Hey, Timesmen (and women) want to get their kids into Harvard too, after all.
 

When I read the Times today, I came back to your blog to see when you had an inkling this move was afoot...was this a complete surprise?
 

Come on now, Richard. You are too cynical. You say this is the right move, so why not give credit where credit is due. You of all people should appreciate that this shows the Bok is prepared to take bold steps that make a difference (unlike the symbolic PR moves that Summers did for low income students). By the way the best evidence (Avery and Zeckhauser) shows that Harvard has benefited greatly from early admission--so this will not be costless. Of course Harvard can afford it more easily than any other university, but still Harvard was not willing to do it until Bok took the lead.
 

Even if Summers' actions benefitting lower income students might be perceived as a "symbolic PR move," it ultimately compelled other institutions from around the country to follow suit, and as such, has allowed for a greater number of students to have access to schools they once thought out of reach.

The relevant questions are these: Who'll be the first to get in-line with Harvard in terms of their decision to eliminate early action? Also, might this action be seen as a simply another "symbolic PR move," or will Bok be afforded a greater benefit of doubt than Summers in both the nature and nuance of this announcement?
 

Anon 11:04—I don't think I was being cynical. I don't see anything wrong with combining good policy and good PR. Summers did it with the free tuition plan, and Bok did it with this. I give credit to both—not just for implementing the policies, but for promoting them in a way that, one hopes, will maximize their influence.
 

I'm surprised that you see this decision as a good one. It is not clear at all why this helps low income students (I can think of no reason why it should), and it will most certainly discourage bright students who want to enjoy their senior year of high school from applying.

A quick poll of early-decision applicants in my dorm indicated most of us would be at Princeton or MIT.
 

look at it this way, richard. the story is 1.) very big, 2.) timely as the school year starts, and 3.) of great interest to Times readers.

Want proof? It is currently the top most e-mailed story. So the editorial decision by the Times to place the story on page 1 was probably not one made out of Harvard obsession, but one that (accurately) predicted what Times readers want to read.
 

Richard: You should read the Crimson too
 

This move is just another example of hypocrisy at Harvard. It is very similar to the University’s stand on the Solomon Amendment, when Harvard said that it vehemently opposed the provisions, but would have to accept them because the University would lose too much money if it refused to enforce the amendment. What a wonderful thing for an educational institution… it knows that something is morally wrong, but is quite willing to jettison that view for more money. Hypocrisy at its worst.
With the early admissions decision, there is also hypocrisy. Derek Bok and Bill Fitzsimmons talk about: early admission provides an unfair advantage to applicants from privileged backgrounds; certainly a win for students in the bottom quarter and bottom half of the income distribution; subverts the college admissions process, as seniors may feel compelled to apply early in hopes of gaining an edge over applicants in the regular pool.
Bravo! It all makes sense. The University is going to do something that it strongly believes will help a certain group of people.
However, it will only go so far to do that. Even though the University says it strongly believes in something, that belief will only continue to be held if its interests are not harmed. From The Crimson: “University officials said in a press release that the switch to a single-decision system would last for ‘a two- to three-year trial period. ‘ Harvard will ‘monitor the impact of this change and make sure that it does not have a negative impact on student quality.’ “
Hypocrisy is the homage that expediency pays to principle. Professor Sandel might use this as a case study in his class on Moral Reasoning.
 

Wrong, anon 5:55. If no other school follows Harvard, the cause of equity will not be advanced and the quality of Harvard students will decline as other schools press to sign up the top high school seniors early rather than acknowledging that they should take their time to make this decision. The only surprise here is that Harvard bothered to signal the possibility of a reversal if things don't work out -- after all, these kinds of administrative decisions are never permanent, so the possibility of another change in a few years could have gone without saying. The reality is, as the various reactions from other professionals in the reports make clear, that no one knows how this is going to affect the behavior of either students or other colleges, so there is a lot of uncertainty as to whether this will prove to be as progressive a move as is hoped, and also about what will happen to the student body.
 

Also, Anon 5:55:

The Solomon Amendment, initially passed by Congress in 1994, gives schools a choice: take federal funds and let military recruiters on campus, or forgo the money to protest the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

But according to Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’76, in an ruling issued Monday, Congress doesn’t even need to give the schools a choice.

