Yield Rate

[Sam_Lee]

<p>jake321,</p>

<p>How is ED financially “risky”? You get the offer and see the prelim FA; you decide that it’s too expensive and you just say “thanks, but no thanks”. One of the real negatives about ED is either you will end up not having comparables (in that case, you decide that you <em>can</em> afford it) or your comparables will not include the ED school (when you withdraw because it’s too expensive; but then if it’s too expensive, it shouldn’t be included in your comparables anyway). </p>

<p>One can argue EA also “put students in financial disadvantage”. EA naturally makes people have less/no incentive to apply for more schools; that means they wouldn’t have as many comparables (often none) in the end. As I already mentioned, all early decisions, even EA skews to the rich because they favor well-funded schools, savvy students, and students with well-educated parents that understand the plans. So if you are really advocating for the poor, tell your school to get rid of EA too. But I have a feeling this is more about glorifying one school at the expense of others and bragging than anything else.</p>

[Poplicola]

<p>

One can argue EA also “put students in financial disadvantage”. EA naturally makes people have less/no incentive to apply for more schools; that means they wouldn’t have as many comparables (often none) in the end. As I already mentioned, all early decisions, even EA skews to the rich because they favor well-funded schools, savvy students, and students with well-educated parents that understand the plans. So if you are really advocating for the poor, tell your school to get rid of EA too. But I have a feeling this is more about glorifying one school at the expense of others and bragging than anything else.

</p>

<p>I don’t understand why some on this board are defending the use of Early Decision. Early Decision is unacceptable to a lot of students. It puts students at a financial disadvantage. It is really that simple. Early Decision has no justifications and no merits whatsoever.</p>

[jak321]

<p>

jake321,</p>

<p>How is ED financially “risky”? You get the offer and see the prelim FA; you decide that it’s too expensive and you just say “thanks, but no thanks”. One of the real negatives about ED is either you will end up not having comparables (in that case, you decide that you <em>can</em> afford it) or your comparables will not include the ED school (when you withdraw because it’s too expensive; but then if it’s too expensive, it shouldn’t be included in your comparables anyway). </p>

<p>One can argue EA also “put students in financial disadvantage”. EA naturally makes people have less/no incentive to apply for more schools; that means they wouldn’t have as many comparables (often none) in the end. As I already mentioned, all early decisions, even EA skews to the rich because they favor well-funded schools, savvy students, and students with well-educated parents that understand the plans. So if you are really advocating for the poor, tell your school to get rid of EA too. But I have a feeling this is more about glorifying one school at the expense of others and bragging than anything else.

</p>

<p>The problem is that you can’t say “thanks, but no thanks”. You can only say that in case the aid is insufficient, and it’s the college that makes the decision on sufficiency. Your aid may very well be sufficient, just worse than the aid (and scholarships) you may get at other colleges, which you will lose out on, in opportunity cost.</p>

<p>If EA removes incentives for someone to apply to other schools, how is that a disadvantage, since they don’t make it *impossible<a href=“or%20even%20any%20more%20difficult”>/i</a> to apply to other schools, the only way they can reduce your incentives to apply to other schools is by presenting a wonderful offer to you. That’s not a bad deal. Regardless, with EA a student still has the option to explore other offers, which is not possible with ED. I don’t agree with your last two statements, all you mentioned was:</p>

<p>

All early admission favor the rich in the sense that they are more relevant for the well-resourced high schools and savvy and highly-educated parents that know those plans and start early.

</p>

<p>I don’t really see how* (in EA’s case, that is), but even if it were true that EA (like ED, according to you) favors well-funded schools and savvy-parents, ED would still be worse than EA because, aside from being as bad as EA in the former regard, it places the poor at further disadvantages (here’s an excerpt from my last post; not that’s it’s hard to find arguments for the majority opinion on this thread):</p>

<p>

I think you’ve just proved once again that the financially advantaged can better take advantage of ED (to considerably increase their chances of garnering admission), while the poor have to forfeit this advantage, either by not applying ED at all (so as to explore other options that may turn out to be more financially viable, something that the financially disadvantaged have more reason to do), or by being forced to back out (which, you claim, happens more often to the financially disadvantaged).

