why don't privates have rolling admissions

<p>why do schools (mostly private) only have one decision release date for ED/EA applicants and then 1 day for RD/Early deferred applicants? i mean it sucks to finish your apps, and then have to wait 4 or 5 months for a decision. is there any logic to this, because it seems almost unfair that colleges release decisions around end of march/ beginning of april and then expect these students who were waiting for these decisions to compare with the schools they already have offers from, and then expect them to go visit the campus (maybe again) of a school that they need to get another feeling for, and then make the most important decision of their life up until that point by may 1, which is just a month away. any comments?</p>

<p>Rolling admissions would be more convenient for you, but these schools enjoy being able to evaluate all their applicants before making their decisions. They don't offer rolling admissions because they don't have to, and because it works better for them not to.</p>

<p>See </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nacacnet.org/NR/rdonlyres/9A4F9961-8991-455D-89B4-AE3B9AF2EFE8/0/SPGP.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nacacnet.org/NR/rdonlyres/9A4F9961-8991-455D-89B4-AE3B9AF2EFE8/0/SPGP.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>for possibly more detail than you want about your question.</p>

<p>Actually, a large number of privates do have rolling admissions. It is just that the higher ranked ones generally do not. There are probably justifications that can be surmised such as when a college has a huge number of applicants for a very limited number of seats, it likes to see the whole pool of applicants before making the difficult (and often subjective) decisions as to which ones they actually admit. However, one reason is simply that is the way they have always done it and to change a traditional method at a college is something that is very difficult to do for a bureaucracy, which colleges are -- someone with authority (a trustee) would have to recommend that it be done, then that person would have to find enough others in authority (other trustees) to at least agree that a study should be done, then the idea would go to a committee for study which would then spend a lot of money and time doing a study and preparing a lengthy report to provide the pros and cons of making a change and make recommendations, then the report would go to the trustees who would then determine if there are questions they have that need further study, then the matter would go back to committee for further study required, then a new report goes to the trustees and ultimately, after about a two year period and spending some millions of dollars, they actually take a vote on whether a change should be made. It is just much easier to continue with the traditional method of doing things.</p>