[...]

Roberts wrote that Congress’ enumerated powers—those expressly delineated in the Constitution—give it the right to force universities to open their doors to military recruiters even if the universities don’t take federal funding. Among those enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, and cited by the court, are the powers “to raise and support armies” and “to provide and maintain a navy.”

“Congress’ power in this area ‘is broad and sweeping,’ and there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters,” Roberts wrote.

He also said that even though the power to raise an army is subject to limitations, Congress has broad powers in such matters.

“‘[J]udicial deference...is at its apogee’ when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies,” Roberts wrote.

Loeb University Professor Laurence H. Tribe ’62, Roberts’ former instructor and a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s interpretation of the Solomon Amendment, wrote in an e-mail yesterday that there was “no doubt” that “Congress could indeed enact a law compelling universities to allow military recruiters on campus.”


http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512006
 

Anon 6:59 and 7:05 (perhaps the same Anon)
1. Your reasoning is faulty. Who cares what other schools do? Harvard has said this is in the best interest of students applying to Harvard. If other schools fail to implement the abolition of early decision (action), the cause of wanting to provide " equity at Harvard" doesn't change.
2. When the decision was made (re military recruiting) Harvard said that it wouldn't block the military. It did not know that perhaps Congress could require providing access to the campus to military recruiters, even had it rejected the money. It made its decision based on money, not principle. That's why I used the word hypocrisy.
Although you provided Professor Tribe's opinion (from The Crimson article), you didn't provide Professor Fallon's (from the same article):
Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Richard H. Fallon agreed that there is “no doubt that Congress could directly require universities to grant access to military recruiters,” but said that there is little practical difference, as “it is clear that Harvard would not be willing to forego federal funding in order to keep military recruiters off campus.”
3. You said that in "the ruling issued Monday." The ruling was issued in March. The Court is not in session (have you forgotten... "the first Monday in October")
 

The reactions from the other colleges and universities are interesting. A lot of them are of the mealymouthed genre: "Gee, a lot of places are going to have to think about this." In the New York Times, the Provost at Cornell is uniquely candid about her own school's early admission program: "It’s been fairly widely recognized, certainly at Cornell, that it does put students in a disadvantaged position.” But neither ethics nor fairness to students is the first thing on the mind of the admissions pros at other colleges which have long envied Harvard's draw. From today's Boston Globe: "`Harvard is going to become slightly less competitive now,' said Amherst dean of admission Thomas H. Parker ." Or this, from another competitor, who would have us believe that his university's early admission program has students' welfare at heart as he is already beginning his recruitment of the class of 2012: "`Kids are going to be anxious for longer,' said Richard H. Shaw , dean of admission at Stanford." The sharks think they are circling. This is going to be fun to watch!
 

This policy change and announcement is a good study in comparative leadership.
* No leaks in advance. Bok's staff is loyal. He trusts them, and they reciprocate. Not so with Summers.
* No faculty objection (on the contrary, praise). Faculty were not officially consulted even though this is a major policy change. Summers could not have gotten away with it. Faculty (understandably) suspected that he had ulterior motives even when he may have been doing the right thing.
* No obsession with making sure the president gets credit. Although Bok was out front and made it clear that this initiative came after Summers, he also gave credit to the admissions office and to the authors of the research that in part led to the change.
* No criticism of other schools or presidents. Bok admits that it is easier for Harvard to do this. Compare Summers' attacks on other presidents at several national conferences.

So: it is good to have common sense theories of leadership confirmed:
effective leaders need to trust to gain trust, need to tell the truth straight to keep the trust, and need to keep their ego in check and avoid making self righteous criticisms.
 

They also need to not make stupid decisions.
 

Many said that no university would follow Harvard. Not so. Princeton will do so. That puts pressure on Yale. Rick Levin has been disgraceful so far. Let's see if he makes good on his earlier claims. He said the admission system was unfair, but no university could do anything until the leader (ie Harvard) acted. Then when Harvard took the initiative, he fell back on the poorest of excuses. We are doing other good things to help the disadvantaged (as if the other things were mutually exclusive).
Score one for Princeton.
Zero minus for Yale.
 

And to Princeton's credit, they didnt try to pretent they were not influenced by Harvard's decision.
Let's have more candor like this.