<p>It is inherently impossible to benefit the students, as in ALL the students. </p>
<p>Why? Because the students represents is not a single group, but is composed of many sub-groups with different characteristics. When a school increases or adopts an ED program, it does help some students and hurt some. Different people have different criteria to define the winners and the losers. For instance, one undying criticism is that ED favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I happen to think that ED does indeed favor the wealthy student that is slightly less competitive, but that it also presents a great opportunity for the VERY poor who is competitive. The obvious “victims” are most people who fall between the uber-rich and the abject poor. Quite a large range, if you ask me. </p>
<p>In the end, it is easy to see that schools do pick the admission system that benefits THEM the most, because schools know that cannot please everyone. While ED does present some benefits to some students, it is clear that the program ONLY exists as long as it does present nothing but benefits for the school.</p>
<p>“Of those admitted EA, the majority - possibly as much as 2/3 - are hooked candidates.”</p>
<p>No hard data…but…in a presentation I went to on athletic recruiting, the “expert” presenter (who I actually think did a good job) used a pie to show that about 50 - 60% of ALL applicants (not just early) are “hooked”. </p>
<p>His point was to get yourself into the slices of the pie that were hooked — either already existing by birth (big $$ legacy/development, URM, first generation ) or by talent (ie: top level quarterback for a school that only has upper class QB’s, alto sax for a school that needs one and cares about its band/orchestra, academic superstar - not just a perfect GPA and high scores – but outside recognition, community service superstar etc.)</p>
<p>I would agree that, based on very subjective evidence (people I know!) many of the students admitted EA to HYPMS and other top level schools often have something about them, or many somethings about them, that stand out and appeal to the ad coms making the decision. Wouldn’t agree, though that legacy, recruited athlete, development and URM are the hooks representing 2/3 of REA admits.</p>
<p>Yes, but already true for Stanford and Yale SCEA applicants. Rather than go the SCEA route, a stellar student could opt to pursue multiple EA applications at Georgetown/MIT/Caltech and/or U of Chicago. That strategy might yield better odds of getting an EA acceptance. Or it might cover a school that a student prefers over SCEA schools.</p>
<p>Following up #36 from runinthesun: An interesting question. And no doubt the “Public Ivies” will come into play. UVa, for example, is going to unrestricted EA. A Texas resident (just for example) could apply EA to both Stanford and UVa, but not so with Yale, which limits the exception to “a public institution in your home state.” So the question is not just whether Harvard/Princeton will have exceptions, but also to what extent. Maybe some enterprising person could come up with a grid for the top 25 colleges? This is becoming very complicated for students and parents (don’t forget the economic factor) – even if you do understand game theory.</p>
<p>I have no problem with calling the first part (by birth) as a hook, but I think most of the second part (by talent) would not be a hook, at least as how I understand the term is used in admissions. An alto sax ability is not a hook for HYPSM unless you are talking national or international recognition. The same can be said for academic superstar unless “outside recognition” means Intel prize-winning or similar standing and not state “National History Day” winner. Athletes have to be very good to have a hook at the ivies (and usually have to have good, if not great academics). I don’t know what a “community service superstar” would be, but it would think that it would have to be the type of service that was recognized on a national basis.</p>