Yield

Parents Forum
61

<p>jamimom - the real numbers tell a different story. Only 16% of Harvard undergraduates come from families making less than $60K a year and I will bet you that most of those are from families making less than $40K and probably less than $30K. At mosy highly selective schools that number is not 16% but 10%. These schools are the bastions of the wealthy and the a handful of the poor. The vast middle of America are left out and need not apply.</p>

<p>This socio-economic isolation is the root of the cultural isolation in which these unber liberal institutions live. If you want to know why red America and blue amerika despise each other you need look no further for the answer.</p>

<p>There is another thread going that touches on all of this</p>

<p>Harvard Admissions Dean on Socioeconomic Diversity</p>

<p><a href="http://www.harvardindependent.com/media/paper369/news/2005/05/05/News/Dean-Pushes.For.Socioeconomic.Diversity-950253.shtml"&gt;http://www.harvardindependent.com/media/paper369/news/2005/05/05/News/Dean-Pushes.For.Socioeconomic.Diversity-950253.shtml&lt;/a&gt;" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.harvardindependent.com/m...ty-950253.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.harvardindependent.com/m...ty-950253.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

62

<p>
[quote]
Your apparent focus on applicant Desire (vs. the institution's priorities for the freshman class) as the key dynamic (and the <em>reason</em> to apply ED). The sureness/commitment on the student's part is not not driving the admission <em>decisions</em>. In prioritizing applications, the institution couldn't care less whether the applicant wants to Take Them To The Prom.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We may be viewing this in two different ways -- the way many kids approach ED and the way I think ED should be approached. To me, "loving" the school, in and of itself, is not a sufficient reason for applying to a school. I think ED should be used for a school where the student is a good admissions match: both in terms of qualifications and "fit". In other words, ED is best used when the student is a solid candidate.</p>

<p>As for schools, that "couldn't care less", I wouldn't apply to those schools ED, EA, SCEA, or RD. I don't honestly understand why anyone applies to a school that "couldn't care less". If they "couldn't care less" when they are trying to sell you, you may find that they indeed could care even less after they have your money.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I see ED as an equal match game, college-to-student, only for exceptionally qualified students and/or those with some highly unusual asset to offer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What you are describing is EA. Because the college gets virtually nothing from it, only stand-out applicants have a chance of being accepted. A well-targeted ED application is most beneficial to an applicant who is not a stand-out applicant, either in terms of exceptional qualifications or unusual asset. Obviously, those things are still desirable. However, because the school gets something of real value (guaranteed yield), they are very likely to take a nice, solid applicant in the ED round.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sureness & commitment prior to an Early acceptance may not translate 5 months later.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To be perfectly honest, the decision-making I've seen around here in late April has been pretty scary. The closer to May 1, the more kids seem to get themselves tied into knots, mired deeper and deeper into insignificant details, like thrashing around in quicksand. Gotta love the classic: "where should I go, U Michigan or St. Johns?" Or, any two schools that are such polar extremes, you have to wonder what is going on in the poor kid's head?</p>

<p>If a preference doesn't reveal itself early on, so be it. But, if it does, and, if thorough research and an overnight visit doesn't shake that preference, then Nov. 1st is as good a time as any to choose a college. Maybe a better time -- the calm before the storm and before the fear of high school coming to an end rears its ugly head. </p>

<p>I think a lot of the indecision we see here results from kids being hammered by the pressure of the decision, to the point where they lack the confidence to go with the "big picture" and their gut. Honestly, if I read one more kid trying to choose a college based on a desperate attempt to determine which great school has the "higher-ranked" Economics department so they can get into an MBA program six years from now, I think I'll scream. For all they know, they'll be a missionary in Africa six years by then.</p>

63

<p>patuxent</p>

<p>"Contrary to leftist dogma everything does not belong to the state save for what they deign to allow us to keep. In fact it works the other way around."</p>

<p>Understood, but I also think that the schools, many of them the home of leftist dogma, have also entered into a bargain with the state. They often talk about their care and concern for others from different socio-economic backgrounds yet their policies run counter to their statements. As you can tell, I think ED is one of those policies.</p>

<p>BTW, "When you through our government force me to stop beating my neighbor you are protecting my neighbors fundamental rights and promoting the common good. Bur when you force me and only me to assume the burden of feeding that lazy bag of bones you are a tyrant." I do not think I could agree more with this statement. I just think that ED is a policy that enable the rich to gain access while believing that they are participating in a meritocracy. I just don't think those two positions align.</p>

