A Newsletter For Resource Families Volume 7 Issue 3 January: Fill & Download for Free

This is an article rather than a book I ’ve extracted from the author of the artice. Stephen R.C. Hicks.Why don’t you email him since he already knew quite a lot about Ayn Rand.If I were you , I’d do that.Just email him and I’m sure he’d be willing to help you about the books.Stephen R. C. HicksEmail: [email protected] UniversityU. S. A.Ayn Rand (1905—1982)Ayn Rand was a major intellectual of the twentieth century. Born in Russia in 1905 and educated there, she immigrated to the United States after graduating from university. Upon becoming proficient in English and establishing herself as a writer of fiction, she became well-known as a passionate advocate of a philosophy she called Objectivism. This philosophy is in the Aristotelian tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon metaphysical naturalism, empirical reason in epistemology, and self-realization in ethics. Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government. She wrote both technical and popular works of philosophy, and she presented her philosophy in both fictional and nonfictional forms. Her philosophy has influenced several generations of academics and public intellectuals, and has had widespread popular appeal.Regarding human nature, Rand said, “Man is a being of self-made soul.” Rand believes human beings are not born in sin or with destructive desires; nor do they necessarily acquire them in the course of growing to maturity. Instead one is born morally tabula rasa (a blank slate), and through one’s choices and actions one acquires one’s character traits and habits. Having chronic desires to steal, rape, or kill others is the result of mistaken development and the acquisition of bad habits, just as are chronic laziness or the habit of eating too much junk food. And just as one is not born lazy but can by one’s choices develop oneself into a person of vigor or sloth, so also one is not born antisocial but can by one’s choices develop oneself into a person of cooperativeness or conflict.Table of ContentsLifeRand’s Ethical Theory: Rational EgoismReason and EthicsCriticisms of Rand’s EthicsConflicts of InterestRand’s InfluenceReferences and Further ReadingPrimary SourcesSecondary Sources1. LifeAyn Rand’s life was often as colorful as those of her heroes in her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Rand first made her name as a novelist, publishing We the Living (1936), The Fountainhead (1943), and her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged (1957). These philosophical novels embodied themes she subsequently developed in nonfiction form in a series of essays and books written in the 1960s and 1970s.Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 2, 1905, Rand was raised in a middle-class family. As a child, she loved storytelling, and at age nine she decided to become a writer. In school she showed academic promise, particularly in mathematics. Her family was devastated by the communist revolution of 1917, both by the social upheavals that the revolution and the ensuing civil war brought and by her father’s pharmacy being confiscated by the Soviets. The family moved to the Crimea to recover financially and to escape the harshness of life the revolution brought to St. Petersburg. They later returned to Petrograd (the new name given to St. Petersburg by the Soviets), where Rand was to attend university.At the University of Petrograd, Rand concentrated her studies on history, with secondary focuses on philosophy and literature. At university, she was repelled by the dominance of communist ideas and strong-arm tactics that suppressed free inquiry and discussion. As a youth, she had been repelled by the communists' political program, and now an adult, she was also more fully aware of the destructive effects that the revolution had had on Russian society more broadly.Having studied American history and politics at university, and having long been an admirer of Western plays, music, and movies, she became an admirer of American individualism, vigor, and optimism, seeing them as the opposites of Russian collectivism, decay, and gloom. Not believing, however, that she would be free under the Soviet system to write the kinds of books she wanted to write, she resolved to leave Russia and go to America.Rand graduated from the University of Petrograd in 1924. She then enrolled at the State Institute for Cinema Arts in order to study screenwriting. In 1925, she finally received permission from the Soviet authorities to leave the country in order to visit relatives in the United States. Officially, her visit was to be brief; Rand, however, had already decided not to return to the Soviet Union.After several stops in western European cities, Rand arrived in New York City in February 1926. From New York, she traveled on to Chicago, Illinois, where she spent the next six months living with relatives, learning English, and developing ideas for stories and movies. She had decided to become a screenwriter, and, having received an extension to her visa, she left for Hollywood, California.On Rand’s second day in Hollywood, an event occurred that was worthy of her