</p>

<p>You’re now saying “K, ED is bad, worse than EA, but EA is pretty bad as well”. I believe this entire topic began with phuriku attacking ED schools for being “worse than EA”. Furthermore, your critique for early admissions can be extended to regular admissions as well. It’s just true that well-off families do statistically tend to produce stronger students, and there’s not much anybody can do about that.</p>

<p>

But I have a feeling this is more about glorifying one school at the expense of others and bragging than anything else.

Ad hominem. Don’t let me (and my biases) stand in the way of my rational arguments. Btw, I say three cheers for MIT, Caltech et al as well, not that it should matter.</p>

<p>*You don’t have to be savvy to plan early, that’s just being prudent (which even non-savvy parents are). You do have to be savvy to plan well, in which case yours isn’t so much a critique of early policies, as it is of admissions policies as a whole. That’s true, but as I say above, that’s something that every school indulges in, and is something you can’t do much about.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>

First of all, backing out is reserved for extreme cases.

What’s your basis for this? If you don’t have any, I think I can safely say the real agenda among some of the UChicago folks here is just about bragging. </p>

<p>Poplicola,
People aren’t defending ED in the sense that they think ED is great. They are just saying EA is not morally superior and if moral is what you are after, EA is kinda scummy, even if you think it’s less scummy than ED.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>

the only way they can reduce your incentives to apply to other schools is by presenting a wonderful offer to you. That’s not a bad deal.

Just how do you know your offer is really wonderful if you haven’t seen others at that point? You may think it’s good enough when there are actually things that are better out there. </p>

<p>You seem pretty contradictory. ED doesn’t let you see others once you decide that it’s affordable and accept the offer. EA doesn’t have that restriction but naturally reduce your incentive to apply to more schools and see more comparables. In effect, you are seeing less deals to compare. Isn’t picking the cheapest among more comparables, not simply affordable, deal is what you are after all this time? It’s interesting you trash ED so much while thinking so highly of EA.</p>

[jak321]

<p>

“First of all, backing out is reserved for extreme cases.”</p>

<p>What’s your basis for this? If you don’t have any, I think I can safely say the real agenda among some of the UChicago folks here is just about bragging.

</p>

<p>Emperical evidence, as it so rarely happens (you mentioned yourself, that only 16 Duke students backed out from ED, as opposed to more than a thousand regular kids. You could argue that ED students prefer the school, but that wouldn’t get you too far, not enough to make up the gap of a thousand). </p>

<p>But I also have logical reasons. If backing out was a run-off-the-mill procedure (one that the college didn’t mind any more than it did in regular rounds) you would think that they wouldn’t have the contract (not to mention the policy of blacklisting ED defaulters, and informing other colleges of the breach). Here are two excerpts I stumbled upon in 10 seconds of googling.</p>

<p>[Ask</a> the Experts: Early Decision and Early Application](<a href=“http://www.petersons.com/college-search/ask-experts-early-decision.aspx]Ask”>Ask the Experts: Early Decision and Early Application - Peterson's)</p>

<p>

Good question. The answer is no, the ED commitment is not, as we understand it, legally binding, at least in the sense that you will not be dragged in chains to the college, fined by it or the government, or sued for damages and tuition payments, if you decide not to go to the school that admitted you ED.</p>

<p>However, the ED commitment is binding in the college admissions process, and if you are found to have applied to other colleges after having been admitted ED someplace, or to have applied to more than one ED school, or to give up your ED choice for another college that has offered you admission, you will face the usual consequence of being blacklisted by the ED college. The school will try to contact your high school guidance office and other colleges that have admitted you to notify them of your breaking the agreement. These other colleges will most likely withdraw their admission offers, and you will be left with no choices for the fall.

