章节正文
Early
Advantage?
Harvard's surprise decision to end early
admissions sparks debate about who gets into the best schools and
when.
By Lee Hudson Teslik and Matthew
Philips
Newsweek
Updated: 3:56 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2006
Cutting against a major trend in the college-admissions
game, Harvard grabbed national headlines Tuesday by announcing it
would eliminate its early-admissions program-big news from a
school that fills two fifths of its class with early
applicants. The
decision sent ripples through the world of higher education, which
over the last decade has seen an explosion in the popularity of
early admissions. While some predicted an ensuing domino effect at
other schools, a number of analysts aren't so
sure.
A spokesperson
for Princeton says the news will be
a factor at the school's next review process and adds that
Princeton "could be
comfortable in making a change." Yale President Richard Levin says
his institution would take a wait-and-see approach while continuing
pre-existing efforts to attract low-income candidates. Lloyd
Thacker, who three years ago founded the Education Conservancy, a
nonprofit that advocates for college-admissions reform, believes a
slew of other schools could follow Harvard's lead. "Many
other colleges have been concerned with this," says Thacker.
"Everybody looks up to Harvard, and if they can do such a bold
thing, why can't others?"
Harvard's logic was egalitarian enough. Derek Bok, the
school's interim president, cited fairness and simplicity as the
primary reasons for the change, saying in a statement that
early-admission programs tend to add stress to an already stressful
process and "advantage the advantaged." Though Harvard says
there is no strategic benefit to applying early, the school
accepted 21 percent of early applicants this past year, compared to
just 9 percent of regular-admission candidates. This rate is
similar to many of America's top colleges and universities, fueling concern that
early admissions favor the most privileged students, particularly
those from affluent high schools that place a high emphasis on
college counseling.
"Early-admission programs attract a less-representative applicant
pool; it's more upper middle class and beyond," says Richard
Shaw, dean of admissions at Stanford, which is considering whether
or not it will react to Harvard's
announcement.
But
Christopher Avery, a Harvard professor who coauthored "The Early
Admission Game: Joining the Elite" (Harvard University Press),
says there are incentives against schools scrapping early
admissions. "It's hard to see what Harvard gains by this," says
Avery, who thinks Harvard's move was "selfless," an attempt to
put "out an even clearer message that it's eager to attract
students from low-income backgrounds." But Avery points out that
Harvard is in a privileged position. In the fiercely competitive
world of higher education, where schools have strong financial
incentives to attract accomplished student bodies, Avery says it's
tough to say whether many other schools will take the risk of
giving up a good way of locking in top
students.
Further complicating the prospect of quick change is the
fact that not all early-admissions programs are created equal.
Schools with binding "early decision" (in which students must
commit to attend the college they apply to if they are accepted)
are considered to be less likely to abandon their programs than
schools like Harvard, which feature nonbinding "early action." A
host of top schools, including Princeton and
Cornell, have early-decision programs, which allow them to lock in
a significantpercentage of their class early on. Yet some,
including Bok, consider early decision particularly pernicious.
"Students needing financial aid are disadvantaged by binding
early-decision programs that prevent them from comparing aid
packages," he says. According to the National Association for
College Admission Counseling, nearly 400 colleges have early
admissions, the majority of which require binding commitments from
applicants.
These are not large numbers in the scheme of American
higher education-there are more than 2,500 four-year,
degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States-and
experts say it would be easy to read too much into a decision that
will only affect a tiny percentage of the millions of American
teenagers who apply to college each year. Fewer than 23,000
students applied to Harvard last year, of which fewer than 4,000
apply early-and only about 800 of these are accepted. Even if a
handful of other schools revise their admissions policies to match
Harvard's, the number of students affected will remain quite
small, in a national context. Nor will the move do away with other
sorts of favoritism in the admissions game. "It's a very small
step in the right direction, but it's not a watershed event,"
said Daniel Golden, whose new book, "The Price of Admission"
(Crown), argues that the sons and daughters of America's upper class are often accepted into elite schools over
more qualified students. "Right now a very large percentage of
alumni and donor children do early decision. All this [change]
means is that instead of getting their acceptance letters over
Thanksgiving, they'll get them over
Easter."
原文来自:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14820693/site/newsweek/
图片来自:http://www.time.com/time/
Advantage?
Harvard's surprise decision to end early
admissions sparks debate about who gets into the best schools and
when.
By Lee Hudson Teslik and Matthew
Philips
Newsweek
Updated: 3:56 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2006
Cutting against a major trend in the college-admissions
game, Harvard grabbed national headlines Tuesday by announcing it
would eliminate its early-admissions program-big news from a
school that fills two fifths of its class with early
applicants. The
decision sent ripples through the world of higher education, which
over the last decade has seen an explosion in the popularity of
early admissions. While some predicted an ensuing domino effect at
other schools, a number of analysts aren't so
sure.
A spokesperson
for Princeton says the news will be
a factor at the school's next review process and adds that
Princeton "could be
comfortable in making a change." Yale President Richard Levin says
his institution would take a wait-and-see approach while continuing
pre-existing efforts to attract low-income candidates. Lloyd
Thacker, who three years ago founded the Education Conservancy, a
nonprofit that advocates for college-admissions reform, believes a
slew of other schools could follow Harvard's lead. "Many
other colleges have been concerned with this," says Thacker.
"Everybody looks up to Harvard, and if they can do such a bold
thing, why can't others?"
Harvard's logic was egalitarian enough. Derek Bok, the
school's interim president, cited fairness and simplicity as the
primary reasons for the change, saying in a statement that
early-admission programs tend to add stress to an already stressful
process and "advantage the advantaged." Though Harvard says
there is no strategic benefit to applying early, the school
accepted 21 percent of early applicants this past year, compared to
just 9 percent of regular-admission candidates. This rate is
similar to many of America's top colleges and universities, fueling concern that
early admissions favor the most privileged students, particularly
those from affluent high schools that place a high emphasis on
college counseling.