fiction. She was spotted by Cecil B. DeMille, one of Hollywood’s leading directors, while she was standing at the gate of his studio. She had recognized him as he was passing by in his car, and he had noticed her staring at him. He stopped to ask why she was staring, and Rand explained that she had recently arrived from Russia, that she had long been passionate about Hollywood movies, and that she dreamed of being a screenwriter. DeMille was then working on “The King of Kings,” and gave her a ride to his movie set and signed her on as an extra. During her second week at DeMille’s studio, another significant event occurred: Rand met Frank O'Connor, a young actor also working as an extra. Rand and O'Connor were married in 1929, and they remained married for fifty years until his death in 1979.Rand worked for DeMille as a reader of scripts and struggled financially while working on her own writing. She also held a variety of non-writing jobs until in 1932 she was able to sell her first screenplay, “Red Pawn,” to Universal Studios. Also in 1932 her first stage play, “Night of January 16th,” was produced in Hollywood and later on Broadway.Rand had been working for years on her first significant novel, We the Living, and finished it in 1933. However, for several years it was rejected by various publishers, until in 1936 it was published by Macmillan in the U.S. and Cassell in England. Rand described We the Living as the most autobiographical of her novels, its theme being the brutality of life under communist rule in Russia. We the Living did not receive a positive reaction from American reviewers and intellectuals. It was published in the 1930s, a decade sometimes called the “Red Decade,” during which American intellectuals were often pro-communist and respectful and admiring of the Soviet experiment.Rand’s next major project was The Fountainhead, which she had begun to work on in 1935. While the theme of We the Living was political, the theme of The Fountainhead was ethical, focusing on individualist themes of independence and integrity. The novel’s hero, the architect Howard Roark, is Rand’s first embodiment of her ideal man, the man who lives on a principled and heroic scale of achievement.As with We the Living, Rand had difficulties getting The Fountainhead published. Twelve publishers rejected it before it was published by Bobbs-Merrill in 1943. Again not well received by reviewers and intellectuals, the novel nonetheless became a best seller, primarily through word-of-mouth recommendation. The Fountainhead made Rand famous as an exponent of individualist ideas, and its continuing to sell well brought her financial security. Warner Brothers produced a movie version of the novel in 1949, starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, for which Rand wrote the screenplay.In 1946, Rand began work on her most ambitious novel, Atlas Shrugged. At the time, she was working part-time as a screenwriter for producer Hal Wallis. In 1951, she and her husband moved to New York City, where she began to work full-time on Atlas. Published by Random House in 1957, Atlas Shrugged is her most complete expression of her literary and philosophical vision. Dramatized in the form of a mystery about a man who stopped the motor of the world, the plot and characters embody the political and ethical themes first developed in We the Living and The Fountainhead and integrates them into a comprehensive philosophy including metaphysics, epistemology, economics, and the psychology of love and sex.Atlas Shrugged was an immediate best seller and Rand’s last work of fiction. Her novels had expressed philosophical themes, although Rand considered herself primarily a novelist and only secondarily a philosopher. The creation of plots and characters and the dramatization of achievements and conflicts were her central purposes in writing fiction, rather than presenting an abstracted and didactic set of philosophical theses.The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, however, had attracted to Rand many readers who were strongly interested in the philosophical ideas the novels embodied and in pursuing them further. Among the earliest of those with whom Rand became associated and who later became prominent were psychologist Nathaniel Branden and economist Alan Greenspan, later Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Her interactions with these and several other key individuals were partly responsible for Rand’s turning from fiction to nonfiction writing in order to develop her philosophy more systematically.From 1962 until 1976, Rand wrote and lectured on her philosophy, now named “Objectivism.” Her essays during this period were mostly published in a series of periodicals: The Objectivist Newsletter, published from 1962 to 1965; the larger periodical The Objectivist, published from 1966 to 1971; and then The Ayn Rand Letter, published from 1971 to 1976. The essays written for these periodicals form the core material for a series of nine nonfiction books published during Rand’s lifetime. These books develop Rand’s philosophy in all its major categories and apply it to cultural issues. Perhaps the most significant of these books are The Virtue of