"Colleges Set Limit On Early Admission"

[asteriskea]

<p>So, now the bell tolls for the end of early, early admission. In the wake of Harvard, Princeton, and U. Va’s move to end ED programs debate about the wisdom and fairness of early admission programs has led to a revision of NACAC statement of principles of good practice.</p>

<p>

A nationwide group of admissions professionals set a limit yesterday on how early colleges can accept students, voting in Pittsburgh to forbid offers before Sept. 15 of an applicant’s senior year of high school.</p>

<p>Supporters of the move by the National Association for College Admission Counseling said they viewed it as a push back against college recruiting they contend is starting too early in high school.</p>

<p>The change is among amendments to the association’s statement of principles of good practice adopted near the close of a three-day convention at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Downtown.

</p>

<p>

The association’s voting assembly also adopted a related requirement yesterday that colleges set application deadlines no sooner than Oct. 15 for first-time entering students and treat applicants equally no matter how much in advance some apply. Supporters said they wanted to discourage the idea that the earliest to apply will get first choice of housing or better financial aid offers…</p>

<p>Some convention delegates opposed the changes, including J. Robert Spatig, director of undergraduate admissions for the University of South Florida, who argued that recruitment of first-generation and minority students will be harmed.</p>

<p>“The association should not be dictating to institutions how we spend resources or make decisions that impact the health of the institution,” he said.</p>

<p>Pete Caruso, associate director of undergraduate admission at Boston College and head of the association’s admission practices committee, said the intent was not to meddle. It was to stop “deadline creep” from rendering the senior year irrelevant.</p>

<p>“What’s to stop a school from establishing a deadline in January of the junior year?” he asked.

</p>

<p>Another amendment was approved to prohibit schools from using standardized tests as the sole criterion for awarding financial aid.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06281/728330-298.stm[/url]”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06281/728330-298.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[anxiousmom]

<p>wow! That is great news, and it looks like some sanity may slowly be creeping back into this whole process!</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>Inside Higher Ed article, “Holding Off the Application Push”: the NACAC moved to “bar member colleges from admitting students to college prior to September 15 of the students’ senior years in high school, and to bar institutions from setting application deadlines prior to October 15 of the senior year.” </p>

<p>While, the organization “can’t order colleges to change their practices”, the new ruling is hailed to be a significant move because “NACAC members work at the overwhelming majority of colleges, and include admissions deans at most institutions”</p>

<p>It is important to note, that the new ruling does not condemn early admission practices across the board:</p>

<p>

Some community colleges and open admissions institutions expressed concern at the NACAC meeting that their admissions philosophies might violate the new rules. A big part of the pitch of some community colleges to prospective students is to tell them, sometimes early in their high school careers, that if they graduate from high school they will be admitted to college.</p>

<p>Caruso said that the concerns of college officials about the super-early admissions offers being made by some institutions were not related to community colleges and open admissions institutions. He said that NACAC was committed to clarifying the language to reassure community colleges that this new rule is not directed against their policies — many of which are longstanding and applauded by admissions experts.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/09/nacac[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/09/nacac&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Eagle79]

<p>However, there will still exist other programs moving the timeframe up. For example, Simons Rock College of the Bard explicitly looks for juniors. USCs Residential Honors Program has a student forgo their senior year in high school. In the case of USC I think it is where they get a number of their NMF candidates.</p>

<p>Of course a number of schools have summer programs that can also be recruitment tools.</p>

[marite]

<p>It’s useful to distinguish between early admissions and early graduation. By the time my S apllied to college in the fall of his junior year, he was ahead of the typical high school senior insofar as he had not only fulfilled all high school requirements save for half a year of English and Phys Ed, but he was also ahead of typical seniors insofar as he had taken many college classes. </p>

<p>When colleges admit high school seniors by September 15, essentially, they are totally ignoring the senior year (our high school starts after Labor Day), which ordinarily includes several classes that meet graduation requirements. </p>

<p>Simon’s Rock College is aimed at students like my S rather than the typical high school student.</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>As expected, H, P, and U. Va. athletic coaches still plan to use “likely letters” as a key recruiting tool - while top athletes always got early, early heads up, this practice does indeed send the message that:</p>

<p>

the playing field still has a bit of a slant. All three universities plan to have some athletes apply early and to notify some of them early — months in advance of other applicants — about whether they are going to get in. While the information will fall just short of a formal admissions offer, some applicants will be told that as long as they keep their grades at current levels, they will be assured admission.</p>

