Great column! I'd like to see those people Josh Stanfield and snipanlol and all the other people who usually bash your columns come back and tell you to stop writitng again. Well maybe they're busy studying. Based on their intellectual lacking displayed by their comments on your columns, they could use all the studying they can do.

I do not think this article did an effective job of analyzing the true effect of financial aid on the early decision/regular decision gap. RD applicants are not just "unaware" of financial aid opportunities, they are forced to apply RD because an ED acceptance does not allow them to compare financial aid packages and use those in making a decision and negotiating. I know many RD applicants--myself included--who relied on the ability to compare financial aid packages from a variety of schools in order to make their decisions and appeal their grants. For many of these students, Penn is their first choice. But the cost of Penn may prevent our first choices from becoming the most financially feasible school. Financial aid, while necessary and effective, is not always as complete of a solution as you would assume, especially when you factor in the possibility of long term debt. Furthermore, it is undeniable that much of what makes ED applicants more aware or sophisticated in the college application process is the result of thousand dollar college advisors and other similarly income-linked benefits, not necessarily an innate virtue of the ED applicant. It is no secret that family income level influences SAT scores and academic success. While there are certainly students who are able to overcome less than ideal backgrounds, just as there continue to be students who waste what they are given, it does a disservice to all of the families and applicants to reinforce the notion that ED applicants are inherently better than RD applicants. RD applicants are in many cases the victims of a financial aid system that does not affect all applicants equally. We should work on addressing that issue before we assume that RD applicants just don't care enough about Penn to get their act together early.

First of all, I don't "usually bash" her columns. I've commented on one that I can remember. And since I am currently studying, I'd like to thank "a regular decision applicant" for pointing out the obvious objections to Sharon's column. Maybe it's due to my "intellectual lacking," but I couldn't find any evidence in your comment that suggests my "intellectual lacking" exists. At least when I "bash" Sharon's columns, I give reasons and examples. As easy as it would be to simply write personal insults, I don't find it as challenging or as beneficial. Some might call that maturity or intellectual honesty. From the looks of your comment, you'd probably disagree.

I believe that will all of the media coverage of early decision and action programs it would be nearly impossible to not comprehend the advantages and disadvantages of applying early to a college. For those who know Penn or another college is his or her first choice, s/he should, just as Udasin wrote, have a leg-up in the admissions process. By declaring that I (or any other ED applicant) will go to Penn if accepted, I pledge my $30,000-$40,000 to the school--securing the school money. As a result, it is only a fair trade if ED applicants have higher admissions rates since they cannot decide to go to Princeton, Harvard, or Yale come April. Regardless, I just hope that the admissions office recognizes the dedication ED applicants have to the school.

Wow, this column fails on so many levels. Now income disparities should be held against an applicant? "Perhaps" Penn needs to expand financial aid options so that every applicant who wishes to apply ED could afford to do so? What world are you living in? The kind of kids Penn hopes to attract surely have enough awareness to know that ED provides a huge boost to an applicant's chances at admission. Too bad most of them actually have to consider something a little more worldly than the relative prestige of a university...oh, it's money. I've never seen any columnist from a top collegiate newspaper write with such entitlement and lack of understanding or compassion. I agree that school spirit and student happiness are vital to maintaining an atmosphere that encourages high-caliber students to apply. If you're willing to forsake diversity to have a potentially "happier" class, you're going to produce students that display a big deficit in knowledge of the real world. For students who come to Penn desiring a complete education in both the lecture halls and student life, trumpeting the merits of a system that has always favored the wealthy is just going to deter students who come to a school like Penn...to, I don't know, broaden their horizons and learn from people different from they? You should quit writing columns and go back to the mall.

Dear N, I'm not sure what Ms. Udasin will find at the mall considering her article focused on early/regular admissions to the University of Pennsylvania. If you find a store that will help her in her research, feel free to post the address along with something productive. Thanks, Concerned Student

I would like to clarify something here. This column had absolutely NOTHING to do with finances, social classes, wealth and need, etc. I was simply trying to demonstrate why early decision applicants tend to make the best matches for Penn--my two main arguments were that they both want to here, and the early applicant pool contains students that are statistically more qualified. Writing about financial aid and opportunities (or lack thereof) would be an entirely different column topic, something that I would like to write about if given the chance in the future. Of course I recognize the financial inequalities that plague the early decision process; however, this issue just had nothing to do with the subject of my article. By suggesting that perhaps there is something Penn can do, I indicated the need for improvements. Yet because this column did not focus on financial aid, I did not suggest a specific way to make these very necessary changes--again, another article, another time. I hope that this explanation helps elucidate the confusion. Thanks for reading, -Sharon

