Aiming for equality, the nation’s top college drops early admission.
By Keith White, University of Virginia
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Harvard announced today that it would end its early action admissions program. The nation’s oldest university scrapped the program amid concerns that early action (and early decision programs at other universities) are unfair to minority and low-income students. Under these programs, while some students are relieved to shorten their application process, low-income students find themselves caught in an awful choice: apply early and have a better chance of acceptance, or apply on the regular timeline to have the luxury of comparing financial aid packages from multiple institutions.
Harvard’s early action program, used for the last thirty years, permitted students to apply in October and learn of the university’s decision in December. Because students who apply early action are considered more enthusiastic and more likely to matriculate than those accepted in the spring, schools like Harvard tend to admit a higher percentage of early applicants (21 percent, versus 7 percent of the regular applicant pool.) So if Harvard is your top choice there was a competitive incentive to apply early. Students were not allowed to apply early anywhere else, on penalty of losing their offer of admission if they were discovered to have done so. They could, however, apply in the regular pool to other schools. The real disadvantage to students, therefore, comes not from early action programs like Harvard’s, but from the more common early decision plans, like those of most of Harvard’s competitors. Those require students to attend if they are admitted. For students in need of financial aid, this poses a dilemma: What if the institution’s financial aid offer is not generous enough?
So will Harvard’s reversal be a godsend to students who have to travel the labyrinth of financial aid?
Not really. And there are two reasons why.
The first reason is practical: Even the Harvard students in need of financial aid faced little hardship under early action, because Harvard, with the largest endowment of any university, grants relatively generous aid packages. Furthermore, ridding our nation’s colleges and universities of these early action or decision programs does not at all address the fundamental problem of affordability in our nation’s post-secondary education system.
Though Harvard’s gesture has value as a statement of principle, on its own it will have little effect on which students apply. A non-binding early action program like Harvard’s does not prevent admitted students from considering competing financial aid offers in the spring. (Although according to the New York Times, Harvard interim President Derek Bok said that many potential applicants did not understand the difference between early action and early decision, so didn’t apply.)
But why else is Harvard making a meaningless reform?
Simple: the university continuously strives to be a trend-setter.
Harvard hopes that other schools with early decision programs, like Princeton, will be embarrassed into finding their better natures. But any hope of this happening soon will only come after watching Harvard during its self-professed trial period. The Harvard Dean of Admissions, William Fitzsimmons, said the program may be dropped if applicant quality deteriorated.
When one views these details, it’s hard to call this more than Ivy League posturing. Much more important is Harvard’s elimination of any tuition payments for students coming from families with incomes below $60,000.
But there is something even more worrisome. While Harvard and other top tier schools may be working hard to outdo each other on diversity, our nation’s post-secondary system is failing nationally, and not just at our top schools. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE) gave over 40 states Fs in public college and university affordability. While top tier school may grab the headlines, one must remember that most college students are educated at public universities.
At the release of the NCPPHE report card, David Breneman described the development of an educational underclass. There is a growing group of students that cannot afford to pay even community college tuition to attain the skills necessary for a 21st century economy. If you think such talk is exaggerated, check out this GAO study that documents a 72 percent increase in tuition and fees since 1986. And overall costs have more than doubled within the same time.
It’s a shame that while Harvard’s decision to forgo early decision grabs national headlines, the fact that the rate of low-income students attaining college degrees has not significantly improved for over three decades remains relegated to think tank discussions.
All this is occurring at a time of structural transformation within the United States. On the one hand, a college degree is needed like never before, with some experts suggesting that 70 percent of all new jobs will require a college degree. So with raising education costs and increasing need, one finds a dwindling American middle class. The jobs that our nation needs for continued prosperity require a financial sacrifice that fewer and fewer American families can make.
This isn’t to say that Harvard has nothing to be brag about. The institution managed to altruistically present what may be merely a strategy to siphon off a few extraordinary low-income students from their prestigious competitors. But the media frenzy surrounding this move continues to build a false image of the challenges facing our nation’s post-secondary system.
--------
Comments
technically, you should have said Harvard is the “oldest school of higher learning.” Because Harvard was the first College (now a University). William & Mary became the first university (though it retains the name College of William & Mary).
— JP Fortin - Sep 13, 03:38 PM - #Good write-up. One question, though, as to what the Harvard interim president was thinking when he said this:
”(Although according to the New York Times, Harvard interim President Derek Bok said that many potential applicants did not understand the difference between early action and early decision, so didn’t apply.)”
If you can’t be bothered to do the most basic research into a life-altering decision, are you really Harvard material? I know the standards have fallen recently, but c’mon.
— Joe - Sep 14, 10:24 AM - #