</p>

<p>[Early</a> Decision - Can You Break an Early Decision Contract?](<a href=“http://youngadults.about.com/od/collegeprep/qt/Breakingbinding.htm]Early”>Learn about Early Decision for College Admissions)</p>

<p>

An insufficiently generous financial aid package, for example, is not deemed grounds for breaking an Early Decision contract. Families were supposed to have taken finances into account before applying. And students who try to negotiate a better financial offer by holding out a promise from another school, do so at their peril. Although Early Decision applicants are welcome to apply to other colleges under Early Action, rolling or regular admissions, those applications should have been withdrawn the moment an Early Decision acceptance arrived. Hence, there should never have been another financial aid offer.

</p>

<p>

Just how do you know your offer is really wonderful if you haven’t seen others at that point? You may think it’s good enough when there are actually things that are better out there. </p>

<p>You seem pretty contradictory. ED doesn’t let you see others once you decide that it’s affordable and accept the offer. EA doesn’t have that restriction but naturally reduce your incentive to apply to more schools and see more comparables. In effect, you are seeing less deals to compare. Isn’t picking the cheapest among more comparables, not simply affordable, deal is what you are after all this time? It’s interesting you trash ED so much while thinking so highly of EA.

A wonderful offer (as in a full ride) would be wonderful (exceeding all reasonable expectations) regardless of your other (perhaps more) wonderful offers. But the point is, EA, no matter how little incentives EA students have to go down the road of casting a wider net, affords them that option if they so desired. That’s just not true for ED. There… EA>ED (here and in other places as well, but at least here, which is enough to make my and phuriku’s point). I believe this addresses your second paragraph, which is merely an extension of your first point, but just for good measure, I should add that it was you who brought up the question of EA reducing incentives*. I don’t really agree with it, I just pointed out that it could only do so by giving you a good offer, unlike ED which accomplishes the same by waving about a blacklist.</p>

<p>But please, go ahead and ignore the rest of my post.</p>

<p>*You said:

EA naturally makes people have less/no incentive to apply for more schools;

</p>

<p>To which I replied:</p>

<p>

If EA removes incentives for someone to apply to other schools, how is that a disadvantage, since they don’t make it impossible (or even any more difficult) to apply to other schools, the only way they can reduce your incentives to apply to other schools is by presenting a wonderful offer to you. That’s not a bad deal. Regardless, with EA a student still has the option to explore other offers, which is not possible with ED. I don’t agree with your last two statements, all you mentioned was:

</p>

<p>See the big fat if…</p>

<p>@Sam Lee, I urge you to read through all my arguments again, as I just did yours, before making your next post nitpicking at some fine point of my post.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>

A wonderful offer (as in a full ride) would be wonderful (exceeding all reasonable expectations) regardless of your other (perhaps more) wonderful offers. But the point is, EA, no matter how little incentives EA students have to go down the road of casting a wider net, affords them that option if they so desired. That’s just not true for ED. There… EA>ED

</p>

<p>You just proved my point all along. All this time. you were merely engaging a bragging contest to prove EA is better than ED; your “concern” about the financially disadvantaged is not real; it’s just used to prove how EA is better than ED. Basically, EA > ED because it’s less restrictive; okay, that’s fine and easily understood and I would say for some people, ED > EA because of the higher boost in acceptance rate. </p>

<p>But just don’t play that moral card; EA is a discriminatory practice that favors the wealthy; you didn’t seem to care, other than saying the wealthy have advantages in RD anyway.</p>

[invasion]

<p>@xiggi/JHS</p>

<p>I Googled and could not find any conclusive statement on the Ivies’ policy on breaking ED contracts for financial reasons. However, I did remember one CC poster from last year whose likely letter from Columbia RD got retracted once the school found out he had backed out of Cornell ED for financial reasons.</p>

<p>

@cortana431

Applied: Cornell (Early Decision), Columbia […]
Accepted: Cornell (later withdrawed due to financial aid), Columbia (likely letter) […]</p>

<p>Columbia later retracted the likely letter after I withdrawed my acceptance from Cornell.

Source: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14673511-post1519.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14673511-post1519.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In a different thread, the same poster (cortana431) mentioned that he called Columbia, and they pretty much told him he would automatically be rejected.</p>

<p>

@cortana431

I too am expecting pretty much an auto rejection (basically told that by the columbia admissions office).