You're absolutely right, the column has very little to do with financial aid. That's precisely the problem. You cannot fairly make your arguments without considering financial aid: what results is a superficial analysis. "This striking gap in acceptance rates is entirely justified. Early applicants deserve a distinct admissions advantage over their regular-decision cohorts. Ultimately, this is how to acquire the best possible students for Penn." The best possible students? You're assuming that RD students don't want to be here as much as ED - the error in that assumption specifically focuses on the financial aid predicament. And by using definite language such as "entirely justified" and "deserve," you're eliminating the possibility of exceptions, in this case, those concerning financial aid. And yes, you did mention financial aid as an issue - but in a very skewed way. The quote you used suggests that lower income students aren't applying early because they "aren't as sophisticated about the process." Then you note "confusion about financial aid options" as a problem, and suggest a way for Penn to address that. But both of these quotes seem to unfairly place the blame on the low income applicant, as if his/her confusion and lack of sophistication are the only problems. Yes, those may be problems, but you failed to mention a very likely possibility: that a low income applicant is quite sophisticated about the process, isn't confused about financial aid, and recognizes that it would be fiscally irrational to apply early to Penn - no matter how much he/she wants to attend. You can't simply dismiss objections because they arenÃ?t the exact topic of your column. If you're going to make an argument, address the obvious issues involved.

Wow, you're witty! I think posted something productive preceding my snarky advice to Ms. Udasin. Perhaps that was a little too weighty for you to actually respond to. Another one of those legacy admits who makes the school a happier place by their grateful presence? Since sarcasm flies completely over your head, you should also know how dreadfully flat your retort is. Maybe she should read the New York Times or the Washington Post, conveniently sold at your mall bookstore, to see why in some parts kids have trouble paying for college. Wow, no wonder you all were rejected by better Ivies. [QUOTE id="31bdf78e-ea6d-4799-8e79-f46143119dd1"]Dear N, I'm not sure what Ms. Udasin will find at the mall considering her article focused on early/regular admissions to the University of Pennsylvania. If you find a store that will help her in her research, feel free to post the address along with something productive. Thanks, Concerned Student[/QUOTE]

I do not think it is a matter of confusion so much as disagreement. In arguing for early decision being appropriate for Penn, in arguing for it because the candidates want to be here and because they're more qualified, you're still doing one basic thing. You're arguing FOR early admissions. Not in the nuances or particulars of your arguments do I take issue but with the base core of the entire line of thought. I would argue that early decision is not a good thing, and the reasons for such are strongly tied to the financials of it. - "I would like to clarify something here. This column had absolutely NOTHING to do with finances, social classes, wealth and need, etc." - It does whether you want it to or not. Early admissions is an option more disproportionately chosen by those of greater finances, social class, and wealth. It has EVERYTHING to do with these things. When people take issue with Early Decision, it isn't because they disagree with the idea of people wanting to be somewhere being somewhere. They disagree with the idea that someone of greater wealth will end up more likely to be there, due in large part to their wealth. - "Writing about financial aid and opportunities (or lack thereof) would be an entirely different column topic, something that I would like to write about if given the chance in the future." - No, it would not. To ignore this aspect of early admissions is to ignore a great deal of the argument against EA. You cannot seperate ED from the social and economic implications it entails. "Of course I recognize the financial inequalities that plague the early decision process; however, this issue just had nothing to do with the subject of my article." Yes it did. If you're arguing to defend an institution (ED), others will take issue with you for a myriad of reasons. To say that one aspect of the argument against ED shouldn't even be on the table is just erroneous. I understand that it is very difficult to bring up the economic concerns of early admissions in a defense of early admissions. That's not because it is irrelevent but because it's simply impossible to argue. We all know that EA is slanted against the poor. So why do students support it anyway? You offered those reasons and I am saying that they do not trump the financial concerns of the matter. Just as a supporter would say, "finance isn't the issue here, it's just a matter of a student's personal dedication," a detractor would say, "dedication is not the issue, it's financial need." I would enjoy seeing a follow-up column on this sometime next semester and strongly encourage you to write it. However, I would cuation against this false dichotomy you've set up. Like it or not, it's all one big bag, with its benefits and its ills. Yes, it brings in students who declare their allegiance to Penn before they know they're guaranteed to go, targeting students who will love their school. On the other hand, the system undeniably targets those students who can declare their willingness to go to Penn due in large part to the fact that they don't have to compare financial aid packages. These views cannot be ignored in the debate over Early Admissions. To refuse to acknowledge the strongest concerns guiding support and detraction from EA is to refuse to address the argument in its entirety.

N, I'm sure you're bright, but put the grammar check on. It's really hard to understand what you're trying to say with all of the missing words and errors. Sadly, I have no legacy here at Penn, so I have to check my grammar before submitting things. Thanks for the concern. Concerned Student [QUOTE id="31bdf78e-ea6d-4799-8e79-f46143119dd1"]Dear N, I'm not sure what Ms. Udasin will find at the mall considering her article focused on early/regular admissions to the University of Pennsylvania. If you find a store that will help her in her research, feel free to post the address along with something productive. Thanks, Concerned Student[/QUOTE]

