I bet this is the same person or people who think athletics should not factor into college admissions. People really misunderstand that colleges’ primary goal is to serve their needs and interests, not to create an equitable or just process for students. Sure, the Supreme Court struck down reliance on race in admissions, but that was not in service of some grand idea of justice that can be applied broadly to everything vexing about this process. Every school has their own institutional priorities, and short of making decisions on distinctions that might be deemed unconstitutional, schools are generally free to compose their classes as they see fit. There’re only about 100 schools where ED is even a thing. Those schools just suck up most of the oxygen in the room. Unfortunately, admission to Northwestern or whatever is not a constitutionally protected class. So like everything else, you do the best you can with the cards you’re delt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Informed applicants are more likely to be affluent kids that have parents, counselors, or independent counselors to advise them. So what you really mean is rich people like it because it gives them a major advantage. Then you pretend everyone has that same advantage. Pathetic.

One of us is trying to help people understand that they can apply ED with confidence even if they are poor. Hint: That's me.

One of us is trying to mislead less advantaged people into thinking ED is not an option for them. Hint: That's you.

Now, you tell me which of the two of us is "pathetic".

I want to abolish ED to even the playing field. You want to keep it because you know it’s helps the rich more than it helps the poor. If you really cared about the poor you wouldn’t mind abolishing ED.

Abolishing ED would not even come close to make a dent toward "evening the playing field."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Informed applicants are more likely to be affluent kids that have parents, counselors, or independent counselors to advise them. So what you really mean is rich people like it because it gives them a major advantage. Then you pretend everyone has that same advantage. Pathetic.

One of us is trying to help people understand that they can apply ED with confidence even if they are poor. Hint: That's me.

One of us is trying to mislead less advantaged people into thinking ED is not an option for them. Hint: That's you.

Now, you tell me which of the two of us is "pathetic".

I want to abolish ED to even the playing field. You want to keep it because you know it’s helps the rich more than it helps the poor. If you really cared about the poor you wouldn’t mind abolishing ED.

Abolishing ED would not even come close to make a dent toward "evening the playing field."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably...

A lot of these schools are about to be completely ruined. There is a reason why they were elite... It was the exclusivity, the excellence... remove that and what do they have?

Apart from Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc (Schools that honestly can't lose their prestige) the others have a lot to lose with all these changes.

What kind of tripe is this person pandering? "Were" elite? All of these schools are more elite now than they've ever been because admission has broadened from the base of entitled white dudes. Still a ways to go, but far more "exclusive " than years ago.

+100

Anonymous wrote:Probably...

A lot of these schools are about to be completely ruined. There is a reason why they were elite... It was the exclusivity, the excellence... remove that and what do they have?

Apart from Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc (Schools that honestly can't lose their prestige) the others have a lot to lose with all these changes.

What kind of tripe is this person pandering? "Were" elite? All of these schools are more elite now than they've ever been because admission has broadened from the base of entitled white dudes. Still a ways to go, but far more "exclusive " than years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

The playing field IS even. Everyone has the option to apply ED or not. Everyone has the same ability to run the NPC and know whether or not it’s affordable. If you can’t afford it ED you couldn’t afford it RD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Informed applicants are more likely to be affluent kids that have parents, counselors, or independent counselors to advise them. So what you really mean is rich people like it because it gives them a major advantage. Then you pretend everyone has that same advantage. Pathetic.

One of us is trying to help people understand that they can apply ED with confidence even if they are poor. Hint: That's me.

One of us is trying to mislead less advantaged people into thinking ED is not an option for them. Hint: That's you.

Now, you tell me which of the two of us is "pathetic".

I want to abolish ED to even the playing field. You want to keep it because you know it’s helps the rich more than it helps the poor. If you really cared about the poor you wouldn’t mind abolishing ED.

I understand it is not my place to abolish anything. It's up to each college to have their own policies. Not every college has ED. It's up to them, not me, and fortunately not you either. You keep saying the poor can't afford ED, and that is simply untrue.

But while it exists, I think everyone should know that if they can afford what the NPC says they can get the same ED advantage as any other applicant.

Oh, and if you are truly poor, as for an application fee waiver also. You will get it. Absolutely nothing to lose.

Why can’t you take a stand against ED? You’re so concerned about the poor and you want to help them navigate a broken process but you can’t advocate to fix the process itself? Odd take.

“Abolish” ED? How? A private uni can set its own admission policies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Informed applicants are more likely to be affluent kids that have parents, counselors, or independent counselors to advise them. So what you really mean is rich people like it because it gives them a major advantage. Then you pretend everyone has that same advantage. Pathetic.

One of us is trying to help people understand that they can apply ED with confidence even if they are poor. Hint: That's me.

One of us is trying to mislead less advantaged people into thinking ED is not an option for them. Hint: That's you.

Now, you tell me which of the two of us is "pathetic".

I want to abolish ED to even the playing field. You want to keep it because you know it’s helps the rich more than it helps the poor. If you really cared about the poor you wouldn’t mind abolishing ED.

I understand it is not my place to abolish anything. It's up to each college to have their own policies. Not every college has ED. It's up to them, not me, and fortunately not you either. You keep saying the poor can't afford ED, and that is simply untrue.

But while it exists, I think everyone should know that if they can afford what the NPC says they can get the same ED advantage as any other applicant.

Oh, and if you are truly poor, as for an application fee waiver also. You will get it. Absolutely nothing to lose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Informed applicants are more likely to be affluent kids that have parents, counselors, or independent counselors to advise them. So what you really mean is rich people like it because it gives them a major advantage. Then you pretend everyone has that same advantage. Pathetic.

One of us is trying to help people understand that they can apply ED with confidence even if they are poor. Hint: That's me.

One of us is trying to mislead less advantaged people into thinking ED is not an option for them. Hint: That's you.

Now, you tell me which of the two of us is "pathetic".

I want to abolish ED to even the playing field. You want to keep it because you know it’s helps the rich more than it helps the poor. If you really cared about the poor you wouldn’t mind abolishing ED.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Informed applicants are more likely to be affluent kids that have parents, counselors, or independent counselors to advise them. So what you really mean is rich people like it because it gives them a major advantage. Then you pretend everyone has that same advantage. Pathetic.

One of us is trying to help people understand that they can apply ED with confidence even if they are poor. Hint: That's me.

One of us is trying to mislead less advantaged people into thinking ED is not an option for them. Hint: That's you.

Now, you tell me which of the two of us is "pathetic".

There’s a full pay thread going right now with some overlapping issues. Posters on that thread suggest that being ED and full pay does not give an applicant a boost at a need blind school. The AOs have no way of knowing who needs aid or not b/c they filter out that info.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Informed applicants are more likely to be affluent kids that have parents, counselors, or independent counselors to advise them. So what you really mean is rich people like it because it gives them a major advantage. Then you pretend everyone has that same advantage. Pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?

Because both colleges and informed applicants like it, and it is the best way to ensure the applicant will attend and wants to as it is their first choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both things can be true: ANY student rich, poor, or middle can use ED to their advantage, but in reality, rich students are more likely to take advantage of the ED process for a number of reasons.

The main reason being, as evidenced by this thread, misunderstanding of the process.

Why not remove ED and even the plying field for everyone?