"Early-admission programs attract a less-representative applicant
pool; it's more upper middle class and beyond," says Richard
Shaw, dean of admissions at Stanford, which is considering whether
or not it will react to Harvard's
announcement.
But
Christopher Avery, a Harvard professor who coauthored "The Early
Admission Game: Joining the Elite" (Harvard University Press),
says there are incentives against schools scrapping early
admissions. "It's hard to see what Harvard gains by this," says
Avery, who thinks Harvard's move was "selfless," an attempt to
put "out an even clearer message that it's eager to attract
students from low-income backgrounds." But Avery points out that
Harvard is in a privileged position. In the fiercely competitive
world of higher education, where schools have strong financial
incentives to attract accomplished student bodies, Avery says it's
tough to say whether many other schools will take the risk of
giving up a good way of locking in top
students.
Further complicating the prospect of quick change is the
fact that not all early-admissions programs are created equal.
Schools with binding "early decision" (in which students must
commit to attend the college they apply to if they are accepted)
are considered to be less likely to abandon their programs than
schools like Harvard, which feature nonbinding "early action." A
host of top schools, including Princeton and
Cornell, have early-decision programs, which allow them to lock in
a significantpercentage of their class early on. Yet some,
including Bok, consider early decision particularly pernicious.
"Students needing financial aid are disadvantaged by binding
early-decision programs that prevent them from comparing aid
packages," he says. According to the National Association for
College Admission Counseling, nearly 400 colleges have early
admissions, the majority of which require binding commitments from
applicants.
These are not large numbers in the scheme of American
higher education-there are more than 2,500 four-year,
degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States-and
experts say it would be easy to read too much into a decision that
will only affect a tiny percentage of the millions of American
teenagers who apply to college each year. Fewer than 23,000
students applied to Harvard last year, of which fewer than 4,000
apply early-and only about 800 of these are accepted. Even if a
handful of other schools revise their admissions policies to match
Harvard's, the number of students affected will remain quite
small, in a national context. Nor will the move do away with other
sorts of favoritism in the admissions game. "It's a very small
step in the right direction, but it's not a watershed event,"
said Daniel Golden, whose new book, "The Price of Admission"
(Crown), argues that the sons and daughters of America's upper class are often accepted into elite schools over
more qualified students. "Right now a very large percentage of
alumni and donor children do early decision. All this [change]
means is that instead of getting their acceptance letters over
Thanksgiving, they'll get them over
Easter."
原文来自:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14820693/site/newsweek/
图片来自:http://www.time.com/time/
- debate [di´beit]
n.&v.讨论，辩论 (初中英语单词) - hudson [´hʌdsn] n.哈得孙河 (初中英语单词)
- factor [´fæktə] n.因素；原动力；要素 (初中英语单词)
- review [ri´vju:] v.&n.复习；回顾；检查 (初中英语单词)
- institution [,insti´tju:ʃən] n.建立；制定；制度 (初中英语单词)
- reform [ri´fɔ:m] v.&n.改革；改良；革除 (初中英语单词)
- stress [stres] n.强调；压力 vt.强调 (初中英语单词)
- fiercely [´fiəsli] ad.凶猛地，残忍地 (初中英语单词)
- prospect [´prɔspekt, prəs´pekt] n.景色；境界 v.勘察 (初中英语单词)
- abandon [ə´bændən] vt.抛弃，放弃，离弃 (初中英语单词)
- percentage [pə´sentidʒ] n.百分数；比例；部分 (初中英语单词)
- financial [fi´nænʃəl] a.金融的，财政的 (初中英语单词)
- admission [əd´miʃən] n.接纳；承认 (初中英语单词)
- scheme [ski:m] n.计划；阴谋，诡计 (初中英语单词)
- affect [ə´fekt] vt.影响；感动；假装 (初中英语单词)
- harvard [´hɑ:vəd] n.哈佛大学 (高中英语单词)
- eliminate [i´limineit] vt.消除；淘汰 (高中英语单词)
- decade [´dekeid] n.十年(间) (高中英语单词)
- explosion [ik´spləuʒən] n.爆炸；爆发；发作 (高中英语单词)
- popularity [,pɔpju´læriti] n.普及；流行；名望 (高中英语单词)
- concerned [kən´sə:nd] a.有关的；担心的 (高中英语单词)
- simplicity [sim´plisiti] n.简单；朴素 (高中英语单词)
- saying [´seiŋ, ´sei-iŋ] n.言语；言论；格言 (高中英语单词)
- emphasis [´emfəsis] n.强调；重点 (高中英语单词)
- significant [sig´nifikənt] a.重要的；意义重大的 (高中英语单词)
- acceptance [ək´septəns] n.接受；承认 (高中英语单词)
- considering [kən´sidəriŋ] prep.就...而论 (英语四级单词)
- accomplished [ə´kʌmpliʃt] a.完成了的；熟练的 (英语四级单词)
- binding [´baindiŋ] a.捆绑的 n.捆绑(物) (英语四级单词)
- revise [ri´vaiz] vt.修订；修改 (英语四级单词)
- fairness [´fɛənis] n.公正；晴朗 (英语六级单词)
- privileged [´privilidʒd] a.有特权的；特许的 (英语六级单词)
- applied [ə´plaid] a.实用的，应用的 (英语六级单词)
- affected [ə´fektid] a.做作的；假装的 (英语六级单词)
文章标签:翻译 长难句 翻译长难句
章节正文
京公网安备 11011202003401号