@cortana431

I got into Cornell early decision but I had to withdraw because I didn’t get any financial aid. So when I talked to Columbia they told I most likely wouldn’t be considered because Columbia and Cornell’s financIal aid are similar.

Source: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/1281031-columbia-rd-2016-applicant-discussion-thread-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/1281031-columbia-rd-2016-applicant-discussion-thread-4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So this is my basis for asserting that ED Ivy League schools collude to make sure an applicant who backs out of ED for financial reasons will get locked out of all Ivy League schools, even though they don’t make aid decisions together.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Great, let’s prefer the reliable information posted by a genius at About.com over the official text of the Common Application:</p>

<p><a href=“https://schoolforms.commonapp.org/CommonApp/Docs/DownloadForms/2013/2013EarlyDecision_download.pdf[/url]”>https://schoolforms.commonapp.org/CommonApp/Docs/DownloadForms/2013/2013EarlyDecision_download.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>INSTRUCTIONS
From the National Association for College Admission Counseling Statement of Principles of Good Practice:
“Early Decision (ED) is the application process in which students make a commitment to a first-choice institution where, if admitted, they definitely will
enroll. While pursuing admission under an Early Decision plan, students may apply to other institutions, but may have only one Early Decision application pending at any time. </p>

<p>Should a student who applies for financial aid not be offered an award that makes attendance possible, the student may decline the offer of admission and be released from the Early Decision commitment. </p>

<p>The institution must notify the applicant of the decision within a reasonable and clearly stated period of time after the</p>

<p>Early Decision deadline. Usually, a nonrefundable deposit must be made well in advance of May 1. The institution will respond to an application for financial aid at or near the time of an offer of admission. Institutions with Early Decision plans may restrict students from applying to other early plans. Institutions will clearly articulate their specific policies in their Early Decision agreement.”
If you are accepted under an Early Decision plan, you must promptly withdraw the applications submitted to other colleges and universities and make no
additional applications to any other university in any country. </p>

<p>If you are an Early Decision candidate and are seeking financial aid, you need not withdraw other applications until you have received notification about financial aid from the admitting Early Decision institution.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Backing out of an ED agreement is different from rejecting the offer or waiting for the adequate financial aid package.</p>

<p>Cornell and Columbia both accept the Common Application.</p>

[invasion]

<p>

@xiggi

Backing out of an ED agreement is different from rejecting the offer or waiting for the adequate financial aid package.

How? I think you’re nitpicking here. I don’t think the poster accepted the offer, then rejected it; rather, he simply didn’t accept it once he saw the aid package. And either way, he should not be penalized that way for backing out for financial reasons.</p>

<p>

@xiggi

Cornell and Columbia both accept the Common Application.

Yes. That is a true statement. Maybe the first one you’ve made so far in this thread!</p>

[jak321]

<p>

You just proved my point all along. All this time. you were merely engaging a bragging contest to prove EA is better than ED; your “concern” about the financially disadvantaged is not real;

</p>

<p>Aargh! What I meant there (as is almost superfluously obvious, given my previous posts and the topic of discussion) is that EA>ED for the applicants in general. Not that it is a better policy, just a more ethical one, or a less inconsiderate one…</p>

<p>You didn’t read through my arguments did you! Because you would find something to negate each one of your sentences…</p>

<p>

@Sam Lee

your “concern” about the financially disadvantaged is not real;

</p>

<p>I assure you, it’s not only quite “real” but it’s the only concern I have regarding these policies at all!</p>

<p>

@jak321

It’s just that the benefits of ED are unfairly skewed to those students at a financial advantage, since the risk (extra cost) is a lot less “riskier” to them. A financially disadvantaged student would therefore be less inclined to applying ED, and would therefore be forced into a more competitive pool, one that his more affluent peers could more easily avoid
.
.
.</p>

<p>I think you’ve just proved once again that the financially advantaged can better take advantage of ED (increase their chances of admission considerably), while the poor have to forfeit this advantage, either by not applying ED at all (so as to explore other options that may turn out to be more financially viable, something that the financially disadvantaged have more reason to do), or by being forced to back out (which, you claim, happens more often to the financially disadvantaged).

