<p>I have no idea whether Yale and Stanford will eventually follow Harvard, Princeton and UVA in abandoning their early programs but I doubt that either Harvard or Princeton will go back to those programs in the near future. The new system appears to be working just fine for both schools. At Princeton, the gender imbalance that had been associated with the use of the early program disappeared, the classes have become much more diverse and academic profiles have grown even more impressive. Not a bad outcome.</p>
<p>I certainly agree with JHS that Early Decision programs distort applicant pools but SCEA programs like Stanford’s and Yale’s aren’t much different. On paper, it would appear that they are very different given that students are not required to matriculate if they are admitted but in practice they show nearly the same distorting effects as ED and still reward the schools themselves with higher matriculation rates. ED programs tend to increase a school’s matriculation rate by 8 to 10 percentage points. SCEA programs increase matriculation rates by 4 to 6 percentage points.</p>
<p>Every Ivy other than Harvard, Princeton and Yale currently uses an early decision program and most fill more than half of their classes from these small pools. As JHS noted, they are taking about 50 percent of their freshman class from around 15% of the applicant pool. Single Choice Early Action (SCEA) ends up having similar numbers though Stanford and Yale use it a little differently. Stanford does not fill as high a percentage of its first year class from the SCEA pool as does Yale. At Yale 50% of every class comes from the SCEA pool which constitutes about 20% of the applicant pool. If you add in the differed SCEA applicants who are later accepted from the regular action pool, then between 55% and 60% of each class comes from the 20% of students who originally applied SCEA.</p>
<p>SCEA pools, like ED pools are weighted heavily toward legacies, wealthier students and athletes. Academically, this group can be quite strong but there is no doubt about the fact that its composition is different from the regular action pool. It has a far higher percentage of students from elite boarding schools, magnet schools and suburban high schools with more professional college counseling services.</p>
<p>ED admits enroll at a rate of about 98%. (Some drop out due to financial aid or other concerns.) SCEA admits are only slightly less likely to enroll. Both Stanford and Yale have between 85% and 88% matriculation rates from their SCEA admits. This is largely, but not entirely, because of the “SC” part of that “SCEA”. Because both schools prohibit simultaneous applications to other peer schools, students’ choices are more limited. MIT, which uses a completely open Early Action program without prohibiting applicants from applying to other early action programs, does not see these high matriculation rates from the early pool. There are other reasons as well for the high SCEA matriculation. Early pools contain many more legacies and athletes–two groups that typically receive special attention in the admission process and are far more likely to matriculate at every school. In addition, many more SCEA admits are pleased enough at having been admitted to either Stanford or Yale (two of the world’s great institutions) that they have little interest in applying elsewhere. Finally, even those who decide to apply elsewhere after having been accepted SCEA are often persuaded to matriculate at the SCEA school due to the heavy marketing in which these schools engage during the three and a half months before the students hear the results from their other applications.</p>
<p>There are both strong advocates and critics of early programs. College counselors from the more elite high schools and the students they represent tend to support the programs and it certainly can be satisfying to have finished the college application process in December. Academics who study higher education policies, along with counselors and students from less elite high schools, all tend to oppose them.</p>
<p>The interesting part of this is that Princeton and Yale have both reversed their positions. At Princeton, the former Dean of Admission was a strong advocate of restricted early programs. He argued, with some justification, that restrictive early programs cut down on the overall number of applications clogging the system and allowed students to indicate their first choices in an effective manner. </p>
<p>Yale’s President Levin took just the opposite view. At that time, Yale, like Princeton, had an early decision program and Levin railed against such programs in the national press, including a much-discussed New York Times story. Levin stated that he thought all schools should give up their restrictive early programs for the sake of a fairer system for all applicants but that Yale would not be able to go it alone and that there would need to be simultaneous common action among all of the more competitive schools. </p>
