Etchmendy, unfortunately, goes the same route as most administrators called upon to defend their early admissions program. There is a lot of irrelevant focus on the alleged "strength" of the early pool, and a coy reluctance to acknowledge that there is an absolutely HUGE admissions edge for any early applicant over a similarly-qualified applicant in the regular pool.
Atleast Penn - to its credit - admits that the purpose of its early program is to raise the yield rate and limit overlap with competing schools. It sells the program to legacies on this basis - warning them that no legacy "credit" will be granted to alumni offspring unless they apply early.
Why do the supposed "advantages" of the early program for the tiny fraction of successful applicants outweigh the early trauma for the 4 out of 5 who are not tapped?
No. Any early program is designed to benefit the school offering it, with the "advantages" for applicants only of incidental importance.
But Harvard's eminent Professor of Cognition and Education Howard E. Gardner said in today's Crimson that Etchemendy’s argument, while logical, “misses the point.”
“The current terrain is complex and unfair,” Gardner wrote. “It was gutsy for a few universities to take the lead, risk losing some good students, to try to push the overall system in positive (less complex, fairer) directions.”
And, Gardner added, Etchemendy’s “argument—insensitive to the human dimensions of both college applicants and competing colleges—makes him less viable as a candidate for the Harvard presidency.”