<p>With that all said, I also think that the Ivy league schools in particular are working to remedy that perception with their generous use of financial aid. If they all switched to SCEA I think that they would get the benefit of knowing that a student has a first choice while at the same time the student maintains some leeway to change their mind. In defense of this position, note the yield rate of the SCEA students.</p>

64

<p>i-dad,</p>

<p>I agree about some of the decision making we see at the end of April. I think that some of it is caused by the students being forced to make a decision so publicly. They all talk with their peers about their school choices and it creates a feeding frenzy. Those that apply early, under any mechanism, often avoid this frenzy because they are evaluating from January 1 until May 1 instead of just in the 1 month period.</p>

<p>I also agree that I see way too much of what school/program is 'best' for students a few years out. While there is some hierarchy in programs the differences are not that significant 4 years out among comparable schools. Students should really be looking at the broader fit and feel of the school after it meets a certain criterea, i.e. has a well regarded engineering program, etc.</p>

65

<p>Eagle - suffice it to say we are on the same page about ED. Your sentiments mirror mine.</p>

<p>You also touch on another point sort of that may be my biggest objection to ED and early decisions programs in general. This ine has nothing to do with fairness or cost but rather with the simple fact that who a kid is or seems to be at 17 or possibly even 16 is not who they will be when they go off to college let alone the kid that comes back after freshman year. What seems perfect for a 16 or 17 year old sophomore who is visiting schools, taking college boards, gathering recommendations for a Nov 1 deadline senior year may not look so good for a rapidly maturing HS graduate 15 or 16 months later when they pack off in late August or September.</p>

<p>Many a parent looks at their HS Junior and thinks I got to send this kid to some little nurturing LAC in the boondocks or they will never survive and then when they come back from NYU after their freshman year the sophisticated queen of a vast urban metropolis they scratch their heads and wonder what was I thinking. The opposite can happen too. Your party-hardy jocko son can turn into a monkish scholar.</p>

<p>As a parent I just think that we may be pressing this process a little too early - but of course that is not the only thing we are forcing our kids to do earlier and earkier and maybe not to their ultimate benefit.</p>

66

<p>The relative educational strengths and weaknesses of small undergrad colleges and large universities don't change from monto to monthy or year to year. In fact, those relative strengths and weaknesses have remained consistent for probably a hundred years.</p>

<p>Other than financial issues, I don't see anything could possibly change between November and May that would make a "good" choice for a student suddenly become a "bad" choice.</p>

<p>This notion that small undergrad colleges are just for personalities who need "nurturing" is just plain wrong, IMO. Academically, there is nothing "nurturing" about the the top LACs. Some of them are brutally demanding and provide little opportunity to just skate by.</p>

67

<p>I don't think the schools change. I think the kids change. And I don't think there is anything wrong with small LACs nor big state flagships either for that matter. But what seems a great place on a summer visit before you junior year and still good after you have taken your SATs and are asking teachers for recommendations in May or June of your junior year may well seem overwhelming or underwhelming by the following May.</p>

<p>For most of our kids college is going to be the very first time they are with a large number of their intellectual peers. For some it may even be the first time they have walked into a classroom taught by a male given the demographics of public school teachers in this country. Some kids will be suddenly awakened and others will think the rules have changed. Most will hav more freedom and responsibility than they have ever experienced before.</p>

<p>My Mom came to live with us a few years back. We hadn;t lived under the same roof since I was 19. She was now old and I was- well if you double your age and don't ecpect you will still be around are you still middle aged? But the thing is much of the dynamic hadn't changed. She would ask me where I was going and when I would be back every time I left the house :-) To a parent no matter how big and strong they grow or brilliant and accomplished they become when we look at them we see see the baby learning to walk, the first day of kindergarden, the nine year old who skinned their knee, the 16 year old taking her drivers license, the graduating senior in their cap and gown and then they are gone. They have lives without us.</p>

<p>One thing I always tell haggard and frazzled parents, especially ones with a fussy child. There will come a last time when you pick them up and rock them, sing them a lullaby, say their evening prayers with them, carry them on your back or in your arms - and you won't know it when it happens. Cherish the moment.</p>

68

<p>"The highly selective need only schools are for the rich and a handful of the poor and that goes a long way in explaining why they have a monlithically liberal culture."</p>

