News
C.U. May Scrap Early Admissions
Cornell is ‘very seriously’ considering a policy change
September 21, 2006 - 11:33pm
Cornell is “very seriously” considering a shake-up of its early decision admissions program, according to Provost Biddy Martin.
Universities across the nation are reconsidering such programs in light of recent decisions by Harvard University and Princeton University to end their early admissions programs starting next fall.
“I think Harvard, and now Princeton, have taken important steps that have the potential to ensure greater equity among applicants and prospective applicants,” Martin said.
Critics of early decision, which allows college applicants to submit an application in November and to receive a decision by December in exchange for a binding agreement to attend if accepted, have said that the practice puts students from poorer families at a disadvantage by taking away their ability to compare financial aid packages.
“In other words, students who need to compare financial aid awards in order to decide where to enroll often do not apply Early Decision,” said Doris Davis, associate provost for admissions. “It also is true, however that a student admitted Early Decision can be released from [their] agreement if the financial aid does not allow the student and his/her parents to afford a Cornell education.”
Davis added that “almost all” schools with early decision adopt such a provision in their policies.
Possibilities to change the program were being considered before Harvard and Princeton’s announcements, according to Martin.
“We have been studying and discussing the effects of early decision for some time at Cornell,” she said. “Among other things, our admissions office has run focus groups of high school students in the New York City area to hear their thoughts and experiences with early decision.”
About 33.4 percent of the Cornell Class of 2010, or 1,083 students out of the 3,238 that matriculated, applied early, according to the admissions website. By contrast, Harvard admitted 813 students via its non-binding early action program, comprising about 38 percent of its 2,124 admissions; Princeton admitted 49 percent of its class early this year.
Alex Miglis ’10, one of those admitted early, attended Manhasset High School on Long Island, N.Y., and commented that college applicants there took early decision for granted.
“I definitely felt pressure from within my high school to apply early because that was just what everyone did,” he said. “That being said, I never felt like Cornell—or any school—put pressure on applicants to apply early. It was never a matter of ‘Oh my God, I’m not going to get in unless I apply early.’ ”
Outside of Cornell, responses across the Ivy League to Harvard and Princeton’s decisions have been generally dismissive of ending early admissions.
“We think it is right that Harvard and Princeton have put the emphasis in their announcements on what would be best and most fair for students," Jeff Breznell, dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale told the Yale Daily News. "At the same time, we want to be thoughtful and careful about evaluating such a major change, to see whether it would in fact produce the desired results and whether it might have any unintended consequences."
Officials from Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, and Penn have all said that their respective institutions currently have no plans to make changes to their early admissions programs.
Before making any changes to its program, Cornell needs to consider the consequences carefully, Miglis said.
“I love Cornell but in my senior year I was determined to have the pressure of getting into college lifted as early in the year as possible. Had Cornell eliminated Early Decision immediately after accepting the Class of 2009, I probably would have applied to several schools Early Action and then applied to Cornell regular decision – depending on how much time I felt like putting into another application.”
Both Martin and Davis said that the University would not act to change its policy under pressure from its peer institutions. Rather, they said, Cornell would come to its own decision.
“It is important … that each individual university make its own decision,” Martin said. “Doris Davis … and I will be meeting again soon to talk about what makes sense for Cornell.”
Cornell is “very seriously” considering a shake-up of its early decision admissions program, according to Provost Biddy Martin.
Universities across the nation are reconsidering such programs in light of recent decisions by Harvard University and Princeton University to end their early admissions programs starting next fall.
“I think Harvard, and now Princeton, have taken important steps that have the potential to ensure greater equity among applicants and prospective applicants,” Martin said.
Critics of early decision, which allows college applicants to submit an application in November and to receive a decision by December in exchange for a binding agreement to attend if accepted, have said that the practice puts students from poorer families at a disadvantage by taking away their ability to compare financial aid packages.
“In other words, students who need to compare financial aid awards in order to decide where to enroll often do not apply Early Decision,” said Doris Davis, associate provost for admissions. “It also is true, however that a student admitted Early Decision can be released from [their] agreement if the financial aid does not allow the student and his/her parents to afford a Cornell education.”
Davis added that “almost all” schools with early decision adopt such a provision in their policies.
Possibilities to change the program were being considered before Harvard and Princeton’s announcements, according to Martin.
“We have been studying and discussing the effects of early decision for some time at Cornell,” she said. “Among other things, our admissions office has run focus groups of high school students in the New York City area to hear their thoughts and experiences with early decision.”
About 33.4 percent of the Cornell Class of 2010, or 1,083 students out of the 3,238 that matriculated, applied early, according to the admissions website. By contrast, Harvard admitted 813 students via its non-binding early action program, comprising about 38 percent of its 2,124 admissions; Princeton admitted 49 percent of its class early this year.
Alex Miglis ’10, one of those admitted early, attended Manhasset High School on Long Island, N.Y., and commented that college applicants there took early decision for granted.
