<p>thanks jmmmom and marian.</p>
<p>With the huge focus on the in-state UCs (Cal and LA), I’m not aware of kids who gamed the early system at our HS. All the early apps made a lot of sense: athletic recruit, legacy, sibling attending, finance major (Penn), engineering (MIT), Lottery (H), etc.</p>
<p>Carolyn:</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that Harvard or Princeton would care very much what Spelling had to say about their tuition costs. It is expected that the top schools are also expensive. Additionally, they affect a minuscule proportion of the college population. Much more to the point is the affordability of public universities. In-state tuition at ours is about $15k–1/3 of the median family income before tax.</p>
<p>It’s important to point out that this whole issue, at least for top ED colleges, is a big straw man.</p>
<p>There is some data on ED in a recent Williams College senior thesis.</p>
<p>Freshman enrollment has been largely unchanged over the last 25 years: </p>
<p>Freshmen in 1980: 501
Freshmen in 2000. 528</p>
<p>Total apps have fluctuated somewhat, but not in any major way: </p>
<p>Total apps in 1980: 4851
Total apps in 2000: 4955</p>
<p>Early decision apps have actually declined slightly:</p>
<p>ED apps in 1980: 535
ED apps in 2000: 403</p>
<p>The number of students accepted ED has fluctuated over a fairly narrow range:</p>
<p>ED acceptances in 1980: 175
ED acceptances in 2000: 180</p>
<p>BTW, Early Decision is not the “evil” preventing low-income enrollment that is sometimes painted. 11.1% of Williams’ ED acceptances for the class of 2002 had a “low-income” tag. The overal percentage of the class was under 18%. With the subsequent addition of the Questbridge recruiting service supplying additional binding ED applicants, it wouldn’t surprise me of the “soc-econ” percentage in ED has further increased.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that the very top colleges are taking as many qualified low-income students as they can a) afford and b) find. Neither of those variables increases with the end of early decision. In fact, there is a strong argumement that shifting funds from need-based aid to merit-discount bidding wars would mean schools can afford fewer low income students. That has certainly been the widespread trend among schools shifting away from need-based aid to merit-aid. We need to be very clear that any shift from need-based aid to merit-aid bidding benefits relatively affluent students.</p>
<p>I do believe that Harvard and Princeton are making a brave move in the right direction, but I’d like to withhold my unstinting praise until I see what both schools are going to do next year with recruited athletes – will Harvard and Princeton just increase their use of likely letters for these athletes to make up for not being able to offer them an early decision? And will Harvard and Princeton start using (abusing) likely letters for highly desirable students who are non-athletes the way Dartmouth currently does? I would hate to see these schools increase the use of likely letters as a way around their EA/ED stance.</p>
<p>But why is it assumed that funds will be shifted from need to merit? There is absolutely no correlation. Now if colleges that want to compete with H & P decide to shift their funds to more merit aid in order to attract more top students, that’s their problem, not H or P. Pressure should be directed at them</p>
<p>“The fact of the matter is that the very top colleges are taking as many qualified low-income students as they can a) afford and b) find.”</p>
<p>“A” may or may not be true (Berea gives the lie to it in a big way); “B” most definitely is not, as Gordon Winston (at Williams) has more than amply demonstrated.</p>
<p>If they can’t afford it, it is because they “choose” not to afford it; if they can’t find them, it is because they “choose” not to look. But, hey, it’s their money, and it’s no national tragedy. </p>
<p>“n fact, there is a strong argumement that shifting funds from need-based aid to merit-discount bidding wars would mean schools can afford fewer low income students.”</p>
<p>The shift to “no-loan” policies could mean the same thing, as the majority of beneficiaries come from families with incomes in excess of $100k. It’s part of the “merit-discount” bidding war just dressed up as “something else”.</p>
<p>Shelf-life:</p>
<p>I don’t see why liekly letters for athletes should end. The recruiting cycle is what it is, and H & P cannot change it. If they want to have decent sprots teams, they will have to maintain the use of likely letters. What would be distressing would be an expansion of the use of likely letters.</p>
<p>Actually, the only likely letter from an Ivy that I know was received in my S’s school went to a recruited athlete who was an NMSF and was URM and considered by my S to be incredibly bright (not an accolade he distributes lightly). Lots of kids had various hooks, but none received likelies.</p>
<p>Any word from Penn and Dartmouth yet? </p>
<p>From my ealier post on Harvard’s announcement: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me thinks ED/EA/REA is all but dead - at least in its “public” form.</p>
<p>Marite, Right now at Princeton, some exceptional athletes are given a likely letter, but most recruited athletes are not. Instead they are told that they have coaches support if they apply ED. They then apply ED and most get in, but many do not. What I like about this system is that for all but the very top recruited athletes, admissions is not guaranteed. Sure the support of a coach is often a tipping factor, but admissions operates somewhat more autonomously. Without an ED option, I think that Princeton might feel it needs to expand its use of likely letters, thus locking in a commitment to these few students before they have a chance to see a greater pool of applicants.</p>
<p>As for the non-athlete likely letters that Dartmouth sends out in droves, I just think this exacerbates the February/March anxiety level.</p>
<p>It’s the well-informed, scared of their EFC middle class that had to hesitate at applying ED. Maybe this levels the field some for them. </p>
<p>Imagine the kids trying to get out of their ED commitments elsewhere when their boat comes in at H or P. Oops, they forgot to withdraw their apps. You know it’s going to happen.</p>
<p>Class of '08 will be interesting. I don’t know how they’ll go from such a high percentage ED to everyone RD. Maybe being waitlisted would actually mean a kid has a real chance? Or overadmitting leading to asking some kids to defer, with implications for '09 applicants? This seems like it will take a few seasons to work out.</p>
