Not gonna happen. The UC's (and Cal States) have made it quite clear that standardized testing is not for them as the limited value added is not worth the cost. (Plus, standardized tests have disparate outcomes hurting some applicants that they are trying to attract.)75bear said:
I hope the UCs are the next domino to fall. Many top elite colleges have realized eliminating SAT/ACT scores hasn't created more diverse classes, in fact it's hindered it. Hence we are seeing these top colleges reinstate standardized testing.
Dartmouth reinstates SATs
18,653 Views |
127 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by 01Bear
Our graduate programs will prop us up in perpetuity, just grab more out-of-state students as undergrads.sycasey said:
Gen-Z is going to be a smaller generation than the Millennials. I would expect college enrollment to fall along with whatever other volume metrics apply to young people.
We could adjust for this trend by allowing for more immigration, but you know . . . politics.
Strykur said:Our graduate programs will prop us up in perpetuity, just grab more out-of-state students as undergrads.sycasey said:
Gen-Z is going to be a smaller generation than the Millennials. I would expect college enrollment to fall along with whatever other volume metrics apply to young people.
We could adjust for this trend by allowing for more immigration, but you know . . . politics.
UCs will probably be fine in general since they are high-demand schools. But some of the lower tier colleges are going to have issues.
There is a demographic shift coming and absent foreign students, a lot of colleges are in trouble.sycasey said:Strykur said:Our graduate programs will prop us up in perpetuity, just grab more out-of-state students as undergrads.sycasey said:
Gen-Z is going to be a smaller generation than the Millennials. I would expect college enrollment to fall along with whatever other volume metrics apply to young people.
We could adjust for this trend by allowing for more immigration, but you know . . . politics.
UCs will probably be fine in general since they are high-demand schools. But some of the lower tier colleges are going to have issues.
Looming Enrollment Cliff Poses Serious Threat to CollegesBestColleges.comhttps://www.bestcolleges.com news analysis loomin...
Elite private schools *want* admissions to be gamed by wealthy families. (Never mind the PR spin to the contrary. Look at what they do, not what they say.) They want more students from wealthy families because those students will pay full price or close to it. A large number of these private collleges agreed amongst themselves on a formula for need-based financial aid so that they were not competing with each other by making hefty offers to students from less wealthy families. A lawsuit challenging this financial aid cartel is in the process of being settled, with many of the colleges already having paid to settle out.sycasey said:This was all fairly predictable when they originally took away the SAT/ACT as admissions criteria. You didn't have to look very far to see that once those were gone, colleges were going to turn to other metrics that are even more easily gamed by wealthy families.75bear said:
I hope the UCs are the next domino to fall. Many top elite colleges have realized eliminating SAT/ACT scores hasn't created more diverse classes, in fact it's hindered it. Hence we are seeing these top colleges reinstate standardized testing.
Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
This is true, but for cultural and political reasons they also want to give the appearance that they care about a diverse student body. And the data around the loss of standardized testing was becoming inconvenient for that.BearSD said:Elite private schools *want* admissions to be gamed by wealthy families. (Never mind the PR spin to the contrary. Look at what they do, not what they say.) They want more students from wealthy families because those students will pay full price or close to it. A large number of these private collleges agreed amongst themselves on a formula for need-based financial aid so that they were not competing with each other by making hefty offers to students from less wealthy families. A lawsuit challenging this financial aid cartel is in the process of being settled, with many of the colleges already having paid to settle out.sycasey said:This was all fairly predictable when they originally took away the SAT/ACT as admissions criteria. You didn't have to look very far to see that once those were gone, colleges were going to turn to other metrics that are even more easily gamed by wealthy families.75bear said:
I hope the UCs are the next domino to fall. Many top elite colleges have realized eliminating SAT/ACT scores hasn't created more diverse classes, in fact it's hindered it. Hence we are seeing these top colleges reinstate standardized testing.
Anyway, my stance on expensive private colleges should be pretty clear: they are a scam and not worth the money you pay for them. If you get a free-ride scholarship to one then that's great, but otherwise just go to a state school.