</p>

<p>And even if my concern were not real:</p>

<p>

@jak321

Ad hominem. Don’t let me (and my biases) stand in the way of my rational arguments.

</p>

<p>

@Sam Lee

it’s just used to prove how EA is better than ED. Basically, EA > ED because it’s less restrictive;

</p>

<p>As I’ve demonstrated several times, this loss of restrictiveness is often offset by better chances of admission. The problem is that it gives unfair advantages to the well-to-do:</p>

<p>

@jak321

Yes, the boost in chances may very well offset the higher cost for several students. It’s just that the benefits of ED are unfairly skewed to those students at a financial advantage,

</p>

<p>

@Sam Lee

okay, that’s fine and easily understood and I would say for some people, ED > EA because of the higher boost in acceptance rate.

</p>

<p>That’s fine, it’s just that the financially advantaged have better access to that golden nugget than the financially disadvantaged, which is where the the entire moral question comes in…</p>

<p>

@jak321

I think you’ve just proved once again that the financially advantaged can better take advantage of ED (increase their chances of admission considerably), while the poor have to forfeit this advantage, either by not applying ED at all (so as to explore other options that may turn out to be more financially viable, something that the financially disadvantaged have more reason to do), or by being forced to back out (which, you claim, happens more often to the financially disadvantaged).

</p>

<p>

@Sam Lee

But just don’t play that moral card; EA is a discriminatory practice that favors the wealthy;

</p>

<p>

@jak321

@Sam Lee

All early admission favor the rich in the sense that they are more relevant for the well-resourced high schools and savvy and highly-educated parents that know those plans and start early.

I don’t really see how* (in EA’s case, that is), but even if it were true that EA (like ED, according to you) favors well-funded schools and savvy-parents, ED would still be worse than EA because, aside from being as bad as EA in the former regard, it places the poor at further disadvantages (here’s an excerpt from my last post; not that’s it’s hard to find arguments for the majority opinion on this thread):
.
.
.
*You don’t have to be savvy to plan early, that’s just being prudent (which even non-savvy parents are). You do have to be savvy to plan well, in which case yours isn’t so much a critique of early policies, as it is of admissions policies as a whole. That’s true, but as I say above, that’s something that every school indulges in, and is something you can’t do much about.
.
.
.
You’re now saying “K, ED is bad, worse than EA, but EA is pretty bad as well”. I believe this entire topic began with phuriku attacking ED schools for being “worse than EA”. Furthermore, your critique for early admissions can be extended to regular admissions as well. It’s just true that well-off families do statistically tend to produce stronger students, and there’s not much anybody can do about that.

</p>

<p>

@Sam Lee

you didn’t seem to care, other than saying the wealthy have advantages in RD anyway.

</p>

<p>The wealthy will always be advantaged! That’s sort of the axiom that the incentive mechanism of a capitalistic economy hinges on! Good schools are expensive, and so are good tutors. The financially advantaged can spend on such “luxuries”, and therefore improve their chances, but, importantly, only by improving their students. What ED does, other than give the financial advantaged even more advantages, is that it benefits the financially advantaged, without requiring them to improve their product (students)! </p>

<p>It’s kind of like how a wealthy company can spend more (akin to financially advantaged families producing better students, or having more savvy parents) on R&D and make a product better than it’s competitor’s… That’s the natural way. But when a wealthy company uses stifling measures to restrict (ED) competition, that’s justifiably considered unethical…</p>

<p>Anyways, I’m done with this discussion… Ciao, and good luck proving that restriction that favors the wealthy is better than one that does not.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>Columbia could easily get sued if they did what you think they did. But looking at your sentence:

Columbia later retracted the likely letter after I withdrawed my acceptance from Cornell.

</p>

<p>So in other word, he/she got the likely letter after accepting Cornell’s offer. He/she wouldn’t get the likely if he/she withdrew from Columbia at the first place, which was what he/she should have done upon accepting Cornell’s offer.</p>

[jak321]

<p>@Xiggi, that’s something I’ve been saying all along. You can back out of ED but only when it makes attendance impossible, not just comparatively unpleasant.

