Comments on: Values and Higher Education Policy http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:45:23 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: DavidS http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-210330 DavidS Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:01:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/#comment-210330 Unless something changed since I applied to college (1998), Harvard was an Early Admission school, not Early Decision, meaning that students were not bound to accept Harvard's offers. I imagine this means that Harvard got even less of a yield increase from their early offers than binding schools did. (There would still be some, a lot of students who would apply to both Harvard and (say) Chicago won't want to complete that second application once they are already into Harvard.) Unless something changed since I applied to college (1998), Harvard was an Early Admission school, not Early Decision, meaning that students were not bound to accept Harvard’s offers. I imagine this means that Harvard got even less of a yield increase from their early offers than binding schools did. (There would still be some, a lot of students who would apply to both Harvard and (say) Chicago won’t want to complete that second application once they are already into Harvard.)

]]> By: Slocum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-210315 Slocum Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:16:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/#comment-210315 The arguments about whether early admissions increase or decrease the frenzy are completely beside the point -- early admissions are designed to increase the U.S. News ranking by increasing the 'yield' (the fraction of student offered admission who actually attend). The early decision students have promised to attend if admitted -- that is the critical feature of the programs, not the date. Why would Harvard drop early admissions? Oh, that's easy one. There are two reasons: 1. Harvard doesn't have to worry much about yield. Students accepted to Harvard tend to show up. 2. In an open admissions environment, Harvard's yield exceeds the others by a greater extent in an early-decision environment. Think about it. The benefit of early decision to the lower level Ivies is that a student who might (or might not) be admitted to Harvard could be persuaded to play it safe and apply exclusively to Brown. Harvard doesn't get a chance to admit the student OR (and this is critical, too) a chance to <i>reject</i> that student -- since the US News ranking also is enhance by rejections (the greater the percentage of rejections, the greater the selectivity). Which brings to mind the phenomenon of 'safety schools' rejecting students who are overqualified--since if the student rejects the safety school, the safety school's yield is impaired, whereas if the school rejects the student first, then the schools gets credit for being more selective. Sick, isn't it? Anyway, this action by Harvard, like the early admissions programs themselves, are driven by institutional self-interest and the discussion of what's better for student's is pure sophistry. The arguments about whether early admissions increase or decrease the frenzy are completely beside the point—early admissions are designed to increase the U.S. News ranking by increasing the ‘yield’ (the fraction of student offered admission who actually attend). The early decision students have promised to attend if admitted—that is the critical feature of the programs, not the date.

Why would Harvard drop early admissions? Oh, that’s easy one. There are two reasons:

1. Harvard doesn’t have to worry much about yield. Students accepted to Harvard tend to show up.

2. In an open admissions environment, Harvard’s yield exceeds the others by a greater extent in an early-decision environment. Think about it. The benefit of early decision to the lower level Ivies is that a student who might (or might not) be admitted to Harvard could be persuaded to play it safe and apply exclusively to Brown. Harvard doesn’t get a chance to admit the student OR (and this is critical, too) a chance to reject that student—since the US News ranking also is enhance by rejections (the greater the percentage of rejections, the greater the selectivity). Which brings to mind the phenomenon of ‘safety schools’ rejecting students who are overqualified—since if the student rejects the safety school, the safety school’s yield is impaired, whereas if the school rejects the student first, then the schools gets credit for being more selective. Sick, isn’t it?

Anyway, this action by Harvard, like the early admissions programs themselves, are driven by institutional self-interest and the discussion of what’s better for student’s is pure sophistry.

]]> By: Jake http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-210313 Jake Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:11:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/#comment-210313 I remember reading a game-theoretic analysis about early admissions that showed it was mostly useful for allowing not-quite-top-tier schools to get "better" students than they otherwise would, and that removing it would advantaged the tippy-top-tier schools - i.e. Harvard. So #3 is right. I remember reading a game-theoretic analysis about early admissions that showed it was mostly useful for allowing not-quite-top-tier schools to get “better” students than they otherwise would, and that removing it would advantaged the tippy-top-tier schools – i.e. Harvard. So #3 is right.

]]> By: M. Gemmill http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-210312 M. Gemmill Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:09:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/#comment-210312 Students from "underperforming" schools do NOT know that they can get an advantage for applying early. In fact, without a knowledgeable guidance counselor, they may think that applying early is harder than applying late. That's what I thought--my guidance counselor's reaction to my interest in top tier schools (primarily Ivies) was to ask me if I was "aiming a little high". I received no helpful advice on college applications, and presumed that "early admission" was only for those who were certain to be admitted, like legacies and people from fancy private schools. Turns out that I was sort of right, just not for the reasons I thought. Students from “underperforming” schools do NOT know that they can get an advantage for applying early. In fact, without a knowledgeable guidance counselor, they may think that applying early is harder than applying late. That’s what I thought—my guidance counselor’s reaction to my interest in top tier schools (primarily Ivies) was to ask me if I was “aiming a little high”. I received no helpful advice on college applications, and presumed that “early admission” was only for those who were certain to be admitted, like legacies and people from fancy private schools. Turns out that I was sort of right, just not for the reasons I thought.

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-210293 Matt Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:41:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/#comment-210293 _"Some colleges clearly think they are serving the public good by dropping their early-admissions programs. They are acting on their convictions even though it may threaten their comparative advantage against rival institutions for top students"_ Is there that much evidence for thinking this is true? I wonder if Harvard and Princeton just didn't think that they needed early admissions- that they could get anyone they wanted anyway, and that they'd get a good PR boost for doing something that didn't hurt them anyway. I'd be more likely to believe it if schools that had more to lose did it. These schools are big businesses, after all, so I'd think that the first interpritation of their actions should usually be that they are acting in what they think are their business interests. (I could certainly be persuaded otherwise here, though.) “Some colleges clearly think they are serving the public good by dropping their early-admissions programs. They are acting on their convictions even though it may threaten their comparative advantage against rival institutions for top students”

Is there that much evidence for thinking this is true? I wonder if Harvard and Princeton just didn’t think that they needed early admissions- that they could get anyone they wanted anyway, and that they’d get a good PR boost for doing something that didn’t hurt them anyway. I’d be more likely to believe it if schools that had more to lose did it. These schools are big businesses, after all, so I’d think that the first interpritation of their actions should usually be that they are acting in what they think are their business interests. (I could certainly be persuaded otherwise here, though.)

]]> By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-210283 harry b Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:19:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/#comment-210283 Done (I think). Done (I think).

]]> By: Aaron Swartz http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-210278 Aaron Swartz Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:25:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/10/values-and-higher-education-policy/#comment-210278 Actually, could you link to <a href="http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i02/02b01001.htm" rel="nofollow">the direct url</a> instead -- the current link asks one to log in, even if you're reading it from inside a paying institution (e.g. your university). Actually, could you link to the direct url instead—the current link asks one to log in, even if you’re reading it from inside a paying institution (e.g. your university).

]]>