I get the feeling here that people think anyone applying early has alot of money. That is not always the case. My kid wanted Penn from the minute he stepped onto the campus. We had looked at so many schools up and down the coast. He had potential to get into any of them and applied to several, including Princeton, Notre Dame, Boston College and Duke. He was accepted to N. Dame and BC as they were early action applications. Of course, he withdrew all apps once he was accepted Early Decision to Penn. Another myth is that everyone would take Princeton over Penn "in a heartbeat". That is probably true 95% of the time, but there is the other 5%. He just wasn't comfortable with Princeton for whatever reasons. While Penn has its share of snobs with money, he believed it to be a little more diversified then most of the other schools he had visited. He loves the city of Philadelphia. He loves the history of Penn and the fact that Ben Franklin founded it. He loves the "campus in the city". He loves all of the academic choices and options that he has.....all of the organizations and clubs... back to the money. We do not have alot - I realize more than some, but not the kind of money people assume all ED's have. We haven't had a new car in a number of years, and basically we go from paycheck to paycheck. We live comfortably, and we don't have alot of debt, though money can be tough at times. I explained to him that he might receive better packages from other schools if he waited it out and skipped the ED. I did push Princteon ED just on the chance he might get in - we do have a legacy - but he wouldn't hear of it. (Hell, Princeton doesn't even include loans in their financial aid packages - everything is a grant). We argued and we fought. At one point he pulled the ED App to Penn without telling me because he thought that was what I wanted ....fortunately his mother told me and I was able to convince him that the choice had to be his...not mine. Long story short - he worked as hard as he could possibly work in High School, and he did extremely well, as most kids at Penn and schools like it do. For that I had always promised him that the choice would - and should - be his. We would find a way to make it work. I explained that he would have loans that we would be unable to help with as he has a sibling that will be going to college, and well, we just wouldn't be able to afford to help. The loans will be significant (in my eyes at least). He was willing to accept this. He wanted Penn that badly. Does that make me a bad parent? Am I an irresponsible parent because my kid will graduate with loans? Should I have insisted he go to a state school (and there are plenty of good ones)where he could have gotten a free ride - like so many of the kids that attend schools like Penn? Penn doesn't accept AP credits any more. Should I have insisted he go to a school that does so he could have gotten out a semester early? Sometimes I worry about the debt that he will have, but I remind myself that I explained it all to him and laid it out so that he could make the best decision for himself. I just needed to vent a little. Maybe most of the kids who got in ED do have a lot of money, but not all of them. Maybe some of them just went ED because they knew it would help their chances of getting in to a school that they really, really wanted to attend. My son is thrilled to be at Penn and thanks me often for helping him to go there. He works hard on breaks and during the summer to help us with the bills and plans on doing well enough when he graduates to pay those loans back. Penn does need to work harder and convince financially strapped families that they will make it work for them if they apply ED, but please don't assume that it's a financial cakewalk for every ED applicant that is fortunate enough to get in that way.

I second the regular decision applicant's comment. Sharon, like many students, doesn't makes intellectually dishonest and disingenuous arguments to justify early decision. Most Penn students are perfectly aware that ED discriminates against those of lesser means but simply don't give a damn. Contrary to what Sharon says, we all already know that those students who are priveleged enough to be able to apply early are not truly more responsible and upright applicants. They are more aware and informed of how the admissions systems work, through no fault of their own. In addition, even if those students who are of lesser means had more sophisticated knowledge and knew to apply early, they couldn't. They NEED to be able to compare various aid packages. Those students who can unambigously declare their intent to attend no matter what can do so because money isn't a problem for them. That's not personal dedication to the school on the part of the applicant. That's simply not having to worry about money in the college decisionmaking process. As mean-spirited as it sounds, Early decision, intentionally or not, targets affluent students who are out of touch with reality and proud of it. So we get columns where kids from families with enough education and money that they could apply early and get away with it pawn themselves off as more deserving than others of their own privelege. COME ON, the column even has "deserve" in the title! Disgusting admissions practices breed disgusting attitudes on the part of those who are at the receiving end of their own system of rewards. This is like arguing for legacies not based on the money that their families offer the administration but simply because they are more deserving of a college education than others because they are legacies. Somehow I bet that sounds like solid reasoning to the DP and I wouldn't be surprised to see a column about it in the future.

Sorry, I mean "like many students, makes intellectually dishonest and disingenuous arguments to justify early decision..."

The truth of the matter is, early decision does not effect your financial aid. Penn continues to offer to meet 100% of a student's demonstrated need as determined via your FAFSA filing. Now, that could mean grants, or it could mean loans. But it will be met. If you want to be able to negotiate loans away with offers from other schools that is fine -- apply in the regular pool. Many early decision applicants, like myself, know they can't foot the whole bill at Penn. But they have decided that Penn is their first choice, and is worth student loans. They are making a commitment to come to Penn, even if it means taking on debt. They aren't trying to play one school's financial package against another's.

Thanks for the input.... ......And for students in the sub 50K family income category, they have been told their needs will be met regardless with no EFC (family contribution)....with no loans. So they should defintiely be ENCOURAGED to apply ED. Why a low income student is exempt from loans when they graduate does not seem fair. Whjy should they be allowed to enter the real world debt free? I understand the no family contribution part, whcih Yale does as well. But Yale does expect a student contribution and does expect ALL students to incur some debt in the way of loans.