@Xiggi

Should a student who applies for financial aid not be offered an award that makes attendance possible, the student may decline the offer of admission and be released from the Early Decision commitment.

</p>

<p>Here’s what I’ve been saying on the matter:

@jak321

First of all, backing out is reserved for extreme cases. Since of all these colleges (claim to) meet full need, it’s extremely unlikely that a student would be offered less aid than he absolutely requires, as long as he can demonstrate the requirement. And as PAGRok remarked above, there’s a difference between “affordable” and most affordable. The affordable college may have provided enough aid for backing out to no longer be an option, but you may have missed out on better offers which you could have evaluated had you taken a less restrictive path. I was alluding to this kind of scenario, where backing out is no longer an option, but in opportunity cost, one would be paying more than one could have otherwise been paying.

</p>

<p>And, as a matter of fact, my quoted websites say the exact same thing. Inane as they may be, those “geniuses” know better than to refute something so clearly stated on the commonapp…</p>

[invasion]

<p>Sam, I think that’s just misleading phrasing. The part you quoted was from a post in July, after everything was done; if you look at the other thread I linked to, which is dated February, the opposite is heavily implied. Seriously, you and xiggi are employing some very selective reading tactics here…</p>

<p>Also why would Columbia get sued for that? As far as I know, it’s only shaky (but not illegal as far as I know) for colleges to collude on giving out financial aid, not for telling each other who backed out of ED.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>jak123,</p>

<p>I really have no idea why you wrote long paragraphs to say how ED benefits the wealthy. Did I even once argue it doesn’t benefit them? But when it comes to EA benefiting the wealthy, you just said “the wealthy will always be advantaged”. Like ED, EA “give[s] the financial advantaged even more advantages”.</p>

[gravitas2]

<p>Having read through this thread and not wanting to participate in this ridiculous argument…I can no longer stand idly by…</p>

<p>…if the ED institutions (Penn, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern) truly believed in the students’ welfare and well-being they should all go non-restrictive EA. If they think they could compete head to head with Chicago, MIT, Caltech and get the “yield” they want they should have nothing to be worried about…this would benefit the students who can all compare financial packages as well as attend admit weekends to compare for “fit”.</p>

<p>Moreover, the four SCEA schools (Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale) should also get rid of their “restrictive” EA and go nonrestrictive EA if they weren’t concerned about their yield… Why not let market forces in the real world of nonrestrictive EA and RD bear witness to where students truly want to attend without placing any restrictions…</p>

<p>…it is when this is allowed that acceptance rates, yield rates, parchment data, cross-admit data can truly be more realistic and accepted…</p>

<p>…but, I fear certain schools (won’t mention their names) would never dare for FEAR their yields going down and acceptance rates going up…it is sad.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>

…if the ED institutions (Penn, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern) truly believed in the students’ welfare and well-being they should all go non-restrictive EA.

If schools truly believed in the students’ welfare and well-being and soical justice, they should all get rid of early admisisons, regardless if it’s ED or EA.</p>

<p>

but, I fear certain schools (won’t mention their names) would never dare for FEAR their yields going down and acceptance rates going up…it is sad.

And I fear none of the schools you mentioned would never dare to drop EA/ED for FEAR their yields going down and acceptance rates going up. We are just left with EA/ED that continuely favor the rich and let the rich get richer. Now, that’s probably more sad.</p>

[TheBanker]

<p>Going non-restrictive EA is as level as the playing field would get. It’s a good way to reward students who show interest in a particular school and doesn’t have any financial repercussions for the students. Better to have a signaling mechanism via EA than none via RD only.</p>

[rhg3rd]

<p>"…if the ED institutions (Penn, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Northwestern) truly believed in the students’ welfare and well-being they should all go non-restrictive EA."</p>

<p>Well yes, but institutions are more often concerned with their own welfare. ED affords more control over the mix of students that attend than EA does.</p>