They’re sound arguments on both sides, but the single most compelling point is that students shouldn’t be encouraged to make college decisions when high schools are closed and counselors aren’t around. The current dates are good compromises, and they don’t prevent institutions from doing all kinds of outreach short of making offers and accepting commitments—which dilutes the argument that super-early dates (or none at all) help to keep students on a college track.

One admissions officer, at 8:10 am EDT on August 30, 2007

Perhaps the best way to get back senior year would be to free seniors entirely from the overwhelming, all-consuming college admissions process. A previous comment pointed out that the absence of counseling in summer is at the heart if this issue. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the summer before senior year could be used for college admissions counseling and application writing....and in a digital age, why shouldn’t that be possible?

Kathleen, at 9:40 am EDT on August 30, 2007

on early early admissions

There are two things low income first generation students need to know.

1. Will they have enough money to be able to afford to attend?2. Will they be able to be admitted someplace.

I am not persuaded by the argument that these students need to know they are admitted before September 15th. It is very easy for institutions to let students know that if they have earned a certain GPA, taken certain courses, and earned an earned a specific score on their admissions test that they will be admitted at a later date. The Twenty First Century Scholars Program in Indiana, for example, takes this kind of approach for financial assistance.

If we continue to advocate earlier and earlier dates, and add to this mix, early decision, we have of course a recipe for chaos for students. That of course brings up one more point. Low income and first generation students need simplicity, transparency, and predictability in both the admissions and aid processes.

We have a long ways to go on both fronts.

Don Hossler

Don Hossler, Indiana University, at 10:05 am EDT on August 30, 2007

Early Decision

One big issue is binding Early Decision where the student commits to attend a particular institution and withdraw all other applications. This is a policy that favors the wealthy who are not concerned about the financial aid process.

Simply telling the student that they are admitted (which as several posters have pointed out may be quite straightforward for large public schools) is a different matter.

Keep options open, at 10:55 am EDT on August 30, 2007

Make admissions’ decisions later

I would like to see admissions at competitive universities moved until the summer before students are going to college. I know there are a variety of reasons that make that impractical, such as kids needing to be able to compare aid packages, but colleges now make decisions without a critical piece of information- seniors’ performance on AP exams. Approximately 50% of AP exams are taken by seniors and increasingly course rigor is a primary determinant in admissions. Without knowing how kids do on AP exams it’s impossible to know whether the students “got” the material.

Patrick Mattimore, Teacher, at 12:40 pm EDT on August 30, 2007

2nd thoughts: Early vs Binding

Binding early admissions is worthy of debating. But, why the angst over non-binding admissions?

Bob Wiley, at 2:45 pm EDT on August 30, 2007

Information, not milestones

Like some other respondents, I’m struggling to understand why the (laudable) objectives of the Midwestern Us and others are irreconcilable with the (equally laudable) objectives of the elite schools?

We all want prospective college students to have as much good information as early as possible. Those of us whose livelihoods do not depend on meeting enrollment quotas (and many of those whose livelihoods do) also want them to have as long as possible to make up their minds, because circumstances and desires change fast at that age.

But why does the kind of information that has been cited in support of removing the limits need to be tied to admission at all? For instance, isn’t the year-to-year or class-to-class variance in the *institutional* portion of the aid package a relatively small portion of the total (for both wealthy and poor schools, albeit for very different reasons)? If so, why couldn’t a school give an estimate to, say, a 13 y.o.—with suitable caveats, of course? Precision would increase as enrollment came closer, and at some point the institution would need to make a binding offer-but if the process were managed well, that binding offer would come as little or no surprise.

If anything, this approach would appear to help the Midwestern group with their goal of engaging students earlier; tackled properly, it might promote highly desirable dialogues with students and parents as early as several years before enrollment—early enough to have beneficial effects on family financial planning. It would avoid introducing another tiered system that segregates institutions into haves and have-nots. And by retaining the limits on formal offers, it would continue to block some of the more self-serving motives that have been suggested for admissions staffs at the less-selective schools. I can’t speak to whether such motives exist or how widespread they may be, but if they do exist, I want them blocked just as much as I want blocked the equivalent motives at more-selective schools.

CJ, at 5:00 am EDT on August 31, 2007

Several commentators refer to moving the decision date earlier. This isn’t about making the decision date earlier, it’s about prohibiting current practices. If we are basing our decisions on academic performance through the junior year of high school (which is true for the vast majority of us), there is no reason to withhold the decision. And if a student’s eligibility for admission is going to hinge on their performance in their senior year — particularly the first half of their senior year (often the case at my institution, and we let the student know that in our rolling review process)— best that they know that in time to make any necessary adjustments to their schedule and their mindset. Clearly this model isn’t followed by everyone, but for those of us in the public system who have rolling admissions, it is a benefit to the students to let them know as early as possible.

William, at 7:55 am EDT on August 31, 2007

You don’t need to look very far to find an education consultant to tell you that a student never forgets the very first school that sends them a brochure, or the first school to offer admission, or the first to send housing information, etc. Being the “first in” is an advantage to the institution, not the student. Institutions who admit students in the summer aren’t just offering admission early, they also start the process for housing, registration, and so on. Why? Because the more a student becomes engaged with the college, the more likely the student is to enroll.

Is this really about helping disadvantaged students? Most won’t even begin receiving financial aid information until February or March. What is the rush? Do we want students to make a good decision or a fast decision?

Just because students and parents want an answer as quickly as possible isn’t a reason to give them one. Most students and parents believe they should have the right to send in multiple deposits, but we don’t have a problem telling them that’s a not allowed. Why? Well, because that causes a problem for the institution.

I have yet to see a solid argument as to why accepting a student on July 15 instead of September 15 is truly a significantly greater advantage to the student. Instead, everything still points to an advantage for institutions who want to lock in students as early as possible. Students may have until May 1 to decide, but it’s tough to wait that long when the pressure starts in July after the junior year.

Admissions Dean, at 11:45 am EDT on August 31, 2007