If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
Big Dog said:Not gonna happen. The UC's (and Cal States) have made it quite clear that standardized testing is not for them as the limited value added is not worth the cost. (Plus, standardized tests have disparate outcomes hurting some applicants that they are trying to attract.)75bear said:
I hope the UCs are the next domino to fall. Many top elite colleges have realized eliminating SAT/ACT scores hasn't created more diverse classes, in fact it's hindered it. Hence we are seeing these top colleges reinstate standardized testing.
It's been a while since I looked into this, but when I did, there was no evidence that kids who scored higher on standardized tests had better college outcomes (i.e., college graduation rates) than those with lower scores. OTOH, there was a strong connection between higher standardized test scores and family wealth. Has any of that changed in the last 20 or so years?
Also, on an anecdotal level, among my graduating high school class, I got the highest SAT scores*. However, my class valedictorian went on to earn her Ph.D. from Chicago (after earning her B.A. from Northwestern) while another student (with a higher high school GPA than mine) earned her Ph.D. from Columbia (after earning her B.S. from MIT). I managed to graduate from Cal and lucked into matriculating at and earning my JD from Northwestern, but I'd say their collegiate performances put mine to shame. Based on this purely anecdotal, I'd posit that SAT scores mean little relative to college performance.
*I don't know if it makes a difference, but their families had more disposable income than mine and they attended SAT prep courses while I neither studied nor prepared for the SAT. I just always winged the tests.
01Bear said:Big Dog said:Not gonna happen. The UC's (and Cal States) have made it quite clear that standardized testing is not for them as the limited value added is not worth the cost. (Plus, standardized tests have disparate outcomes hurting some applicants that they are trying to attract.)75bear said:
I hope the UCs are the next domino to fall. Many top elite colleges have realized eliminating SAT/ACT scores hasn't created more diverse classes, in fact it's hindered it. Hence we are seeing these top colleges reinstate standardized testing.
It's been a while since I looked into this, but when I did, there was no evidence that kids who scored higher on standardized tests had better college outcomes (i.e., college graduation rates) than those with lower scores. OTOH, there was a strong connection between higher standardized test scores and family wealth. Has any of that changed in the last 20 or so years?
Also, on an anecdotal level, among my graduating high school class, I got the highest SAT scores*. However, my class valedictorian went on to earn her Ph.D. from Chicago (after earning her B.A. from Northwestern) while another student (with a higher high school GPA than mine) earned her Ph.D. from Columbia (after earning her B.S. from MIT). I managed to graduate from Cal and lucked into matriculating at and earning my JD from Northwestern, but I'd say their collegiate performances put mine to shame. Based on this purely anecdotal, I'd posit that SAT scores mean little relative to college performance.
*I don't know if it makes a difference, but their families had more disposable income than mine and they attended SAT prep courses while I neither studied nor prepared for the SAT. I just always winged the tests.
That is certainly UC's argument. OTOH, I woudl submit that SAT-M can matter for teh quant majors, at least that is what MIT and others are saying.
Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
Thanks for that bit of information. I was unaware of the NPC.
That said, if an applicant is eighteen at the time of application, she could very well be legally obligated to attend Yale, regardless of financial aid. Given many kids are now attending T-K, it makes it more possible for kids to be adults when they apply for college admissions. I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, but it's definitely a possibility.
That said, I want to point out one other issue. You mention the girl's high school guidance counselor should've helped her figure out applying to Yale wouldn't cost her much. Assuming the counselor had as much information about NPC as you, it also suggests the guidance counselor was interested in helping her go to Yale and had the time to help her with the admissions process.
Speaking from personal experience, not all guidance counselors care about their students, let alone are interested in helping them apply to college. My guidance counselor, for instance, actually advised me to drop out of high school, get my GED, and attend a local junior college. This was in my senior year; just after I submitted my college applications.* I had only one other interaction with her during my four years; it was when I got called in to her office and was questioned as to what I knew about academic cheating on campus. In other words, my guidance counselor was about as useful as tits on a bull.
That's the reality of life for kids who don't come from wealthy families; even those whose job it is to help us don't always do their jobs (and no one holds them accountable). It should be noted that in some instances, the guidance counselor thinks of the high academic achieving students as their "good kids" who don't need guidance and instead focus on the low achieving students, of which a school in a less affluent district will have many more. The counselors may focus most of their time on trying to get these lower achievers to graduate high school, or at least not drop out, leaving them with no time to help the high achievers.**
In short, economic disparity makes a difference in the college admissions process even at the high school level. Those students in wealthy districts have guidance counselors who are more willing and able to help them with their college admissions. Those, like me, who came from less affluent backgrounds, end up with guidance counselors who are actual obstacles to their academic careers.
