---

BY TALLY SHARMA

In print | November 2, 2006

Although Harvard and Princeton have recently abolished their early action application option, Dean of Admissions Jim Bock ‘90 says that Swarthmore plans to retain its own system. On Oct. 25, Student Council hosted a Fireside Chat to discuss the early admissions application process. At the event, Bock gave a comprehensive presentation of data in support of the college’s current ED policy.

Bock’s talk at the chat consisted of data used previously at meetings with the Board of Managers, the faculty and the advisory committee to the dean of admissions and Financial Aid.

Bock prefaced his more detailed report of the issues surrounding ED at Swarthmore by describing ED and early action as being distinct from one another — one is binding, while the other is not. In September, Harvard and Princeton eliminated their early action procedures, a change which will go into effect during the next academic year. During a brief history of Swarthmore’s own ED option, Bock said that the college’s system, established in 1976, even differs from those of its own peers; unlike Amherst and Williams, it offers two different ED options.

One advantage of Swarthmore’s existing ED options that Bock emphasized was the high degree of command in the process it gives admissions. “ED gives us more control to shape each class,” he said. Although Bock said that the ED applicant pool is “more homogenous” than the regular decision candidates, he did not regard this as a drawback. “Most have the financial, educational and emotional resources to apply early,” he said.

Bock said that, contrary to popular belief, there is very little difference between the financial backgrounds of ED applicants and those that apply RD. “The difference between ED students aided and RD students aided is not statistically significant,” he said. “The average need of aided students in both groups is pretty much the same. If you are accepted and you are needy, you will qualify for need-based aid.”

Another point that Bock stressed was that although the option of ED is intended to be binding, it is “not iron-clad. It’s not a legally binding contract,” he said. As a result of this policy, Bock said that admissions usually loses one or two students that have applied ED. “They’ve all chosen schools that have essentially given them a full ride,” he said.

In spite of the concern that the ED process at the college caters exclusively to an applicant pool of a higher socioeconomic level, Bock said that each year he is continually assured of the “quality, depth and diversity of students that apply ED. This last year, more students of color applied than ever before,” he said. In addition, he said that “the fit” exemplified in many successful applicants’ “Why Swarthmore?” essays is evident in almost all of accepted ED students’ applications. “We see it in RD, too, but we see it to a person in ED,” he said.

In response to one question concerning ED I, Bock said that admissions would consider abolishing this option if it made sense for the college.

He also said that the college would not consider implementing early action in the near future. “Schools end up admitting more students EA than they have room for in their class,” he said. “When less than 50 percent of students accepted EA matriculate, there is really too much work being done in November.”

Also of concern among other participants in the chat was the amount of partiality given to legacies and athletes during the admissions process. Bock said that the legacy acceptance rate is between 37 and 39 percent; the level of preference that they receive, he said, is “very minor. You might get a little preference if you have a parent or sibling who went to Swarthmore, but you might get no preference,” he said. Although he said that the numbers involving athletes aren’t official, Bock pointed out that these cases are often underscored because these applicants tend to have the strongest advocates in their coaches. Among admissions situations that might also entail preference but aren’t nearly as highlighted are those involving theater and music.

Student Council member Eleanor Joseph ‘07 said that the inspiration for hosting the discussion stemmed mainly from the council’s own overwhelming interest to know more about the issue. “Student Council really wanted to write an editorial about the ED issue,” she said. “We first thought about inviting Jim Bock to one of our meetings, but then we just thought, that’s ridiculous. We’re not the only ones who are interested in the admissions process.”

Joseph said that although Student Council is not currently planning on making a formal statement concerning the ED policy, Student Council “fully encourages Jim Bock to write a statement to the campus.”

Travis Thieman ’10 was among the 41 percent of the first-year class that was accepted ED. “I went into the chat in favor of keeping it,” he said. “It was a really positive experience for me, and I wanted to hear what Jim Bock had to say. It was great that he told us exactly what he told the Board.” The accepted ED first-years represent 17 percent of accepted students in the class of 2010.

Katherine Hagan ’09, a member of the advisory committee to the dean of admissions and financial aid, said that she attended the Fireside Chat in order to be aware of the questions that students might have about the process. “I never wanted to take a statistics class until I heard Jim Bock talk,” she said. “I think his job is really interesting; one of his responsibilities is to look at patterns in data and see if Admissions is serving the mission of the college.”

“It’s very easy for people to say that early decision hurts lower income families,” Hagan said. “Some people have those feelings, but once you sit down and look at the statistical evidence, you see that he’s right.”

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »