"Colleges Set Limit On Early Admission"

Parents Forum
21

<p>PhatAl:</p>

<p>The point is that Princeton specificaly said to the press that they would provide admissions letters to everyone at the same time, and, for this, they were lauded heavily. Now, they’re saying…well, me just might send out some early letters to folks (whether they be athletic, academic, or development stars). Reminds me of Emily Littella of SNL fame: “Never Mind.”</p>

<p>Eagle: I definitely agree that ED has the appearance of advatanging the advantaged, but appearances don’t make it so; there is absolutely zero real data to indicate it to be true, all other things being equal (RD). You may be correct in your assumption

, or I may be correct in mine (those academic stars and development kids will get in anyway), but we’ll never know. But, if my hypothesis is correct, then ED just doesn’t matter.</p>

<p>I’m persuaded by mini’s comments on admissions, which is that Adcoms are well trained and educated professionals, who know exactly what they are doing, and do it well for thier own institutions. I don’t believe randomness is a factor, but, again, it’s a fact-free belief. Thanks for the quote tip.</p>

22

<p>I agree with eagle79. I posted on the full merit ride thread

</p>

<p>Colleges and Universities can and do use ED to provide aid (more) as they see fit. I know CMU where I’m looking does this. Since I’m not applying ED there I feel I am at a disadvantage, but there’s nothing I can do about it. Obviously, the schools that give prefential aid to ED applicants have a reason for doing so.</p>

23

<p>“It was to stop “deadline creep” from rendering the senior year irrelevant.”</p>

<p>I wonder if most colleges are aware of how many students this affects. Many students are permitted by their high schools only incremental enrollment in AP’s, for example, with actually the senior year weighted more heavily in AP’s than the junior year – resulting in loss of weighting credit for the GPA, loss of reporting on the exams, etc. Some h.schools have strict guidelines on AP’s & even Honors classes – putting a ceiling on those for each yr. Other schools have prereqs for AP’s (which I support). No, AP’s aren’t everything, as we all know, but they could make a difference in some admissions results for some students. In our school some of the most interesting classes, & some unique classes, are offered only to seniors. These are the classes that allow them to “show their intellectual stuff” in ways that standard (or even AP) classes do not. They are senior electives only.</p>

24

<p>BlueBayou,</p>

<p>I guess we just disagree. I strongly suspect it is more than appearance and thus the reason that the schools are eliminating their ED policies. </p>

<p>I also believe that there is significant data to show that there is an advantage to applying early. Though I have not read the book many have cited the book, “The Early Admissions Game” by Chrisotopher Avery. I understand that the book is loaded with statistics that show that on average applying ED is equivalent to being given an extra 150 points on the SATs and an dextra 100 points if you apply EA.</p>

<p>So, I guess it really comes down to the level of proof you need, beyond a reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence.</p>

25

<p>epiphany - excellent point there - and, yes, this is extremely to the point because the prime argument to limit early, early admission is to curtail deadline creep. Will the use of likely letters subvert these efforts? I hardly think so unless the IHE’s in question unwisely crank out too many, too early and imply that the letter gives a firm “yea” rather than a more or less discreet dangling carrot “wink, wink” - that is why the likely letter is the perfect vehicle to exploit as a loophole. Likely letters are neither fish nor fowl and as such they do play a role in the total admission strategy picture - in the context of the end of ED, however, these missives will no doubt take on a much different role and, as such will come under intense scrutiny - if abused down the road, they might become subject to “limits” (hopefully self-imposed by the respective IHEs). </p>