*My friends and I figured out the application deadlines and what we needed to do on our own. Those of us with older siblings also pressed them for help. But in some cases (including mine), the older sibling didn't have enough information to help us.
**In my case, the guidance counselor wasn't doing that. She was more interested in playing favorites and being liked by the popular kids. Basically, she was trying to relive her high school years, but as the guidance counselor.
Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:Not gonna happen. The UC's (and Cal States) have made it quite clear that standardized testing is not for them as the limited value added is not worth the cost. (Plus, standardized tests have disparate outcomes hurting some applicants that they are trying to attract.)75bear said:
I hope the UCs are the next domino to fall. Many top elite colleges have realized eliminating SAT/ACT scores hasn't created more diverse classes, in fact it's hindered it. Hence we are seeing these top colleges reinstate standardized testing.
It's been a while since I looked into this, but when I did, there was no evidence that kids who scored higher on standardized tests had better college outcomes (i.e., college graduation rates) than those with lower scores. OTOH, there was a strong connection between higher standardized test scores and family wealth. Has any of that changed in the last 20 or so years?
Also, on an anecdotal level, among my graduating high school class, I got the highest SAT scores*. However, my class valedictorian went on to earn her Ph.D. from Chicago (after earning her B.A. from Northwestern) while another student (with a higher high school GPA than mine) earned her Ph.D. from Columbia (after earning her B.S. from MIT). I managed to graduate from Cal and lucked into matriculating at and earning my JD from Northwestern, but I'd say their collegiate performances put mine to shame. Based on this purely anecdotal, I'd posit that SAT scores mean little relative to college performance.
*I don't know if it makes a difference, but their families had more disposable income than mine and they attended SAT prep courses while I neither studied nor prepared for the SAT. I just always winged the tests.
That is certainly UC's argument. OTOH, I woudl submit that SAT-M can matter for teh quant majors, at least that is what MIT and others are saying.
I'm sorry, it's been a while since I was in high school and worrying about taking the SATs, but what is the SAT-M?
Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
The original post mentioned the girl wasn't comfortable applying for "early decision" but your response is regarding "early admission".
Could you clarify? You can apply "early decision" or "early action" (which seems to be what you're responding to) but I've never heard of "early admission" as a way to apply to college.
Would your response be correct for early decision? I.e., do the same NPC rules apply for early decision which would allow someone to get out of a binding agreement?
Absolutely not possible. Yes, applying Early is a commitment to attend if admitted AND the school is affordable. If Yale's NPC was wrong in their calculations of aid for an applicant who enters their numbers correctly, that's on Yale. Any agreement is null and void. OTOH, if an applicant makes a mistake entering numbers -- perhaps they didn't know Dad had a side hustle making bank -- and the aid is less than expected, the acceptee can walk. (Think about it, an 18-year old can only borrow ~$31k max total for undergrad. If Yale wanted to force her to attend, they'd have to come up with the difference.)01Bear said:Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
Thanks for that bit of information. I was unaware of the NPC.
That said, if an applicant is eighteen at the time of application, she could very well be legally obligated to attend Yale, regardless of financial aid. Given many kids are now attending T-K, it makes it more possible for kids to be adults when they apply for college admissions. I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, but it's definitely a possibility.
That said, I want to point out one other issue. You mention the girl's high school guidance counselor should've helped her figure out applying to Yale wouldn't cost her much. Assuming the counselor had as much information about NPC as you, it also suggests the guidance counselor was interested in helping her go to Yale and had the time to help her with the admissions process.
Speaking from personal experience, not all guidance counselors care about their students, let alone are interested in helping them apply to college. My guidance counselor, for instance, actually advised me to drop out of high school, get my GED, and attend a local junior college. This was in my senior year; just after I submitted my college applications.* I had only one other interaction with her during my four years; it was when I got called in to her office and was questioned as to what I knew about academic cheating on campus. In other words, my guidance counselor was about as useful as tits on a bull.
