More pie

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
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.

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Harvard Ends Early Admission, Citing Barrier to Disadvantaged

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/ed...rtner=homepage

TM

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I did, before I responded.

• Several educators said only a university with Harvard’s reputation could take the risk involved with eliminating early admission because it will continue to be the first choice for so many top students.

The unfairness that results from early admission is that the acceptance rate is higher. To some degree that's because more qualified students apply early. And to some degree it's because the school is willing to offer admission to someone who's willing to commit to that school (although Harvard doesn't require that). The second certainly could be biased against disadvantaged students who don't know what their first choice is, or whose first choice might be affected by financial aid offers. So, why can't Harvard dial back its admission of people early, leave more spaces for disadvantaged folks in the regular application pool, and give them more of a preference in recognition of the hurdles they need to overcome?

No, what Harvard is doing is self-interested. It knows it's the market leader. But it's worried because so many other schools have expanded their early decision programs that are binding. So, people are applying left and right to Princeton, Yale, Bucknell, etc., and locking into those schools because of the nature of their programs. Harvard is unwilling to change to early decision (with lock-in), and instead will now push everyone else to eliminate their programs so Harvard will start getting those applicants again.

Sneaky, sneaky Harvard.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sneaky, sneaky Harvard.

Did I get stuck in penske's time machine?

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
If guaranteed contracts were required by the cba, some contracts would go down, but other players' contracts would go up. And non-superstars would have some security.

Right. But you're not saying anything. It benefits a very few players. Guaranteed contracts benefit the lion's share of players. The current system overwhelmingly favors the teams.

Maybe it's better that way due to the violent nature of the game. That's an argument I can accept a lot more than the one you're pitching.

TM

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).

[Replaced_Texan]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[I have a time machine now.]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Guaranteed contracts benefit the lion's share of players. The current system overwhelmingly favors the teams.

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
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.

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

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Purely so they can have a self-satisfied holier-than-thou smirk. There is absolutely no reason that the early admission program inherently creates barriers to disadvantaged. Rather, it was Harvard's greediness to increase its yield rates by taking loads of students early that creates the problem.

If they wanted, they could take fewer students early, and make sure that there were plenty of spaces left for students who might not want to apply early (or might not be aware or otherwise couldn't get in) and take them during the regular application process.

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.

[Replaced_Texan]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Purely so they can have a self-satisfied holier-than-thou smirk. There is absolutely no reason that the early admission program inherently creates barriers to disadvantaged. Rather, it was Harvard's greediness to increase its yield rates by taking loads of students early that creates the problem.

If they wanted, they could take fewer students early, and make sure that there were plenty of spaces left for students who might not want to apply early (or might not be aware or otherwise couldn't get in) and take them during the regular application process.

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?