<p>As for adcoms knowing what they are doing - well, the whole notion of admission reform is predicated on the fundamental idea that the system as a whole works and works well - it just needs tweaking. Faith and confidence in the admissions system is absolutely necessary and I don’t think that anyone has put that in doubt. Adcoms do put the interests of their institutions first when they put students’ apps in yes, no, defer piles - and rightly so or the whole of idea of “fit” and “selectivity” would be irrelevent. Do adcoms make mistakes or do they have to make painful, close calls - of course they do, but that, in the wider scheme of admissions reform, is moot. Do ED programs benefit both colleges and students? Well, it seems evident that more and more colleges are beginning to cast serious doubt on this on whether or not colleges and students benefit enough to justify continuation of the programs. No one can deny that for exceptionally mature students who have a strong sense of self and their college goals, early decision programs do offer a legitimate way to alleviate stress and get it all over with early- so they can get on with their work and concentrate on having a productive and positive senior year. Sorry to say, that on the parent-student side of the equation, in this day and age when competition for a “brand name” IHE is rife (and btw, that would include some exceptionally fine state institutions such as Berkeley, U. Va., University of Wisc. Madison, and UNC Chapel Hill to name just a few) the push for having one’s cake and eating it too-instant gratification has subverted ED/EA programs. On the instutional side, data or no data, we parents simply have to take it on faith that institutional leaders are taking deeply measured steps to assess how they want to guage the issues at hand.</p>

<p>that said, the issue of admission reform and the limits on what colleges may and may not do (that includes all the varieties of early decision and early notification etc.) is highly nuanced and does not lend itself to any one simple solution or answer. Each IHE has to come to grips with its obligation to act in the public interest and the same time serve their institution’s financial and academic interests - this is the hallmark of the American system of higher ed and it is this system that gives us the luxury of such a wide, varied, and unrivalled choice. In order to preserve the integrity of the system and safeguard equitable access to that wide array of choices there is a patent responsibility to evaluate and re-evaluate the present system and implement reform and that includes setting appropriate limits.</p>

<p>FWIW:

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/19/princeton[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/19/princeton&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

26

<p>eagle79, I just wanted to make a quick post to say that yes, UNC does indeed have Early Notification - this is yet another admission opton used by some colleges and is similar in principle to the Early Action concept because the offer is non-binding and the student may apply elsewhere. I would think that it roughly corresponds to what other schools often call ID - interim decision. For example, Rice currently has three tiers of admission offers going - ED, ID, and RD all with their own terms. I think we can all agree that there are quite a lot of early options out there and, at times, it is hard to keep it all straight. In any case, UNC did end ED but, as you rightly point out, does offer EN.</p>

27

<p>Thanks to Carolyn, I recently came across this poignant passage from “College Admission: Failed Rite Of Passage” by Michael G. Thompson, written in 1990.</p>

<p>“The college admission process has no time limits. It has no clear starting point–in many schools it seems to be starting earlier and earlier–and it does not go on forever, despite what we may think. Early admission is fiendish in this regard because it offers two chances to fail. One of the saddest, most destructive aspects of early admission is to watch bright students go through the anxiety of applying early, fail to get in, and then have to repeat the process. Although they may end up being accepted, they spend most of their senior year in emotional turmoil.”</p>

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

28

<p>deadline creep? hahahaha</p>

<p>an article in the local SoCal paper reported that a HIGH SCHOOL freshman, who has yet to play one minute of high school basketball, has already verbally committed to USC.</p>

29

<p>I wonder just how many “earlys” we need to describe this instance of athletic recruitment? Bluebayou, are you suggesting that athletic recruiting - that includes the use of non-binding verbal agreements - also be limited by stricter, overarching guidelines?</p>

<p>After reading several of the other CC threads dealing with this subject, I wonder who made the initial contact - USC scouts, the coach at Westchester, or the student’s family. In any case, we all do know by now that athletic recruiting is a highly competitive game and aggressive recruitment is the name of the winning strategy. </p>

<p><a href=“http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=585769#rank[/url]”>http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=585769#rank&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Goaliedad’s posts are highly informative on the subject of the contractual validity of non-binding verbal agreements (nil) and binding letters of admission and intent. Even though this type of recruitment is not early admission, it is, nonetheless, worth asking in this case just how much of this is pure pr and whose interests are best served?</p>

<p>For those who can’t access the article:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-hsreport18oct18,1,4719830.story?coll=la-headlines-sports[/url]”>http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-hsreport18oct18,1,4719830.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

30

<p>

</p>

<p>Quite the contrary. I support all forms of early admissions, if a college wants to offer them. In the case of private colleges, it’s their money, and they make the rules to best support thier mission. In the case of the publics, ultimately the voters and tax payers make the rules thru their elected representatives on how best to serve their state.</p>