<p>Not long after that, Yale and Stanford moved part way in this direction by switching to SCEA. Princeton did not follow. (I was never a strong supporter of ED and thought that SCEA would have been at least a little better so I was disappointed when Princeton didn’t join the other two.) When Princeton’s new Dean of Admission began discussions with the trustees regarding this issue, she took the same position as had Levin, that all restrictive early programs should go, but that Princeton would wait until there was agreement with others about dropping them simultaneously. When Harvard then announced three years ago that it would drop its early program, Princeton immediately followed suit (as did UVA). Strangely, Yale’s Levin, who had been an outspoken leader in criticizing early programs now suddenly became a defender of them, arguing that the SCEA program served Yale well and would be kept. There was a certain amount of snickering in the academic community over the hypocrisy associated with this sudden change of heart, but Levin and Yale’s new Dean of Admission stuck with it. Editorialists in the Yale Daily News questioned Levin’s motives but their peers at the Stanford Daily came out strongly for restrictive early programs and belittled Harvard’s, Princeton’s and UVA’s moves.</p>
<p>Overall, keeping SCEA has continued to work relatively well for Yale though there are some signs of trouble. When Princeton and Harvard dropped their early programs, they saw an immediate drop in their matriculation rates. Even Harvard, which, among universities, tends to be the most immune to changes such as this, saw its matriculation rate drop from the low 80% range to the mid to high 70% range. Princeton saw a larger drop of about 9% in its matriculation rate when it gave up binding ED. Since this change, it appears that matriculation rates at both schools may have stabilized. The second year after dropping the early programs, both schools saw an increase in their matriculation rates. The third year (i.e. this year) both saw a slight drop. We’ll have to see if there are longer term trends. At Yale, on the other hand, there has been a small but steady drop in the matriculation rate for each of the past five years accompanied by an increasing gender imbalance in the applicant pool. Yale has addressed the diversity disadvantages of early programs by giving extra weight to that factor in the regular applicant pool. So far, this has been a successful strategy and, like always, Yale has enrolled terrific classes. Stanford has other tools in its recruiting kit including athletic scholarships and, given its location in the most diverse state in the country, normally doesn’t have a problem with ethnic diversity.</p>
<p>JHS is correct in noting that the heavy use of “likely letters” helps to increase matriculation rates just as does the use of restrictive early programs. Princeton uses very few of these and limits them almost exclusively to athletes who are being courted by scholarship-granting schools. However, even schools that have early admission programs still use this device and some schools send out very large numbers of them.</p>
<p>In summary, there are complex issues involved in this debate and I think reasonable arguments can be made on both sides. </p>
<p>For some articles about this issue see the following:</p>
<p>[The</a> Atlantic | September 2001 | The Early-Decision Racket | Fallows](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/09/fallows.htm]The”>The Early-Decision Racket - The Atlantic) </p>
<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Yale moves to early action for 2008](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2002/11/07/yale-moves-to-early-action-for-2008/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2002/11/07/yale-moves-to-early-action-for-2008/)</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Levin’s suspect stance against early decision](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2002/10/25/levins-suspect-stance-against-early-decision/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2002/10/25/levins-suspect-stance-against-early-decision/)</p>
<p>[College</a> Rejects Early Admissions | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/9/12/college-rejects-early-admissions-in-a/]College”>College Rejects Early Admissions | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>[Early</a> admissions dropped - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/09/19/15838/]Early”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/09/19/15838/)</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Princeton to drop E.D.](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2006/09/19/princeton-to-drop-ed/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2006/09/19/princeton-to-drop-ed/)</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Drop in apps shouldn’t affect EA debate](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/the-news-views/2006/11/27/drop-in-apps-shouldnt-affect-ea-debate/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/the-news-views/2006/11/27/drop-in-apps-shouldnt-affect-ea-debate/)</p>
<p>[Yale’s</a> Surprise Decision to Keep Early Admissions May Undercut Efforts of Other Ivies to Recruit Highly Qualified Blacks and Low-Income Whites](<a href=“Sabrina Cherry of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington Wins Peace Corps Award : The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education”>http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07yale.html)</p>
<p>[Seven</a> Things You Need to Know About Early Action : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7082167]Seven”>Seven Things You Need to Know About Early Action : NPR)</p>
<p>[Early</a> action benefits students and schools | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2006/10/01/early-action-benefits-students-and-schools/]Early”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2006/10/01/early-action-benefits-students-and-schools/)</p>
<p>[Standing</a> our ground | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2006/10/03/standing-our-ground/]Standing”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2006/10/03/standing-our-ground/)</p>