That's the reality of life for kids who don't come from wealthy families; even those whose job it is to help us don't always do their jobs (and no one holds them accountable). It should be noted that in some instances, the guidance counselor thinks of the high academic achieving students as their "good kids" who don't need guidance and instead focus on the low achieving students, of which a school in a less affluent district will have many more. The counselors may focus most of their time on trying to get these lower achievers to graduate high school, or at least not drop out, leaving them with no time to help the high achievers.**
In short, economic disparity makes a difference in the college admissions process even at the high school level. Those students in wealthy districts have guidance counselors who are more willing and able to help them with their college admissions. Those, like me, who came from less affluent backgrounds, end up with guidance counselors who are actual obstacles to their academic careers.
*My friends and I figured out the application deadlines and what we needed to do on our own. Those of us with older siblings also pressed them for help. But in some cases (including mine), the older sibling didn't have enough information to help us.
**In my case, the guidance counselor wasn't doing that. She was more interested in playing favorites and being liked by the popular kids. Basically, she was trying to relive her high school years, but as the guidance counselor.
to your point: everything involved in admissions to highly selective colleges favors the wealthy.
Yes, same rules apply.93Bear said:Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
The original post mentioned the girl wasn't comfortable applying for "early decision" but your response is regarding "early admission".
Could you clarify? You can apply "early decision" or "early action" (which seems to be what you're responding to) but I've never heard of "early admission" as a way to apply to college.
Would your response be correct for early decision? I.e., do the same NPC rules apply for early decision which would allow someone to get out of a binding agreement?
There are generally three types of early applications: Early Decision, Early Action, and Single Choice Early Action. ED is binding, EA is not.
Yale (and Harvard & Stanford & Princeton & ?) participates in Single Choice (Restrictive) Early Action, which means that we want you to show us some love early if we are your first choice, and we'll show that love back with a higher acceptance rate in the Early round. BUT, we want you to be sure, and to be able to compare offers, so feel free to apply to as many schools as you like during the Regular Decision round. (That also includes UC's Nov 30 deadline). You don't have to make a decision until April 1.
*Restrictive just means apply to only ONE college Restrictive. You can only apply early to one of HYPS. But you can apply to multiple other Early Action schools, such as MIT. Dartmouth has Early Decision.
We're getting way down in the weeds here, but the NYT article on that young girl was typical journalist ignorance.
93Bear said:Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
The original post mentioned the girl wasn't comfortable applying for "early decision" but your response is regarding "early admission".
Could you clarify? You can apply "early decision" or "early action" (which seems to be what you're responding to) but I've never heard of "early admission" as a way to apply to college.
Would your response be correct for early decision? I.e., do the same NPC rules apply for early decision which would allow someone to get out of a binding agreement?
My mistake! I meant "early decision."
Big Dog said:Absolutely not possible. Yes, applying Early is a commitment to attend if admitted AND the school is affordable. If Yale's NPC was wrong in their calculations of aid for an applicant who enters their numbers correctly, that's on Yale. Any agreement is null and void. OTOH, if an applicant makes a mistake entering numbers -- perhaps they didn't know Dad had a side hustle making bank -- and the aid is less than expected, the acceptee can walk. (Think about it, an 18-year old can only borrow ~$31k max total for undergrad. If Yale wanted to force her to attend, they'd have to come up with the difference.)01Bear said:Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
Thanks for that bit of information. I was unaware of the NPC.
That said, if an applicant is eighteen at the time of application, she could very well be legally obligated to attend Yale, regardless of financial aid. Given many kids are now attending T-K, it makes it more possible for kids to be adults when they apply for college admissions. I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, but it's definitely a possibility.
That said, I want to point out one other issue. You mention the girl's high school guidance counselor should've helped her figure out applying to Yale wouldn't cost her much. Assuming the counselor had as much information about NPC as you, it also suggests the guidance counselor was interested in helping her go to Yale and had the time to help her with the admissions process.
Speaking from personal experience, not all guidance counselors care about their students, let alone are interested in helping them apply to college. My guidance counselor, for instance, actually advised me to drop out of high school, get my GED, and attend a local junior college. This was in my senior year; just after I submitted my college applications.* I had only one other interaction with her during my four years; it was when I got called in to her office and was questioned as to what I knew about academic cheating on campus. In other words, my guidance counselor was about as useful as tits on a bull.
