FTR, I know at least two people well who took other colleges over Harvard (and not for financial reasons, either). Their yield isn’t 100%, after all…
@Chrchill - when I hear you say “you really can’t help yourself”, I have to smile…the premise of this thread was to discuss whether ED was unfair to lower-income applicants. Naturally, at some point, UChicago, as the biggest (ab)user of ED, was going to be brought into the discussion. It was then only a matter of time before you made an appearance. You’ll soon be followed, no doubt, by the usual cast of characters from the UChicago forum ready to turn this into a copy of every other thread on that forum, i.e., a discussion of the relative merits of UChicago and HYPS. I hope we can get back to the topic at hand.
Well, here is my take on this.
In order to be comfortable with applying ED, parents need to have either 1) Saved enough or have a sufficiently high income that paying around $70K a year for 4 years is no sweat, or 2) Poor enough to qualify for almost a full ride. Given the demographics of elite college students, it is clear that it is #1 that dominates.
However, parental income and their kids talent are only loosely correlated at best. In other words, there is little reason to believe that kids from the top 1% of parental income are so meritorious that they should comprise about half or more of elite college students.
So, is ED fair? I contend it is not. I also contend this unfairness is NOT a problem. I can almost see some of you gasping, or shaking your head, or yelling at your computer, so let me explain, as soon as I put on my flame suit.
I believe, from first-hand experience, that there is nothing wrong with success being multi-generational. In other words, it is ok to not be able to achieve ultimate success (which we will define for this purpose only, as admission to an elite college) in one generation. My father grew up mal-nourished, but was middle class by the time that I went to college. This middle class lifestyle was unable to pay for the elite colleges I was admitted to. However, the state flagship I attended was enough of a launch-pad for me that I did well enough that my child could apply ED without worry.
In other words, an elite college will undoubtedly give you a richer college experience surrounded by bright people from all over the world, whereas a state flagship will give you a much more regional perspective and a smaller percentage of bright people.
However, your ultimate success in life is not determined by the college. It is determined by you, through your talent, your grit, and some luck. Get started by taking advantage of every opportunity you have in college, and afterwards!
SCEA and ED are both abuses of the system to game yield. if one is unfair to low income students they both are.
H and P both determined they were and attempted to drop EA. they both failed because they were losing yield.
H and P were more concerned with their yield than leveling the playing field so to speak. It’s true of all schools.
SCEA and ED are both used to game yield. the reason UofChicago enters the discussion is because they are using it quite effectively… just as the ivies use SCEA effectively for the same purposes.
@sbballer - both SCEA and ED are disproportionately used by and benefit wealthy students, but that doesn’t mean they’re equally effective in gaming yield, or equally unfair. It’s like saying that falsely claiming you went to a certain university and committing perjury are both forms of lying; they are, but only one of them can land you in jail.
You say “H and P were more concerned with their yield than leveling the playing field, so to speak”. That’s true, but they weren’t so concerned that they were willing to go all the way to ED - which is a crucial distinction.
SCEA is certainly a means of gaming yield, because if you apply SCEA, there’s a powerful incentive not to apply anywhere else if you’re admitted early, and because the college knows you initially preferred them, they also know that if they defer and then admit you, you’re more likely to enroll than someone who didn’t apply SCEA. You’ve signaled a nonbinding preference, and the college can try to use that information.
That’s very different, though, from ED, the most powerful yield management tool, where if you apply and are admitted, you have to enroll unless you really don’t have the money, and then you’re behind the eight ball, negotiating with no leverage, having to renounce your acceptance and trying to cobble together applications late in the day while facing RD odds. If you’re admitted SCEA, you can look at the package you’re offered, compare it with any other offers you get months later and choose the one that works best for you, or choose to enroll at any other school that admits you, for any reason or no reason - which means that SCEA is both less effective in gaming yield and less unfair
Saying, yet again, “SCEA and ED are both unfair, they all game, UChicago is just better at it, etc.”, isn’t a counterargument. You’re just repeating opinions in the face of evidence to the contrary…
using a smoking analogy…
ivies use SCEA and smoke 1/2 pack a day. Chicago uses ED and smokes a pack a day.
and while you can argue SCEA is less unfair they’re all smokers:)
A better smoking analogy might be that the Ivies are smoking pot and UChicago is smoking crack…they’re all smoking drugs…
I don’t know. I like FastPass at Disney and Universal Express*— systems that let a well-organized person get an advantage for planning early! I hate waits.
Can anyone cite any research that suggests financial aid applicants that are admitted ED get worse aid packages than those admitted RD? Or is that just speculation? The need-blind, meets-full-need colleges claim that their package will be the same either way. It is based on parents’ financial data, not incentives to attend. Are they lying? Is the amount of aid the same but the grant-loan balance different? Where is the research?
(*The old FastPass system was the most fair, and the best analogy, because all you had to do was arrive at the park at opening, knowing FastPass existed— there was no extra cost to take advantage of it. Hotel stay requirements and passes that cost more DO give an advantage to those who can pay.)
I question the analogy of the (old) FastPass system—you could still ride other rides while you waited for your time to come up. In the ED system, not only can’t you ride any other rides until your time slot has passed, you can’t even check whether the line is short enough to ride them.