<p>Has Yale commented yet? Seems they would have to end SCEA also. Otherwise they will get more apps than they can process. And yet, they are still sending my son emails.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2006091401010[/url]”>http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2006091401010</a></p>
<p>interesteddad wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “gaming the system” but I don’t believe my kids have “gamed the system.”</p>
<p>I have always discouraged my kids from identifying a “first choice” ahead of time. The vicissitudes and whims of admissions committees are just too hard to predict.<br>
I think it’s psychologically healthier NOT to identify a “first choice” up front. </p>
<p>(Furthermore, given all the unknowns in the equation, what are the odds that the college a student might THINK is her first choice before enrolling would in fact be the “true first choice” under perfect full information?)</p>
<p>I have always stressed that college is what you make of it, that you should prepare yourself to be happy in a variety of different life situations, that flexibility and resilience are virtues to be cultivated. </p>
<p>Fixating on identifying first-choice schools before you’ve been admitted isn’t part of that. </p>
<p>My children have taken my advice to heart and I don’t believe either has “gamed the system,” interesteddad.</p>
<p>My older one found things she liked about seven schools that met her needs, and applied to them all. Some had ED, one had SCEA, some had unrestricted EA, and some offered multiple plans (i.e., choice of EA or ED at the same school.) </p>
<p>Because she had no clear first choice, she applied unrestricted EA to the four schools that had it–not because they were higher choices than the others but simply to get as much information about her potential choices as early as possible–so she had more time to do visits to those schools after acceptance, particularly the more distant ones. (I don’t think it was unreasonable to wait on making expensive visits to distant long-shot schools until after acceptance.)</p>
<p>She didn’t tell any of her EA schools that they were a “first choice.” She honestly didn’t know her first choice.</p>
<p>My younger child plans to apply this year. She doesn’t have a clear first choice either, but she has identified 6 to 8 schools that she likes (of varying selectivity.) None of them offer EA. All of them offer ED. Some of them do likely letters and one may be somewhat rolling.</p>
<p>Since she doesn’t have a clear first choice, she is choosing not to apply ED. She will apply RD to the half-dozen places on her list. If she doesn’t get into any (which seems unlikely, but hypothetically possible–given Andison’s case, e.g., anything is possible), she has backup plans–continuing to take cc classes at the cc where she has been dually enrolled during high school and then applying as a transfer the following year.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, please explain to me how either of my children has been “gaming the system,” as you assert all kids do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My younger one has absolutely no interest in attending Harvard, so she has no interest in wasting her time and our money on an application there, EA or RD.</p>
<p>You could as well ask “What’s to lose?” about why not send an RD application to any of the other 3,199 colleges in the country.</p>
<p>I don’t see how it is “gaming the system” to identify a number of colleges where you think you might thrive and apply to those places on a time-table that gives you as much information about the possibilities open to you as early as possible.</p>
<p>“Can’t see why LACs such as Swarthmore or Williams would want to follow suit. Here’s their opportunity to find a new pool of qualified, full-pay customers, who really want to be there (but put in “lick-and-prayer” applications to other schools anyway.) Seems like a win-win to me.”</p>
<p>I’ll bet you two African goats that the ED numbers–if there is one next year–will not increase at LACs.</p>
<p>Thanks, Warbler!</p>
<p>“I give Harvard some credit for making a decision that they think is right,” Furstenberg said. “We’ll just have to wait and see what happens, but I don’t see any evidence now that other schools will likely change their plans.”</p>
<p>Karl missed that call!</p>
<p>Here’s a link to an article dating from 2003 …,</p>
<p><a href=“WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights”>WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights;
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My daughter isn’t scared s***less. She has older friends who’ve have taken lots of different satisfying paths to different kinds of colleges. Some straight to highly selective colleges. Others through the cc to highly selective colleges as junior transfers. Some through the cc to less selective colleges. Some directly to less selective colleges. Life didn’t end for those in the latter category. Life won’t end for her if she ends up in the latter category.</p>
<p>All positive satisfying experiences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting how history does not repeat itself. Brown reaped amazing rewards–and dropped its Ivy Safety label–when it aligned itself with Harvard’s early admission’s policies. </p>
<p>Never say never!</p>
<p>“I’ll bet you two African goats that the ED numbers–if there is one next year–will not increase at LACs.”</p>
<p>I don’t care enough to bet, and my check for two more Burundian goats is in the mail. ;)</p>
<p>“My younger one has absolutely no interest in attending Harvard, so she has no interest in wasting her time and our money on an application there, EA or RD.”</p>
<p>Mine visited H., was appalled by what she saw (for herself) and didn’t even consider applying. Like Wisteria’s d., mine had no clear first choice (and by the end, the first choice, which gave her a fine scholarship offer, was close to the bottom, and one close to the bottom was on top.) And I am 100% sure that my d. had no idea of the admissions odds at any of them (other than lots of kids got rejected.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gordon Winston proved that there are lower income students with SAT scores above some threshold. However, his study did not demonstrate that these additional students have any interest, whatsoever, in attending snooty northeast colleges and universities. For the most part, they don’t. See the many conversations Cangel and I have had about the lure of SEC football and the cultural role home state rivalries.</p>