That's the reality of life for kids who don't come from wealthy families; even those whose job it is to help us don't always do their jobs (and no one holds them accountable). It should be noted that in some instances, the guidance counselor thinks of the high academic achieving students as their "good kids" who don't need guidance and instead focus on the low achieving students, of which a school in a less affluent district will have many more. The counselors may focus most of their time on trying to get these lower achievers to graduate high school, or at least not drop out, leaving them with no time to help the high achievers.**
In short, economic disparity makes a difference in the college admissions process even at the high school level. Those students in wealthy districts have guidance counselors who are more willing and able to help them with their college admissions. Those, like me, who came from less affluent backgrounds, end up with guidance counselors who are actual obstacles to their academic careers.
*My friends and I figured out the application deadlines and what we needed to do on our own. Those of us with older siblings also pressed them for help. But in some cases (including mine), the older sibling didn't have enough information to help us.
**In my case, the guidance counselor wasn't doing that. She was more interested in playing favorites and being liked by the popular kids. Basically, she was trying to relive her high school years, but as the guidance counselor.
to your point: everything involved in admissions to highly selective colleges favors the wealthy.
I know this is getting back into the weeds, but I don't see why it's not possible for an 18-year old student to be contractually bound to a school that offers her early decision. The school's offer is "if you apply early decision and are accepted, you must attend the school." The student accepts the offer by applying for early decision. If she is accepted via early decision and refuses to attend, the school can claim damages (even if only limited to the cost of reviewing other applications). I'm not seeing why the agreement would be null and void.
01Bear said:Big Dog said:Absolutely not possible. Yes, applying Early is a commitment to attend if admitted AND the school is affordable. If Yale's NPC was wrong in their calculations of aid for an applicant who enters their numbers correctly, that's on Yale. Any agreement is null and void. OTOH, if an applicant makes a mistake entering numbers -- perhaps they didn't know Dad had a side hustle making bank -- and the aid is less than expected, the acceptee can walk. (Think about it, an 18-year old can only borrow ~$31k max total for undergrad. If Yale wanted to force her to attend, they'd have to come up with the difference.)01Bear said:Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
Thanks for that bit of information. I was unaware of the NPC.
That said, if an applicant is eighteen at the time of application, she could very well be legally obligated to attend Yale, regardless of financial aid. Given many kids are now attending T-K, it makes it more possible for kids to be adults when they apply for college admissions. I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, but it's definitely a possibility.
That said, I want to point out one other issue. You mention the girl's high school guidance counselor should've helped her figure out applying to Yale wouldn't cost her much. Assuming the counselor had as much information about NPC as you, it also suggests the guidance counselor was interested in helping her go to Yale and had the time to help her with the admissions process.
Speaking from personal experience, not all guidance counselors care about their students, let alone are interested in helping them apply to college. My guidance counselor, for instance, actually advised me to drop out of high school, get my GED, and attend a local junior college. This was in my senior year; just after I submitted my college applications.* I had only one other interaction with her during my four years; it was when I got called in to her office and was questioned as to what I knew about academic cheating on campus. In other words, my guidance counselor was about as useful as tits on a bull.
That's the reality of life for kids who don't come from wealthy families; even those whose job it is to help us don't always do their jobs (and no one holds them accountable). It should be noted that in some instances, the guidance counselor thinks of the high academic achieving students as their "good kids" who don't need guidance and instead focus on the low achieving students, of which a school in a less affluent district will have many more. The counselors may focus most of their time on trying to get these lower achievers to graduate high school, or at least not drop out, leaving them with no time to help the high achievers.**
In short, economic disparity makes a difference in the college admissions process even at the high school level. Those students in wealthy districts have guidance counselors who are more willing and able to help them with their college admissions. Those, like me, who came from less affluent backgrounds, end up with guidance counselors who are actual obstacles to their academic careers.
*My friends and I figured out the application deadlines and what we needed to do on our own. Those of us with older siblings also pressed them for help. But in some cases (including mine), the older sibling didn't have enough information to help us.
