Realistically, Harvard is the only university that can risk lowering its yield and losing in the many college rankings that factor into an institution's "quality." The concern with yield is why some elite schools take up to 50 percent of their freshman class through early action/decision programs. Most schools downplay the advantage except for UPenn's admission dean, Willis Stetson, who says that students applying early receive preferential treatment.
Early admissions programs sprung up in the middle of the 1990's as the current hypercompetitive atmosphere took hold. This substantially improved yield for schools by locking in students early on and in the same light lowered their acceptance figures by forcing regular decision students to apply to more schools and compete for fewer spots that were left over after the early decision round. In addition, coaches could encourage slotted recruits to apply early and legacies could be given a small boost on the count that their number-one choice was clear. After the early decision craze reached new levels, Harvard pioneered early action so as to not bind students into committing themselves at a point when they're not mature enough to even own a credit card. Early action was similar to early decision, but did not bind the students into attending the institution. This worked on the assumption that Harvard need only compete with Yale, Princeton, Stanford and MIT for yield and the likelihood of being accepted into two or more of these institutions and choosing them over Harvard was/is so slim that the crimson H need not concern itself with yield in comparison to its neighbors. Yale, Stanford and MIT followed, leaving Princeton behind as the only competing institution to still have an early decision program.
So, that leads us to our current status with Harvard eliminating early action and Princeton following suit. The real question is whether this changes the composition of Harvard's incoming freshmen classes. The main reason given by Bok for the end of early action is that it marginalized groups: "Students from more sophisticated backgrounds and affluent high schools often apply early to increase their chances of admission, while minority students and students from rural areas, other countries, and high schools with fewer resources miss out."
I don't believe that removing early action will help students from less affluent backgrounds. Schools like Harvard will now resort to "likely letters" to corner prized recruits whether their skills are academics, athletics, etc. A likely letter was the invention of the Ivy League to circumvent agreements they made on deadlines for admission. In reality, a euphemism to assure recruits of their application status and to possibly garner higher yield in the top of their application pool.
Most importantly, how does that affect our small elite college on the hill? The College caps its early admissions to a maximum of thirty percent of the incoming freshman class by order of President Anthony Marx. That being said, there is the advantage to applying early. A greater percent of those that apply early are accepted in comparison to regular decision but there is no statistical difference in board scores or any quantitative measurement applied to students from the early decision pool and the regular decision pool. I believe that unless Harvard's decision trickles down to the College and similar institutions such as Dartmouth and Williams, there will not be a change in current admissions policy at the College, nor should there be one.
In all the excitement over the end of early action initiatives, we should also consider the positives of such initiatives. If students apply to their number -one choice as the policy intends, the rest falls into place. For one, early decision applicants show interest and dedication to an institution. It also brings a considerable amount of academic, athletics, musical and artistic talent that otherwise would have not enrolled in our most fair community. The likes of Bok that advocate for the removal of ED/EA policies are too eager to forget the tedious application process themselves. The fees involved, all the essays that colleges require, the standardize testing in addition to doing all this while maintaining a college preparatory workload is a daunting task. The main argument issued against early decision schools is that they lock students into financial aid packages that might be unfavorable. I would agree that as an institutional problem, this is a concern; however, schools at the top, especially Amherst, will drop students from their binding agreement if they can't afford tuition costs. Moreover, data shows that although Amherst is an early decision school as opposed to early action like Harvard or Yale, there is more economic diversity in the enrolled student body here than at most schools of comparable academics. Pell grants are government grants afforded to the neediest of students and the percent of the student body receiving them at elite institutions is staggeringly small. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education as of May 12, 2006, ("Elite Colleges Lag in Servicing the Needy") Harvard's percentage of undergraduates receiving Pell grants is 8.1 percent while Amherst holds 13.8 percent. In fact, the only elite school in that article that ranks above Amherst in Pell grants awarded and holds EA admissions is MIT. The use of early action or early decision programs does not influence the economic diversity at elite schools. The recruitment efforts and commitment of the school to finding and funding talented disadvantaged youths is what makes the difference.
There is, however, hope in the form of the old nemesis US News & World Report. They now record, publish, and rank the percent of students receiving Pell grants (2005-2006).
College admissions are a zero-sum game where one school wins and the other loses and the peons are hopeful freshman wannabes. We should however toot our horn over recruitment efforts and the strides we have made in opening the doors of education to the lower fifth of incomes in the US. Although we may be overlooked by the media and modest in our comparison to the ivy-covered ivory towers of the such sought after League, we should rejoice in living up to our motto "Terras Irradient" and sing the praises that otherwise are unsung; after all we are the Singing College. There is a nice ring to "veritas," but the truth of the matter is left unseen.
Botero is a junior majoring in economics and Spanish. He does not head any clubs on campus but does however want to use this space to advertise for the newly revived club, Financial Aid & Class Equity, FACE for short.