@Chrchill lol…this is rich coming from you. sure there are cross admits who choose Chicago and other top schools over HYPSM, but they are a small minority. If you think Chicago goes head to head with Yale for cross admits you live in an alternate reality I am afraid…
The USNews has no meaningful impact on this level. They have never had an impact at this level for any other non-HYPSM school that has cracked and maintained a the top 5 spot for some years in recent memory. I am just relating facts you refuse to acknowledge. They would have an impact if Chicago, Penn or Columbia were able to do SCEA, attract meaningful numbers of tippy top students early away from HYPSM and have most of them not bother applying to any place RD. They simply cannot do that. They also cannot match the FA HYPSM provides, or the HYPSM prestige, which like it or not drives many college decisions at this level. These are the hard facts.
@sbballer they are far from using it effectively. the number of applications declined in the last cycle and acceptance rate went up because of such a crazy focus on ED. Very likely the effect will be bigger this year now that the news has spread. This was a really silly move that a school of Chicago’s standing does not need in the first place.
Back to the original question, without a doubt ED can hurt students. It is not usually the very low income (i.e. full-ride) ones but rather the ones who need some financial aid and would benefit greatly by being able to leverage multiple FA offers. This is why SCEA is nothing like ED. Plus SCEA is offered only by the richest schools in the country. Highly doubt a person could get a better need-based award at another school.
“materials for Yale and Princeton was how much they concentrated on need-based financial aid, particularly aid given to families with EFC’s above $200,000. It was pretty clear that these two schools were pitching themselves to donut hole families who made too much to get any need-based financial aid at 99.9% of schools.”
That’s misleading at least for Yale, I know someone who was in the donut hole and got nothing from them wrt FA.
“SCEA and ED are both abuses of the system to game yield. if one is unfair to low income students they both are.”
ED is much worse, you can apply SCEA and still apply to the colleges on your list, in fact you can probably apply to two colleges SCEA since there shouldn’t be any way to enforce the single choice. Now the ivies were caught colluding on FA packages so it wouldn’t surprise me if HYP did so for SCEA, so I wouldn’t risk it but it’s possible. ED you’re done if you’re in unless you claim financial hardship in April after you somehow kept applying and got your RD decisions.
^with ED you can also reject the contract if the award is less than what you have indicated you need. But you have to reject the offer right then and there. You can’t wait until April and in the meantime keep applying to other schools. So practically you cannot compare your ED FA are with other FA awards. ED is definitely much worse than SCEA, it is not even close.
but they’re all smokers:)
@DeepBlue86 so if an applicant is admitted EA or RD to an Ivy and can renegotiate their FA package, how is that not “Merit aid” which the ivies claim they don’t give out. Isn’t merit aid by definition getting an applicant to matriculate by offering them something above and beyond the FA you say they need. This seems disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst.
@Penn95 never say never, look how the acronym has evolved, HYP…HYPS…HYPSM, little growth at the top schools means more super qualified applicants are going to look elsewhere. HYP has done an excellent job at keeping themselves at the top of the heap but certainly Yale and Princeton have fallen behind Harvard and Stanford and maybe MIT, if those two go ED…
None of them are likely to go ED.
- Stanford is now #1 in selectivity and yield. It doesn't need ED.
- Harvard's only peer is Stanford, but because of geography, loses few students to them. It doesn't need ED.
- MIT's only peer is Stanford, and for the reason as Harvard above, loses few students to them.It doesn't need ED.
- While Yale and Princeton will lose a small number of students to the others, they are still apparently able to build the class they want without ED, and offering SCEA puts them in the elite group. They won't want to go ED either, as that would admit defeat.
Note that this is why I found Chicago’s move from EA towards ED 1/2 so disappointing. Rather than fight to join the HYPSM club, they admitted defeat.
MIT’s peer is Cal Tech. If Stanford is their peer so is Harvard.
Well, I suppose you could say that MIT and CalTech are peers. But you would be hard pressed to find a student that chooses CalTech over MIT, as MIT provides a far superior environment. Its advantages include the city of Boston (the ultimate college town), a 50-50 male-female ratio, ability to take classes at Harvard, a demanding but highly supportive academic environment, and (optionally) training to become a pirate!
And yes, there are some students that apply to both MIT and Harvard, and get accepted to both. And Harvard will win most of those battles. But for many STEM fields, Harvard is simply not in the same class, and they won’t even get the applications, whereas Stanford absolutely will be considered.
Harvard is not a peer as far as engineering schools go… it is not in the same class or consideration as Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon etc.
You’re changing the subject @CU123 - we’re not in a discussion about whether the Ivies are being entirely truthful about how they don’t give out merit aid, but rather a thread you began with the statement that the claim that lower-income applicants were disadvantaged by ED was overblown.
ED means that you can take what they’re offering you or leave it, unless you’re able to negotiate something better, which you have very little leverage to do. With EA/SCEA, your hand is much stronger, and you don’t have to consider giving up the bird in the hand. ED disadvantages non-full-pay students, particularly those in the “donut hole”. If you can negotiate at all, you’re better off.