**In my case, the guidance counselor wasn't doing that. She was more interested in playing favorites and being liked by the popular kids. Basically, she was trying to relive her high school years, but as the guidance counselor.
to your point: everything involved in admissions to highly selective colleges favors the wealthy.
I know this is getting back into the weeds, but I don't see why it's not possible for an 18-year old student to be contractually bound to a school that offers her early decision. The school's offer is "if you apply early decision and are accepted, you must attend the school." The student accepts the offer by applying for early decision. If she is accepted via early decision and refuses to attend, the school can claim damages (even if only limited to the cost of reviewing other applications). I'm not seeing why the agreement would be null and void.
Sure, the college could theoretically sue for enforcement of an Early Decision contract, (which does NOT apply to Yale). That will take months and months for the case to get adjudicated, and costs thousands in legal fees. But again, what's teh point? If the college is not affordable, how are they gonna pay the tuition? Undergrad loans are limited to $31k over four years. No bank is gonna give a loan to an unemployed 19-year old. Is a Judge gonna attach future wages for the next 30+ years? Think of the bad press; the NYT would have a field day with this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/18/your-money/paying-for-college/early-decision-binding-nyu.html
ED Applicants
- Apply early (usually in November) to first-choice college.
- Receive an admission decision from the college well in advance of the usual notification date (usually by December).
- Agree to attend the college if accepted and offered a financial aid package that is considered adequate by the family.......
https://counselors.collegeboard.org/college-application/early-decision-action
Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:Absolutely not possible. Yes, applying Early is a commitment to attend if admitted AND the school is affordable. If Yale's NPC was wrong in their calculations of aid for an applicant who enters their numbers correctly, that's on Yale. Any agreement is null and void. OTOH, if an applicant makes a mistake entering numbers -- perhaps they didn't know Dad had a side hustle making bank -- and the aid is less than expected, the acceptee can walk. (Think about it, an 18-year old can only borrow ~$31k max total for undergrad. If Yale wanted to force her to attend, they'd have to come up with the difference.)01Bear said:Big Dog said:Early Admissions doesn't work that way.01Bear said:Big Dog said:If her dream was Yale, her counselor should strongly recommended that she apply early. Yale (along with Harvard, Princeton, MIT & Stanford) have some of the most generous aid packages available. The money would not have gotten any better in RD. But your point is well-taken: they only have so much money budgeted for Financial Aid, and if much of it gets used up in the early round, full payors look much better to Adcoms later in the year.GivemTheAxe said:Let's get real here. All the agonizing that the Ivies+ are pretending to have trying to find the most qualified students is all eyewash. Their real goals are MONEY. They get more money from rich families than from poor families. They will use whatever approach they can to get there. The net effect of which is as the old 1930's song goes "the rich get richer and the poor get babies".concernedparent said:Does your theory also explain the large (and by some accounts widening) income disparity between Black, non-White Hispanic, and American Indians vs. White and East Asians?cedarbear said:
I am sympathetic to the goal of leveling the playing field and offering opportunities to those not lucky enough to be born into highly-educated families. But I still think blaming the gap all on test prep is wishful thinking. Another obvious explanation for the gap is that the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. Because intelligence is a real phenomenon and is at least partly genetic, these high-earning parents will naturally have kids with above-average intelligence who score higher on the ACT/SAT.
Of course this is obvious, but it's a reality that can be unpleasant and inconvenient. But it's no less true than realizing that the kids of former college and pro athletes will tend to be more athletic than my kids will be.
A recent NYT report shows that now many of the restraints previously imposed to try to level the playing field have been overturned in court. The result is that the each of the so called elite colleges Ivies + have found ways to increase access by the rich (who already have significant advantages by access to tutors et. al.)
Those schools are doing this by clever and increased use of the early decision process. [With early decision the applicant who is admitted must attend the college into which they are admitted and withdraw all applications to other schools.]. This favors the rich because the that student will not hear whether and how much financial aid will be received until long after the early decision becomes binding. The result is that applicants who require financial aid will shy away from applying from applying for early decision.
By increasing the number of early decision admissions, there is a corresponding decrease in the spaces available for the non-early decision admissions.