“I definitely felt pressure from within my high school to apply early because that was just what everyone did,” he said. “That being said, I never felt like Cornell—or any school—put pressure on applicants to apply early. It was never a matter of ‘Oh my God, I’m not going to get in unless I apply early.’ ”
Outside of Cornell, responses across the Ivy League to Harvard and Princeton’s decisions have been generally dismissive of ending early admissions.
“We think it is right that Harvard and Princeton have put the emphasis in their announcements on what would be best and most fair for students," Jeff Breznell, dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale told the Yale Daily News. "At the same time, we want to be thoughtful and careful about evaluating such a major change, to see whether it would in fact produce the desired results and whether it might have any unintended consequences."
Officials from Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, and Penn have all said that their respective institutions currently have no plans to make changes to their early admissions programs.
Before making any changes to its program, Cornell needs to consider the consequences carefully, Miglis said.
“I love Cornell but in my senior year I was determined to have the pressure of getting into college lifted as early in the year as possible. Had Cornell eliminated Early Decision immediately after accepting the Class of 2009, I probably would have applied to several schools Early Action and then applied to Cornell regular decision – depending on how much time I felt like putting into another application.”
Both Martin and Davis said that the University would not act to change its policy under pressure from its peer institutions. Rather, they said, Cornell would come to its own decision.
“It is important … that each individual university make its own decision,” Martin said. “Doris Davis … and I will be meeting again soon to talk about what makes sense for Cornell.”
With Harvard and Princeton
With Harvard and Princeton coming out so strongly and with such fanfare in abolishing early admissions, Cornell looks more and more like one of the laggards on this issue as the days go by. There may be all sorts of (good?) reasons for keeping early admissions, but the train has already left the station: it's now perceived as an unfair, ill-advised policy. Even 35 years ago, it struck me as a silly and lop-sided policy, and it seems even worse now. I've been waiting for days now to hear Cornell make a positive announcement on this. And? So far, absolutely nothing.
Ron Penoyer
Class of '73
Drop Early Admission
Early admission has always been a bad idea, and it is remarkable how long it has lasted. Cornell (and other schools) should stop playing games and take a consistent and simultaneous look across the applicant pool and offer admission to those most highly qualified.
60% acceptance rate, here we come
Does Cornell really think it is going to win cross-admit battles with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton?
It could
Marketing, perception and research is a the tool that would win a cross admit battle. So the child of a Harvard alum is less likely to choose Cornell. At the same time one could better understand the demographics that would more likely choose a town based university, rather than the more urban environments that Harvard and Yale offer. And who really wants to go to college in New Jersey anyway (re Princeton)?
Cornell
But who'd want to got to college in upstate New York and freeze their ass off?
Increased Use of the Wait List, if ED Dropped at Cornell
Cornell has a target of 3050 freshman to matricualte each fall.
Cornell admits 1/3 of its class in the ED round. If ED were eliminated there would be significantly more uncertainty in the yield of those it offers admission to.
To prevent over crowding, Cornell's admissions committee would have to limit the number of students admitted RD and then use the wait list to fill the class.
There would also be more applications to process.
A significant number of the 800 Harvard EA admits and the 1000 Princeton ED admits would now be in the Cornell RD pool with the resulting increase in applications to be processed by each University's admissions committee's.
Elimination of ED will only increase and prolong anxiety for students applying to Cornell. Why do that to students for whom Cornell is their first choice. There are other measures that can be taken to insure diversity in the admitted class.
Making 'Any Person, Any Study' a Reality
College admissions have NEVER been more competitive -- especially at the top. High-achieving students, particularly those from well-off families, look for any possible edge in obtaining the most “bang” for their higher education bucks. With admission rates at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton straddling single digits, top students are applying to an average of 11 schools, thereby increasing the number of applications at most top-ranked universities to record levels.
In eliminating early admissions, Harvard and Princeton have opened the floodgates to this applications pool even further. Universities such as Cornell have the most to gain as ultra high-achievers are forced to look at a broader range of schools up front and take their chances within a bigger, more diverse group of regular decision applicants. While some of these students might be tempted to apply early to Cornell, it's more likely that the "most-competitive" students in this group would rather apply to larger group of schools than risk a binding agreement with Cornell, when their hearts, scores, and extracurriculars are telling them to hold out for a the “possibility” of a slot at one of the more "selective" Ivies, MIT, or Stanford.
By eliminating our own early decision program, we open 30 percent of our seats to a wider range of students. It opens our doors to economically disadvantaged students who feel that they can't apply early because the need to shop for the "best package" -- and it allows the "most competitive" students to submit an application without making an early commitment. Either way, we end up with the potential for a more diverse and more "selective" student body -- unless we refuse to join the no-loan financial aid game for another couple of years.
"Any Person, Any Study" requires a deep commitment to fairness in the admissions process and increasingly robust financial aid. If we refuse to join with Harvard and Princeton on our admissions procedures and Yale, Penn, Columbia, and Stanford in offer no-loan financial aid, we will be saying “no” to the 21st century version of Uncle Ezra's 19th century dictum and hobbling Cornell’s future competitiveness in attracting the world's top students -- regardless of socioeconomic class