<p>Harvard and Princeton will be notifying athletes through the longstanding practice of sending “likely” letters to some athletes shortly after October 1 each year. Under Ivy League rules, such a letter “has the effect of a formal letter of admission provided the candidate continues to have a satisfactory secondary school experience.” The University of Virginia will continue the practice of doing early reviews for coaches of recruited athletes and providing information to them, starting quite early in the recruited athletes’ senior years of high schools. Coaches may be told that an athlete will be admitted if he or she continues at the current level of academic achievement, is sure to be rejected, or may be admitted under certain circumstances. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which abandoned early decision several years ago and like Virginia is a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference, has a similar policy.</p>

<p>The universities involved — except in meetings with coaches concerned about losing the early admissions recruiting hook — have not publicized the fact that some students will continue to apply and be notified early.

</p>

<p>I suppose, the real question is, just how these IHE’s envision the use, and possible “expansion” of likely letters under the new admission policy:</p>

<p>

Cass Cliatt, a spokeswoman for Princeton, said that “particularly with student-athletes, Princeton has used the vehicle of the ‘likely letter’ for many years, and we expect to continue to do so to support our coaches. It’s also possible that the university might consider expanding this practice beyond scholar-athletes in cases that we want to ensure that a student thinks seriously about Princeton.” She added that Princeton officials “recognize that sending out a significant number of these would defeat the purpose of ending early decision, and that is not our goal.”

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[bluebayou]

<p>asteriskea:</p>

<p>of course, athletes will continue to recieve ‘early’ letters. So, back to the question I raised earlier: if athletic stars can earn likely letters, aka, early admission, why can’t academic stars? Why is the EC silent on the former, but, yet, decries the latter?</p>

[epiphany]

<p>I agree about the inconsistency, blue. I wish the EC would address the inconsistency rather than the issue of early or early,early itself. If it’s going to happen, seems to me that either both categories get them, or neither category.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>epiph:</p>

<p>This also totally refutes Thacker’s main point, which is that early admission beneifts only the colleges. Even IHN recognizes that athletes benefit from early notification. If athletes can benefit, why wouldn’t academic types benefit as well, Lloyd?</p>

[bethievt]

<p>What bothers me is, with the AP madness, high school students can end up doing 4 years of college level courses in order to qualify for college admission. Huh??</p>

<p>And some of my son’s favorite courses were AP, so don’t get me wrong; they can be incredible antidotes to senioritis and just a great experience with the right teacher, but can be a mechanical process you have to get through if not.</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>Ideally, ED/EA reform policy ought to delineate where the “limits” on early admission are - and, if you ask me, that does include what is “acceptable” and, more to the point, what is not. But to what institution or entity, if any, other than consensus, does this task fall to? This is precisely why the above cited Inside Higher Ed article rings warning bells. Right from the start, cogent arguments were made to the effect that athletes are not part of the ED/EA pool in the strict sense of the term because of the exigencies of althletic competitions and sports’ departments institutional need to build teams as early as possible and, therefore, would not be subject to the same terms and conditions when it came to college admissions. Fine and dandy - this good old system has been going on for years ostensibly following the rhythm of sports competition cycles independently from ED programs. (Btw, not to go OT on this thread, but even Thacker has decried this practice: "The Education Conservancy is a group favoring the reform of admissions. Lloyd Thacker, the founder, said of Harvard’s decision: “It is a real demonstration of education leadership. Early decision locks in special interest groups like full paying students, legacies and football players. It distorts the playing field.”)</p>

<p>OTOH, elite IHE such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Penn, and Dartmouth etc. are all in direct competition for the best and the brightest. Such is the way of elite college admissions and I don’t think that anyone ought to be surprised if, in the real world, the concepts of fairness, “fairplay”, and “leveling the playing field” are not only subject to a wide range of interpretation but also given a wide berth. The only thing that does seem quite obvious at this point in time - despite Harvard’s leadership move to get the reform ball rolling and axe ED, the only concerted and “authoritative” response thus far is the NACAC move to bar member colleges from using early, early admission as an admission strategy. As of yet, we do not see a chain reaction of colleges following suit. Granted, many colleges, like Tufts and Pomona, and Dartmouth have opted keep their ED programs but pledge to keep the number of students admitted ED at “acceptable and fair” levels. Yale and Stanford (which, under Shaw is pursuing an aggressive recruiting campaign to attract the best and the brightest) are keeping SCEA at least for the time being. Others colleges have yet to decide and are, more than likely, sitting on fence to wait and see what the institutional fall out is before making any moves. The fact that loopholes exist or will be found and exploited should not surprise anyone - especially given the wide range of ED/EA/SCEA choices still on the table - the playing field is not level - not for students and not for the IHE’s. The path to admission reform is not an easy road.</p>

