete evidence of changes in the right direction. After all, does HE not have a say in the distribution of the entering class between early and regular decisions? Was he not hired to set current admissions' policies for Yale and show leadership? </p>
<p>PS In case, you were not aware of the numbers, here are the admits for ED/SCEA at Yale:</p>
<p>I have to agree with Xiggi that talk's cheap, especially when your actions completely contradict it. As Byerley pointed out on another thread, SCEA turns out to be a more potent form of ED, simply because it significantly increases your pool of very high yield early applicants, and adds a large pool of very high yield early deferreds! That Yale takes 70% of its class from the early pool is a stunning number, which mocks President Levin's views about the evils of the system. Incidentally, it will come as no surprise when Princeton goes SCEA, since it has become pretty clear that SCEA is even more potent than the ED approach they used so effectively in the Fred Hargadon days. Will Penn,who pretty much pioneered heavy use of the early pool, feel they have the firepower to make it work for them?</p>
<p>Still, isn't EA an improvement in the "admissions game" for the students as well, since it allows them to compare financial aid packages. In my mind, that was the biggest problem with ED.</p>
<p>Yes, absolutely, the other problem being that ED rushes 17 year olds into premature decisions in many cases. I'm aware of the argument that is only for kids who know exactly where they want to go, but I've witnessed many times the last minute scramble to pick an early admit school so as to not lose the admissions edge that applying early gives you. For the many, many 17 year olds who really only begin to seriously consider their choices in the summer of senior year, ED seems often premature.</p>
<p>Though SCEA allows for students to compare financial aid packages it does not always allow them to compete for certain school based merit aid packages. For example, Villanova has a full tuition merit scholarship that requires that a student apply by their EA deadline. SCEA effectively prevents students from competing for this scholarship. Here is the link:</p>
<p>One alternative to this is the way USC describes their deadlines. Their first deadline is around December 10 and is called the "Scholarship application deadline". January 10 is their "non-scholarship application deadline". This enables a student to apply to an SCEA school and to USC without violating the SCEA policy.</p>
<p>The schools offering SCEA may be doing it to prevent loss of students to merit scholarships at other institutions. Using standard financial aid all the Ivy league schools can compete quite effectively but not with merit aid that they do not or can not offer.</p>
<p>Eagle79, thanks for clarifying the complexity of the merit aid situation. Your explanation highlights the self-interest that determines the colleges' choice of rules.</p>
<p>Back to the original topic, we found the Stanford admissions office one of the best and Yale's the worst of those we dealt with. Yale seemed completely overwhelmed and disorganized, and unapologetic about their errors. I really hope that the Stanford approach to admissions rubs off on him rather than the other way around.</p>