<p>I'll skip over the problems with the elements of this argument to note that there is no real cause/effect evidence available for this claim. </p>

<p>But it is pretty easy to find evidence that for academically qualified students with middle-class family incomes (let's select a range of 50-90K, knowing that there can be many intervening variables) selective private colleges and universities can be more affordable, on a need-aid comparison, than public universities. This is not so much a tribute to the generosity of private colleges as it is a marker for fast-rising public higher ed costs, though it is true that community colleges and commuter-type state colleges are typically less expensive for this group, for a variety of reasons.</p>

<p>As a side-note, I wish the words liberal and conservative were banned from these discussions. Variance in current usage and radical differences with past usage render both close to useless. And I would put the brakes on the middle-class victim theme, too. . it just doesn't wash, though a case for it will be easier to make soon if the current administration has its way. Finally, we should all be specific about what we call "middle-class," as typically people with family incomes from 40K-200K self-identify as middle-class.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
As a side-note, I wish the words liberal and conservative were banned from these discussions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Amen to that. I don't even know which I am, let alone what people mean when they toss around those phrases.</p>

70

<p>reidm - I think I was pretty specific with my definition of middle class. The median family income in the US is in the mid $40's. Only 16% of Harvard's undergraduates come from families making under $60 K a year and that is above the average for its peer institutions where the number is more like 10%. So either they are not doing a very good job of making Harvard affordable or there are not very many smart middle class kids in America or - and I am sure this couldn't be the case, the middle class is bearing the burden of need only policies that mostly go to assuage the consciences of the rich.</p>

<p>But what the heck I'll go along with your fiction that there is no liberal/conservative values clash going on here. I am sure that it is just a coincidence that nine of ten Harvard faculty are Democrats :-) Harvard has done a great job of recruiting a student body and even a faculty that looks like America. But it has all the intellectual and poliical diversity of Joe Stalin's Politbureau. </p>

<p>Of course I am sure that is all just a coincidence and has nothing to do with admissions and aid policies. Certainly if 84% of the undergraduates were the sons and daughters of mechanics and carpenters, data entry clerks and receptionists, people who actually work for a living things would be just the same on campus.</p>

71

<p>I'dad,</p>

<p>"Because the college gets virtually nothing from [EA], only stand-out applicants have a chance at being accepted."</p>

<p>No, they do get something (better than what the strictly ED schools get). They get brilliant students, rich AND poor, gifted athletes rich AND poor, etc. From the EA acceptance group, they then spend 5 months vigorously pursuing their top candidates. For my D, that almost worked.</p>

<p>In addition, EA also decreases app. numbers. My D decreased by two-thirds her college app. list after her EA acceptance. A classmate of hers would have eliminated all other apps at that point, had she also been accepted EA.</p>

<p>I worry less than you about the last-minute (April) deciders, even the frantic ones -- although I hear & appreciate what you're saying. I worry much, much more about the terror in the cyber-voices of the ED acceptees who realize too late that they don't want the school, and/or have changed their minds because of their development and/or other factors entering the picture after early-mid fall of Sr. yr.</p>

<p>My D had no "panic" about her April decision, just a broader, more thoughtful, more mature perspective. I hope that both ED and EA continue to be among options for students.</p>

72

<p>I'dad,
When I say that colleges "couldn't care less," I'm referring to the bases of their Early decisions. It's not about the student's love & affection for the college -- although that's been popularized as the <em>reason</em> for Early application, leaving many very loving applicants confused & heartbroken upon rejection or deferral.</p>

<p>Beyond the student's demonstrated interest evident in the appl. itself (Why Do You Want To Go Here?, including the attention/detail paid to the application, fulfillment of deadlines, respect for the college's requests, etc.), the "love" quotient is not an imp. factor. These top colleges are building freshman classes like architects build dream houses with every available building material; that gives them enormous power & discretion once those apps land on their desks or on their computers. They're looking for product, not emotion, & they have those products in spades like never before.</p>

<p>I think it's very misleading for adults to say or imply to applicants that "love" (or attachment) should be the <em>reason</em> for Early application, because that also logically could imply to that applicant that he or she was rejected for having "less love." (And reading CC post-EA, post-ED threads bears this out.)</p>