The NYT article followed the implications of the increase in early decision on an applicant who is qualified but poor. It followed a female applicant from an integrated high school who was the brightest in her class with great grades, test scores and letter of recommendation. She was the valedictorian of her class. Her dream was being admitted to Yale but would have accepted admission to any Ivy. Her high school advisor said her qualifications would have given her a great chance of admission by early decision to any of the Ivies. But she was poor and needed significant financial aid. She ultimately decided against going the early decision route.
She applied to a large number of colleges. She was wait listed at all the Ivies. The number of slots for non-early decision were infinitesimal as compared to the massive number of applicants for these slots. She ultimately found a spot with a small respectable college.
As for the comments above that try to argue that somehow the the most intelligent, talented people will disproportionately end up making more money, because they have skills that are rare and command high salaries in the job market. i disagree. I have known many people commanding high salaries. Most of them got there not because of their intelligence but because of their family wealth and contacts. Then they try to justify their status because of innate intelligence. As John Madden once said, "They are born on Third Base and think they have gotten there by hitting a triple."
Benjamin Franklin hated the advantages that are bestowed by privileged birth and money. Those advantages are also real but many rich people want to ignore that they exist.
.
full disclosure: my S attended Dartmouth for less than the cost of Cal at instate rates. Yes, he applied early.
I think you're missing the point. The girl didn't know what financial aid, if any, she would be awarded. If she applied for early admissions, she would've been locked in to going to Yale, even if she received no financial aid aside from student loans. If that were the case, she wouldn't be able to afford Yale's exorbitant tuition, fees, and costs (not to mention living expenses) without mortgaging her financial future. Being a smart girl, she probably also realized she could get a college education at a state school for considerably less, which would also lessen the amount of money she would need to borrow and repay. Being cognizant of her financial limitations means she would be better off opting for the less costly college. But in the hopes of fulfilling her dreams, she still applies to Yale on regular decision. Unfortunately, for her, there are now fewer seats available for the latter applicant pool, as the rich kids received priority.
So yes, family income makes a difference. Students with families who can pay full freight for a Yale education have no qualms about applying early decision. Those students whose families are unable to help pay for college can't (or at least are unwilling to) take the chance of ending up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Instead, they'll apply as regular decision, and compete with all the other smart but poor applicants.
For the past 15 years or so, colleges have been required to post a finaid model on their website to estimate what aid woudl be available under the individual applicant's circumstances (family size, income, assets...). For poor kids, the Net Price Calculator is rather accurate.
Applying Early costs the girl nothing (other than an app fee, which low income kids can get waived). If she is accepted EA and the NPC is way off and she finds that she can't afford Yale, she submits her regular applications by Jan 1 (or UC by Nov 30) and tells Yale, 'thanks but no thanks'.
Early Admissions does not make one incur 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt' -- a kid can't legally borrow that much anyway. If one can't afford one's Early school, one can decline easily, particularly if the College's NPC was wrong.
Thanks for that bit of information. I was unaware of the NPC.
That said, if an applicant is eighteen at the time of application, she could very well be legally obligated to attend Yale, regardless of financial aid. Given many kids are now attending T-K, it makes it more possible for kids to be adults when they apply for college admissions. I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, but it's definitely a possibility.
That said, I want to point out one other issue. You mention the girl's high school guidance counselor should've helped her figure out applying to Yale wouldn't cost her much. Assuming the counselor had as much information about NPC as you, it also suggests the guidance counselor was interested in helping her go to Yale and had the time to help her with the admissions process.
Speaking from personal experience, not all guidance counselors care about their students, let alone are interested in helping them apply to college. My guidance counselor, for instance, actually advised me to drop out of high school, get my GED, and attend a local junior college. This was in my senior year; just after I submitted my college applications.* I had only one other interaction with her during my four years; it was when I got called in to her office and was questioned as to what I knew about academic cheating on campus. In other words, my guidance counselor was about as useful as tits on a bull.
That's the reality of life for kids who don't come from wealthy families; even those whose job it is to help us don't always do their jobs (and no one holds them accountable). It should be noted that in some instances, the guidance counselor thinks of the high academic achieving students as their "good kids" who don't need guidance and instead focus on the low achieving students, of which a school in a less affluent district will have many more. The counselors may focus most of their time on trying to get these lower achievers to graduate high school, or at least not drop out, leaving them with no time to help the high achievers.**
In short, economic disparity makes a difference in the college admissions process even at the high school level. Those students in wealthy districts have guidance counselors who are more willing and able to help them with their college admissions. Those, like me, who came from less affluent backgrounds, end up with guidance counselors who are actual obstacles to their academic careers.