<p>My point was two-fold. 1) to point out that there are kids who fall in love with a school early on, and they don’t waiver, although Polee certainly could easily change his mind and join Ben Howland in Pauley Pavilion (or name other high profile program) in four years. 2) To note that basketball players, and some other athletes, but not football nor hockey, can sign a binding NLI as early as November 8 their senior year.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sound like commercialization, no? </p>

<p>If so-called student athletes can make a binding comittment the first week of November, why not academic students?</p>

31

<p>Actually boards of trustees and IHE administrators make the key decisons regarding admissions policy. The current guidelines to limit ED were adopted precisely because there is a consensus among those admission experts - who work for public and private IHEs - to uphold their respective missions - that it is necessary to take steps to reform ED practices. Indeed, the move to set limits is a pragmatic, concerted attempt to salvage ED as a viable option in the interest of students and colleges. </p>

<p>Athletic recruiting is highly competitive and there is always the danger that the thin line between recruiting in the name of college spirit etc. and crass commercialization and exploitation of the athlete will be crossed. Hence many reformers’ concerns that athletes be protected from rapacious recruiting practices. For one thing, college student’s have to preserve their amateur status and NLIs are one way to do that. I would also note, that participation in the NLI program is much more than a tacit recognition that athletic recruiting is complicated and loaded with potential pitfalls. So, just because athletic recruiting is said to fall outside the current reform debate on ED really is just the recognition that there is another context for this type of admission reform already in place. FYI, there are a plethora of overarching guidelines and limits to define best practices in this arena - NCAA and the Ivy League to name two examples apart from the NLI program - on this see:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3101457#post3101457[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3101457#post3101457&lt;/a&gt;.) </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Please take careful note of the wording of the OP - the NACAC’s limit on how early a college should offer ED is set at Sept. 15 of the applicant’s senior year, so as things stand right now the terms of NLIs are, and have been, well within this limit.</p>

<p>Do the parties involved ever contravene established good practices - rhetorical question here - of course they do - or at least bend the rules as much as they think they can get away with - and pr media hype is often involved. This is the real world after all and that is why admission reform (and reformers) and guide-lines for best practices establish criteria protect the interests of the students and institutions in question.</p>

32

<p>Well timed for this particular CC debate, this Inside Higher Ed article - related to the “Early Admissions Loophole” article previously posted - addresses the complex problems related to big-time college athletics, best practices, and reform:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/31/ncaa[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/31/ncaa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

33

<p>Don’t mean to pick on or discuss the complexities of college athletics, since I am personally a big fan…but:</p>

<p>Thacker and the EC wish to eliminate early admissions, as well as standardized testing. But, to his credit (as you have pointed out asteriskea), Thacker’s position is consistent in that he also decries early athletic recruiting.] </p>

<p>More importantly, some (many?) on this board share his view on one or both points. Leaving the SAT discussion to another thread…To those parents/students who believe that elimination of binding ED and/or early admissions entirely is a good thing, do you also believe that the NCAA should eliminate binding letters of intent prior to April 1? If not, why should a coach be able to stock a team in the fall, but the maestro or history department chair has to wait until the spring?</p>

34

<p>The following is an abridged version of an interview with Janet Rapelye that appears in the October issue of the PAW. It is a bit long but worth reading.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_101106rapelye.html[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_101106rapelye.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

35

<p>How about rolling admits? Yes they are the ultimate in freedom of choice, but, in my state kids apply very early to one of the publics in order to get a dorm room. Once they are accepted, they get some pressure, albeit gentle, to stick with that school. Maybe rolling admits should be even earlier, so that a number of students have a safety in pocket well before the frenzy starts.</p>

36

<p>Cangel, I am quickly finding out that every IHE is different - ideally rolling admission should be, as you said, the ultimate in flexibility. With this system it is a given that the applications are read and reviewed as they come in and that a decision will be made on a case-by-case basis - first come, first serve, if you will. Some colleges, however, opt to notify applicants within a month or two of applying and still others that accept applications under a rolling-admission policy send out decisions all at once. If this institution is using the dorm housing card to exert pressure (gentle or not) on prospies to make a firm commitment to attend - this might be a strategy to undermine and defeat students’ intent to use it (and rolling admissions) as a safety. In the case of rolling admissions, the early bird obviously does have an advantage - more spaces still available waiting to be filled - but, I can’t help asking: how early is earlier?</p>