<p>Love is Not Enough. (Essential if ED, just not enough.) Love is also dangerous if you, the applicant, are not convinced that you are desirable relative to the needs of the college, its typical applicants, & its interest in the yield factor.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
No, they do get something (better than what the strictly ED schools get). They get brilliant students, rich AND poor, gifted athletes rich AND poor, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They also get a lot of dreck. Kids who have no business applying, but, hey, it's a freebie.</p>

<p>I don't know about "poor". I thought we agreed that the problem with EA/ED included "poor" kids not being able to start their college searches early, thus giving an advantage to the "rich"? November 1st is still November 1st.</p>

<p>As for athletes, I'd have to go look up the numbers. But the powerhouse athletic schools, like Williams, enroll a significant chunk of their athletic tips in binding ED. I think Williams signed 2/3rds of their low-stat "tips" ED. It's the Div III version of signing day.</p>

<p>As for these mythical kids who feel terrible remorse after an ED acceptance....I've personally never heard from one. I'm sure they exist. But, most of the ED kids I have communicated with are tickled pink.</p>

74

<p>I think one of the dangers that all of us parents should be aware of is generalizing about an issue/school because of the particular choice(s) our child made. I-Dad, ED and Swarthmore may be the perfect thing for your child (Lucky her!), but it doesn't necessarily make it ideal for others. Of course, we all have a special place in our hearts for the school where our child will be, but I think we should all strive to be as objective as possible for the sake of people to whom we offer advice.
And given the fact that all kids develop at different rates, and in spurts, 6 months time in senior year can be significant.</p>

75

<p>I've never advocated that any student apply ED, at least until the point where there is sufficient detailed info about financial constraints, firmness of choice, to make a specific judgement. </p>

<p>However, I do object when others suggest that we should eliminate ED as an option, across the board, because they don't like it. My point is: why should we take away a valuable option when those who don't like ED are under no pressure whatsoever to apply ED or, for that matter, even to apply to an ED college?</p>

<p>There are many students and many colleges who mutually benefit from binding ED programs. That is not to say that ED is for everybody. Just because it happened to work for me, I wouldn't propose forcing everyone to apply binding ED. I like the choices in the marketplace.</p>

<p>I don't like colleges that make no effort to have diversity on campus. But, that doesn't mean I think there should be "court" imposed minimum diversity standards or that those colleges should be forced to do something that doesn't fit with their culture. To each his own. Consumer choice is good.</p>

76

<p>Certainly, I agree with that. But the tone in the following quotes give me pause:
"the gazillion high-stat applicants wasting their EA apps with wing and a prayer long-shots at HYPSM."
"They also get a lot of dreck. Kids who have no business applying, but, hey, it's a freebie."
Taking a risk and reaching, being able to tolerate rejection, acknowlegding that one didn't get their first choice and still being able to feel ok about oneself, --those can be signs of character, not weakness.</p>

77

<p>Donemom:</p>

<p>Stick around and follow the boards here through a full admissions cycle, starting with the "Here are my stats, what are my chances?" threads in early fall and ending with the tsunami of tears on notification day. I think you will be amazed at some of the ill-targeted EA applications you see, based on nothing more than a position on a magazine's ranking list and SAT scores within the school's 25th percentile medians.</p>

<p>IMO, a 9% acceptance rate is de facto proof of a shortfall in realistic self-selection.</p>

<p>You don't see quite as much scatter-shot action with ED because that binding commitment is a sufficiently high bar to make kids really consider their options before dropping the app in the mail.</p>

78

<p>That's silly. The EA and SCEA admit rates are also 3 or 4 times higher than the RD admit rates, without squeezing the 17-yr olds the way the ED schools do.</p>

<p>ED is just as much an anti-competitive measure as any other price-fixing, market-sharing customer-be damned restraint of trade as we see from the worst corporate exploiters and cheaters who made the anti-trust laws necessary..</p>

<p>Congress should skin these crooks alive.</p>

<p>Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?</p>

79

<p>I-Dad: actually, I have followed Harvard's board for most of this admissions cycle (I've just not posted), and mostly had the opposite impression: the scads of enormously qualified kids whose accomplishments and statistics were nothing short of incredible. And once again, your teminology "tsunami of tears" sounds really pejorative--not appreciated, I'm sure, by those coping with disappointment. (maybe you'd be more sympathetic if your child faced that kind of result). And of course you see less aps going to ED schools, not because kids are necessary better at self assessment, but just less willing to make an early commitment.</p>

80

<p>oops, I mean less kids are willing to make an early commitment</p>