*My friends and I figured out the application deadlines and what we needed to do on our own. Those of us with older siblings also pressed them for help. But in some cases (including mine), the older sibling didn't have enough information to help us.
**In my case, the guidance counselor wasn't doing that. She was more interested in playing favorites and being liked by the popular kids. Basically, she was trying to relive her high school years, but as the guidance counselor.
to your point: everything involved in admissions to highly selective colleges favors the wealthy.
I know this is getting back into the weeds, but I don't see why it's not possible for an 18-year old student to be contractually bound to a school that offers her early decision. The school's offer is "if you apply early decision and are accepted, you must attend the school." The student accepts the offer by applying for early decision. If she is accepted via early decision and refuses to attend, the school can claim damages (even if only limited to the cost of reviewing other applications). I'm not seeing why the agreement would be null and void.
Sure, the college could theoretically sue for enforcement of an Early Decision contract, (which does NOT apply to Yale). That will take months and months for the case to get adjudicated, and costs thousands in legal fees. But again, what's teh point? If the college is not affordable, how are they gonna pay the tuition? Undergrad loans are limited to $31k over four years. No bank is gonna give a loan to an unemployed 19-year old. Is a Judge gonna attach future wages for the next 30+ years? Think of the bad press; the NYT would have a field day with this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/18/your-money/paying-for-college/early-decision-binding-nyu.html
ED Applicants
- Apply early (usually in November) to first-choice college.
- Receive an admission decision from the college well in advance of the usual notification date (usually by December).
- Agree to attend the college if accepted and offered a financial aid package that is considered adequate by the family.......
https://counselors.collegeboard.org/college-application/early-decision-action
Again, my apologies for being stuck in the weeds here, but I'm not sure why you doubt a court would enforce a legal contract in a court of law. Also, surely you know that large entities often sue those of limited means in order to make an example of enforcing their rights. Think about all the lawsuits against individuals who downloaded music and/or movies in the late 90s and 00s by the RIAA and various movie studios as well as the numerous lawsuits Disney has filed against those (including mom and pop businesses) who infringe on their trademarks. The schools could sue for similar reasons, that is to ensure that early decision applicants do not back out of their decision to attend the schools to which they're admitted. Keep on mind, by backing out, the applicants cause the schools to have to admit another student to fill the spot, which (in the aggregate) could cause its selectivity rate to dip, thereby hurting its rankings in some national rankings. For better or worse, some schools really care about their national rankings.
Also, just because a student can't borrow enough money from the federal government to attend college doesn't mean the student's agreement with a school is null and void. For starters, there are private (non-federally backed) school loans students can take out in addition to loans that parents of students can take out to pay for the students' college education. Furthermore, just because a debtor can't afford to pay for an obligation doesn't somehow negate the obligation. Otherwise, the entire US economic model (not to mention that of the Western industrialized nations) would collapse.
As a side note, I'm not understanding why you're saying that early decision contracts don't apply to Yale. Am I missing something? I admit it's been close to 30 years since I applied to college (and I don't have any kids so I know nothing about how college admissions since then), but IIRC early decisions were binding for all such admitted applicants at all of the schools with an early decision program, including Yale. Has that changed?
It's because Yale does not offer a binding "Early Decision" application process that requires admitted students to commit to Yale. They do have a non-binding "Early Action" option.01Bear said:Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:GivemTheAxe said:concernedparent said:cedarbear said:
.
As a side note, I'm not understanding why you're saying that early decision contracts don't apply to Yale.
BearSD said:It's because Yale does not offer a binding "Early Decision" application process that requires admitted students to commit to Yale. They do have a non-binding "Early Action" option.01Bear said:Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:01Bear said:Big Dog said:GivemTheAxe said:concernedparent said:cedarbear said:
.
As a side note, I'm not understanding why you're saying that early decision contracts don't apply to Yale.
Got it! Thanks for the clarification!
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics
Friday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
From Physicality to Bagels: Meet Cal's inside linebacker room
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Football Spring Game Set For April 18
by Cal Athletics