Cool.
 

That is generally correct, although Harvard does not lock you in. You can still apply elsewhere, and compare offers in April/May. Most other places are early decision, which is binding.

See my explanation above as to why this is less of a problem if schools showed some restraint as to the number of early admits they take. (And nothing bars a person from waiting until the regular pool and applying to a bunch of schools, and then comparing aid.)

ETA: See below for question. That's really weird that this posted before RT's query

Cool.
 

The whole early admission thing is a fucking silly gimmick to push parents toward certain schools and give those schools early bookables and extra fees. Who DOESN'T apply EA anymore? It was kind of unique when I was going to school, but now everybody does it. They ought to just move up the application and decision deadlines.

Cool.
 

Sneaky, sneaky Harvard.

Cool.
 

Derek Bok has made a career of it, so I suppose so.

But I don't think that they're being as public minded as they're spinning it to be.

Cool.
 

Did I get stuck in penske's time machine?

Cool.
 

If you are in one of those schools [Delbarton, St. Peter's Prep, Pingree, Choate] that type of school, why wouldn't you want to do EA if you are doing the Ivy circuit? Look. disadvantaged, bright kids do EA as well. I know that they are coached by guidance counselors and bright kid programs as well.

Thanks Patriots
 

Are guaranteed contracts required by the cba in MLB or the NBA? No. A lot of players--the younger ones--in MLB do not have contract guarantees any greater than those in the NFL--one year contracts. Long-term guranteed contracts don't show up until free-agency, or close to it.

I agree that if contracts were guaranteed, some players' salaries would go up and others would go down. Of course that would happen. But the ones that would go down are the new players, and the ones that would go up are the aging veterans who would still be hanging on. It benefits the insiders at the cost of the outsiders. Remember a few years ago when the salary cap came in, and all kinds of veterans were getting cut because they had high salaries? Exactly--you'd get a bunch of over the hill veterans on the payroll instead of exciting younger players. But to say that it benefits the "lion's share" of the plaintiffs is even more bullshit. It benefits the existing players at the expense of potential players. Do they not count at all? If not, Hank has some union-shop auto plants to sell you.

And of course it has to do with the violence of the game. It's a lot riskier to enter into a long-term guaranteed contract in the NFL because so many players have their careers end quickly. Doesn't happen nearly as much in baseball (although the reluctance of teams to give pitchers long-term contracts reflects the same issue).

Uh, I'm not sure what happened. I got a note yesterday that they were moving our servers today but that the downtime was only going to be five minutes.

I assume that's what just happened, and we got do to the time warp together as an added bonus.

[I have a time machine now.]

spooky -- where will my message end up? Where will it end up?

Thanks Patriots
 

I don't understand this. If you figure that the teams have a certain pile of money to spend on player salaries, they're going to pay players more if they know they'll be off the hook if they can cut the player instead. They'll pay the players less otherwise, knowing that they'll be paying 60 (55? 75?) contracts to have 50 players in uniform.

The current system benefits healthy players vs. injured players. Which is a crapshoot.

It may be that the sort of person who emerges from the collegiate football factories to make the NFL is prone to irrationally underestimate his chances of being injured.

Interesting that this would happen during a discussion on early admissions.

My understanding is that because EA locks the applicant into the school if he is admitted, the kids who really need to weigh various financial aid packages before they can afford to make a decision on a school are pretty much locked out of the EA process.

Does anyone else interview kids for their college? I'm one of the local alumni volunteers for my small liberal arts college, and I do about three or four interviews a year. I generally assume that the admissions office will vet the academics and other qualifications, so I usually spend the interview trying to figure out whether or not this is a kid I'd want to be stuck in a dorm with my freshman year of college.

I think what is happening is that Burger and Ty's posts on this thread are stuck at the bottom of this thread, though I don't know why.

Cool.
 

They're stepping back from competition with other schools for public-minded reasons -- don't they get to act holier than thou? Or is greed good?