<p>So, the key question here is just how far can Princeton (and any IHE for that matter) use likely letters without undermining admission reform and, in the case of H and P, their “bold” decision to get rid of ED? Let’s not forget that, essentially, ED programs and likely letters are all designed to give the early nod to a select few - so just how does this benefit students in general?</p>

<p>

Harvard’s decision … is likely to put pressure on other colleges, which acknowledge the same concerns but have been reluctant to take any step that could put them at a disadvantage in the heated competition for the top students.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/education/12harvard.html?ex=1315713600&en=4e2c1eb79b9e157f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/education/12harvard.html?ex=1315713600&en=4e2c1eb79b9e157f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

But it’s unclear how many more will follow Delaware’s and Harvard’s lead, despite all the adulation. Some schools - lower-tier Ivies like Cornell or Brown, for instance - might see this as an opportunity to take students who would prefer to attend Harvard but aren’t sure they can get in, says Richard Zeckhauser, a political economy professor at Harvard and coauthor of “The Early Admissions Game.”</p>

<p>“It will put Harvard at a slight moral superiority and a slight competitive disadvantage,” says Professor Zeckhauser. He’d like to see students have a way to signal interest - a star system, perhaps, in which they put a star on their top-choice application - without locking themselves in.</p>

<p>A few schools have already moved to deemphasize early admissions, but say they’re unsure if they can get rid of it completely, given how important it’s become in shaping the next class.</p>

<p>“I think some places will follow, but it will be interesting to see who does and who can,” says Lee Coffin, dean of undergraduate admissions at Tufts University, which has begun selecting a smaller percentage of its students early. “To go from where we are to where we might be is going to take a lot of caution and planning.”

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0914/p02s01-legn.html[/url]”>http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0914/p02s01-legn.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Eagle79]

<p>A little off topic but I don’t understand why people keep saying UNC eliminated thier early program. They still have an early program with notification in January. </p>

<p>Additionally, I see not real movement by the open EA schools to change their policy. Perhaps because an open EA policy does not require a lock in either in application submittal or in actual commitment to attend. </p>

<p>It is the lock in and the perception that only those who do not need financial aid can apply ED that causes most of the angst.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>I see some ironies & contradictions in H’s decision.
(1) Middle class families who don’t quite meet the app fee waiver qualification were previously actually advantaged by EA, which allowed a reduction of the total # of apps, if the EA school was a good match for the student. (Obviously in contrast to those who could afford double-digit #'s of apps.)<br>
(2) Of all schools, I’m sure it could be demonstrated that given H’s Yield history, EA functioned closer to ED than EA does for any other U. And given that “unique” position, EA had less loss to H and more gain to the student than was true for any other U.</p>

<p>(“Be Careful What You Wish For”)</p>

[hsseniorlooking]

<p>I was heavily recriuted by Simon’s Rock in my junior year with letters and telephone calls. For me, I did not want to forgo my senior year at my local high school. Additionally, I thought Simon’s Rock too small, too rural and I think I can get into a much better school. We never discussed their costs or aid package. It just wasn’t my kind of place.</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>Eagle79, this CSM article from May, 2002 “Yale Is Seeking Antitrust Immunity For a Bid to End Early Admissions” makes a direct reference to UNC dropping its early decision plan. </p>

<p>

The Ivy League schools had wanted to get together to discuss joint action, but they stopped short of a meeting, fearing a possible antitrust move from Justice, people familiar with the matter say. They said Yale then requested a “business-review letter” ruling from the Justice Department. Businesses often make such requests to evaluate whether a joint project or limited sharing of information with other companies or organizations will pass muster with antitrust enforcers. Reached Thursday, Dr. Levin confirmed he had a meeting in Washington with the Justice Department earlier this week but declined to say what it covered.</p>

<p>Despite the rising criticisms, colleges have been reluctant to end early decisions unilaterally, fearing that in the battle for top scholars, they would be at a disadvantage to others that continue the programs. One exception has been the University of North Carolina, which last week said it was canceling its program.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1020387750643993520.html?mod=politics%255Fprimary%255Fhs[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1020387750643993520.html?mod=politics%255Fprimary%255Fhs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[PhatAlbert]

<p>@bayoublue</p>

<p>Academic stars CAN receive early letters</p>

[Eagle79]

