Harvard College Eliminates Early Admissions
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/09/12/harvard_to_end_early_admission/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514176
I suppose it's a well-meaning move, but Harvard is kidding itself if it thinks that this will help level the playing field for low-income students trying to get in. The supposed negative of early admission-- that it is taken advantage of only by the privileged and admissions-saavy students who know about it-- looks like a little bump in the road for low-income students, when you compare it to the $40,000+ costs per year to attend the College, and with the fact that admissions preference will continue to be given to children of alumni. [Normally I think Dan Wasserman's cartoons are not intelligent at all, but today he captures this hypocrisy perfectly: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/wasserman/]
I see the real value in this move as lowering the pressure on high school seniors and giving them more time to make informed decisions about college. I'm not sure, however, how likely this will be to snowball to other schools (which is what would be necessary to truly reduce the pressure). Harvard can afford to risk losing a few applicants (don't they get something like 20,000?) because of this policy, but realistically could others? Could Tufts or Brandeis or Boston College risk the drop in applications that would result if they eliminated early admissions while their peer schools kept them? What this might do is force those sanctimonious college presidents and admissions deans who criticize early admissions while doing nothing about them (Yale's Richard Levin, for example) to eat their words. "I personally would prefer to eliminate all the early admissions programs, but realistically we cannot do that," Levin said in 2002. Well, Rick, maybe now you can.
I wonder what Marilee Jones (MIT's admissions dean) would have to say about this. It seems like MIT's early admissions worked somewhat different from Harvard's; just from my experience being there, it seemed like the only people who got in early were the super science geniuses, the Intel Competition winners, etc. They take them, presumably, to head off their being lured to CalTech, Stanford, or Harvard in the later application cycle. But many, many people who are deferred subsequently get in in regular admissions (in contrast to Harvard, at which a deferral seems tantamount to an early rejection). Still, as an outspoken critic of the stressful nature of the application process (see here: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20060913/NEWS/109130041), I would expect Marilee to also put her money where her mouth is and consider changing MIT's policies.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514176
I suppose it's a well-meaning move, but Harvard is kidding itself if it thinks that this will help level the playing field for low-income students trying to get in. The supposed negative of early admission-- that it is taken advantage of only by the privileged and admissions-saavy students who know about it-- looks like a little bump in the road for low-income students, when you compare it to the $40,000+ costs per year to attend the College, and with the fact that admissions preference will continue to be given to children of alumni. [Normally I think Dan Wasserman's cartoons are not intelligent at all, but today he captures this hypocrisy perfectly: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/wasserman/]
I see the real value in this move as lowering the pressure on high school seniors and giving them more time to make informed decisions about college. I'm not sure, however, how likely this will be to snowball to other schools (which is what would be necessary to truly reduce the pressure). Harvard can afford to risk losing a few applicants (don't they get something like 20,000?) because of this policy, but realistically could others? Could Tufts or Brandeis or Boston College risk the drop in applications that would result if they eliminated early admissions while their peer schools kept them? What this might do is force those sanctimonious college presidents and admissions deans who criticize early admissions while doing nothing about them (Yale's Richard Levin, for example) to eat their words. "I personally would prefer to eliminate all the early admissions programs, but realistically we cannot do that," Levin said in 2002. Well, Rick, maybe now you can.
I wonder what Marilee Jones (MIT's admissions dean) would have to say about this. It seems like MIT's early admissions worked somewhat different from Harvard's; just from my experience being there, it seemed like the only people who got in early were the super science geniuses, the Intel Competition winners, etc. They take them, presumably, to head off their being lured to CalTech, Stanford, or Harvard in the later application cycle. But many, many people who are deferred subsequently get in in regular admissions (in contrast to Harvard, at which a deferral seems tantamount to an early rejection). Still, as an outspoken critic of the stressful nature of the application process (see here: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20060913/NEWS/109130041), I would expect Marilee to also put her money where her mouth is and consider changing MIT's policies.