Not only are students forced to enroll if admitted (as was the case before, except for special cases with $$), but when they apply, they can not apply to any other early action program of a private domestic US college/university. Of course, SCEA/REA was always off bounds, but now EA for private schools are off bounds for Penn ED applicants. If I understand correctly a Penn ED applicant now cannot also apply to schools like UChicago, MIT, or CalTech under their NON-restrictive EA programs.
My first thought was how it seemed so predatory - the main victims in this case seem to be students who need financial aid. If Penn, for some reason, does not give the amount specified in the Net Price Calculator (although I understand that they are usually VERY generous with financial aid), the student has limited options to turn to. Keep in mind, the NPC may not be accurate for international applicants, students whose parents own businesses, or students whose parents are divorced/separated.
I think the new PENN ED is for students where PENN is their #1 choice, by far. They have to take their chances with RD if they get rejected. Perhaps PENN is trying to rationalize its ED admission % (which I understand is very high) by making sure that only students that truly want PENN apply ED, and not students who are trying to use the ED lottery ticket, but really want to go somewhere else (like MIT) if they get accepted.
Some did muse whether this isn’t aimed at the EA applicants of the schools you mention and if the unintended result would be a lower quality ED applicant pool for Penn.
Nothing predatory about it, and there are no victims here. Basically, there is no right to apply to any school, so this use of the word “victim” is a bit sensational.
Nothing is forcing a kid to apply early to UPenn. If amount of financial aid is an unknown factor (meaning one might not get the amount one think he needs or family circumstances are unstable), then EA at any school is not a smart way to go.
Non-binding EA is fine for student who are looking for financial aid and scholarships (and some schools require EA for maximum scholarship eligibility). It is binding ED that can be a problem for those looking for financial aid and scholarships.
If a lower quality ED pool results, that would show that UPenn has not the first choice of many applicants and the admin felt it was wasting its time reviewing and accepting applicants who were using UPenn as an Ivy League acceptance backup.
I see this as serving no purpose except forcing applicants to not have other options if finances do not work out with Penn. Students applying ED are already forced to matriculate anyway, save for financial reasons.
Penn is very generous with financial aid. How many students are really surprised with their FA package?
I think this benefits Upenn because it forces students to be realistic (do the research!) about how much FA is likely and only apply ED if FA can reasonably be predicted in their situation. It would be interesting to know the stats on how many students accepted ED do not attend.
NPC is NOT accurate for students whose parents own businesses, students whose parents are divorced/separated, and international students - that is a substantial amount of people.
Of course they have other options. They’re just not EA options. Those students who cannot attend Penn due to financial reasons are still free to apply RD to any school, including MIT, Chicago or CalTech. It simply eliminates those students who try to get out of ED when they get into their EA schools. The student now has to choose: is Penn really his or her first choice?
I feel like students choose Penn as their first choice when they apply ED. The problem with RD is the students from the “if-y” situations I mentioned in my last posts where the NPC is not accurate cannot compare financial aid (it is possible that Chicago, MIT, or CalTech award better aid) and need to make a commitment right away (they cannot apply RD without first getting out of their ED contract).
I know people should only apply ED if they are sure they can afford it - but it is not inclusive for students for whom the NPC is innacurate and therefore have no way of knowing if they can afford the school (and that goes against the inclusive outreach that all the elite schools make a big deal of). I do not think the solution should simply be forgetting about those people - and that is what new super-restricted ED process at Penn perpetuates.
“I think the new PENN ED is for students where PENN is their #1 choice, by far. They have to take their chances with RD if they get rejected. Perhaps PENN is trying to rationalize its ED admission % (which I understand is very high) by making sure that only students that truly want PENN apply ED, and not students who are trying to use the ED lottery ticket, but really want to go somewhere else (like MIT) if they get accepted.”
Any ED at ANY school was always meant only for those for whom that school was their first choice and who would happily forsake all others for that school. If someone is going to be such a loser that they apply ED to a school they don’t love, that’s completely their problem and no pity tears here.
I think you missed my point. I agree ED is for people for whom Penn is their first choice.
Penn had an early decision program before, now they have made it even more restrictive (students now also cannot apply early ACTION to domestic private schools). The new and more restrictive ED program they have is not good for students who cannot predictably ascertain if they will get ample financial aid from Penn (look at my previous posts and @MurphyBrown 's post) to see what I am talking about.
It obviously is in the school’s self-interest to admit much of the class ED:
a. Yield is more predictable. (i.e. less likely to fall short and go to the waitlist, or overenroll)
b. Yield is higher. (i.e. minor rankings and perceived desirability benefit)
c. Skews the applicant and admit pool to higher income applicants who do not need financial aid. (i.e. lower financial aid expense)
Given how popular the school is, it is not surprising that it can get away with “stacking the deck” in its favor.
It’s perfectly reasonable to imagine a kid whose first choice is Penn, but would be happy to attend an EA school if she doesn’t get into Penn. Assuming applying EA provides a bit of a boost (I don’t know if that’s true), it would make complete sense for that kid to apply ED to Penn and EA to, say, Univ of Chicago. In that case, Penn’s new policy makes kids in that situation worse off while providing no benefit to Penn.
If my son’s first choice school has ED, but others on his list are EA, I will definitely encourage him to apply to the first choice ED and then EA to others, obviously assuming the schools’ rules allow this. Even if there’s no EA boost, there’s a lot to be aid for the sheer relief and peace of mind that comes from knowing on December 15 that you’re in to a school you’d be happy to attend.
They have the right to choose their own application process as a private university, but the populace has the right to express its disdain or approval. I do not think the application process should favor people of certain family or economic situations - and that is what this EXTRA restricted ED program does. The prior ED program was able to ensure commitment without being inconsiderate towards certain groups of the application pool.