<p>asterikea,</p>

<p>I have seen a number of references to UNC eliminating their ED policy. However, they still have an early policy, they call it early notification. You need to apply by November 1 and they notify you of their decision by January 31. A student, if admitted, does not need to commit to attending. However, I interpret that change to be from an ED program to an EA program. Though their notification date is a little later than most EA programs.</p>

<p>For more on this see:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.admissions.unc.edu/applying/freshman.htm[/url]”>http://www.admissions.unc.edu/applying/freshman.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A separate thing to investigate is the University of Southern California. They do not have an EA or ED program. However, they do have 2 application deadlines. Mid Dec for scholarship applicants and early January for applications. They do not have a single admission date but rolls out their admissions decisions starting in late January and early February.</p>

<p>Anyway, this gets me back to my earlier comment. The big area of focus is on the ED and SCEA programs. I don’t really see much change coming from schools with open EA policies like UChicago, MIT, Notre Dame or BC. I would lump UNC into that group of schools.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>Thanks for the quote showing that Lloyd also dislikes early notification for athletes, but, of course, that is currently up to the NCAA and its early signing periods, of which, the Ivies may participate. But, it still ignores the fact that his only stated rationale for disliking early admissions is because the **exclusively[b/] benefit the colleges, which is patently false. Early admissions do provide some benefits to some students. (Full disclosure: son was accepted ED last December.) Thus, his arguement is rather weak, IMO.</p>

<p>[q]…so just how does this benefit students in general?[/q] First off, students “in general” apply to state colleges, so it’s a rather broad question. Second, it’s not relevant, since, IMO, admissions to highly selective colleges “advantage the advantaged” anyway, whether in ED/EA or RD. As mini has pointed out, year after year, classes are comprised of ~50+% full pay students, which means top 1% of US income earners – clearly the advantaged, only some of which are accepted early. This is not a result of early admissions, but the ability of the already advantaged to attend excellent high schools, with libraries and books, participate in ECs, (since they don’t have to work to support their family), attend test prep, have good GCs, etc. </p>

<p>I’m willing to cyber-wager that most of the students who were formerly accepted SCEA/ED will now be accepted RD. Of course, a student who might have applied ED to P’ton, will now apply RD, and could throw in an app to H as well. But, if P’ton was really his/her first choice, student likely goes there an H loses on yield. </p>

<p>[q]So, the key question here is just how far can Princeton…use likely letters…?[/q] </p>

<p>IMO, they can’t use them at all without undermining their own credibility. P said flat out that ALL applications would be treated equally and at the same time. Obviously, not true.</p>

<p>“I think it will make the admissions process far more fair and equitable,” Tilghman, once an ardent defender of Early Decision, said in an interview after the meeting. “Early Decision was advantaging those who were already advantaged.”</p>

<p>There were also concerns about minority students and those from low-income homes. “The decision allows the process to be more fair, by addressing every application at the same time,” Rapelye said. </p>

<p>But, Rapelye added, signaling her confidence in the ability of Princeton to take a risk by abandoning Early Decision, "we’re in a position of strength, and it takes courage…</p>

<p>Perhaps it doesn’t take courage; it just takes a press machine to crank out great stories that the press will eat up.</p>

<p>fwiw: don’t mean to pick on P’ton individually, since, again, I support early admissions for the right reasons, and besides anecdotes of kids gaming the system, I have yet to see any data demonstrating its harmful. The only statistical data was released by Dartmouth, and it only shows causality, but no correlation.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>btw: how does one do the quote thingy?</p>

[Eagle79]

<p>BlueBayou,</p>

<p>First the quote thingy. You start with the following [ quote ] and then end it with [ /quote ]</p>

<p>Only take out the spaces between the text and the brackets.</p>

<p>Second, the big objection to early programs is that it advantages the advantaged. An ED policy skews the applicants toward those who do not need financial aid. By applying early to an ED school you are agreeing, if accepted, that you will attend regardless of the financial aid offered. Because of this economic uncertainty many extremely qualified students will not apply early leaving the that pool to those who are economically advantaged.</p>

<p>Personally I have always thought that the ED “agreement” was not a valid contract because a material term of the agreement was silent, the price. Others disagree with me because there is a cap on the amount, the full price of attending the school. I respectfully disagree with that analysis.</p>

<p>Finally, I am not so sure that student accepted early under the older policies would be accepted RD now. Most of the very selective schools state that they could accept 3 or 4 classes with the same general overall stats. To me that just means that there is some randomness in who they can and will accept year to year.</p>