Selfishness, which develops her ethical theory, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, devoted to political and economic theory, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, a systematic presentation of her theory of concepts, and The Romantic Manifesto, a theory of aesthetics.During the 1960s, Rand’s most significant professional relationship was with Nathaniel Branden. Branden, author of The Psychology of Self-Esteem and later known as a leader in the self-esteem movement in psychology, wrote many essays on philosophical and psychological topics that were published in Rand’s books and periodicals. He was the founder and head of the Nathaniel Branden Institute, the leading Objectivist institution of the 1960s. Based in New York City, the Nathaniel Branden Institute published with Rand’s sanction numerous periodicals and pamphlets and sponsored many lectures in New York that were then distributed on tape around the United States and the rest of the world. The rapid growth of the Nathaniel Branden Institute and the Objectivist movement came to a halt in 1968 when, for both professional and personal reasons, Rand and Branden parted ways.Rand continued to write and lecture consistently until she stopped publishing The Ayn Rand Letterin 1976. Thereafter she wrote and lectured less as her husband’s health declined, leading to his death in 1979, and as her own health began to decline. Rand died on March 6, 1982, in her New York City apartment.2. Rand’s Ethical Theory: Rational EgoismThe provocative title of Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness matches an equally provocative thesis about ethics. Traditional ethics has always been suspicious of self-interest, praising acts that are selfless in intent and calling amoral or immoral acts that are motivated by self-interest. A self-interested person, on the traditional view, will not consider the interests of others and so will slight or harm those interests in the pursuit of his own.Rand’s view is that the exact opposite is true: Self-interest, properly understood, is the standard of morality and selflessness is the deepest immorality.Self-interest rightly understood, according to Rand, is to see oneself as an end in oneself. That is to say that one’s own life and happiness are one’s highest values, and that one does not exist as a servant or slave to the interests of others. Nor do others exist as servants or slaves to one’s own interests. Each person’s own life and happiness are their ultimate ends. Self-interest rightly understood also entails self-responsibility: One’s life is one’s own, and so is the responsibility for sustaining and enhancing it. It is up to each of us to determine what values our lives require, how best to achieve those values, and to act to achieve those values.Rand’s ethic of self-interest is integral to her advocacy of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, more often called “libertarianism” in the twentieth century, is the view that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. This implies, politically, that governments should be limited to protecting each individual’s freedom to do so. In other words, the moral legitimacy of self-interest implies that individuals have rights to their lives, their liberties, their property, and the pursuit of their own happiness, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. Economically, leaving individuals free to pursue their own interests implies in turn that only a capitalist or free market economic system is moral: Free individuals will use their time, money, and other property as they see fit, and will interact and trade voluntarily with others to mutual advantage.3. Reason and EthicsFundamentally, the means by which humans live is reason. Our capacity for reason is what enables us to survive and flourish. We are not born knowing what is good for us; that is learned. Nor are we born knowing how to achieve what is good for us; that too is learned. It is by reason that we learn what is food and what is poison, what animals are useful or dangerous to us, how to make tools, what forms of social organization are fruitful, and so on.Thus, Rand advocates rational self-interest: One’s interests are not whatever one happens to feel like; rather it is by reason that one identifies what is in one’s interest and what is not. By the use of reason one takes into account all of the factors one can identify, projects the consequences of potential courses of action, and adopts principled policies of action.The principled policies a person should adopt are called virtues. A virtue is an acquired character trait; it results from identifying a policy as good and committing to acting consistently in terms of that policy.One such virtue is rationality: Having identified the use of reason as fundamentally good, the virtue of rationality is being committed to acting in accordance with reason. Another virtue is productiveness: Given that the values one needs to survive must be produced, the virtue of productiveness is being committed to producing those values. Another is honesty: Given that facts are facts and that one’s life depends on knowing and acting in accordance with the facts, the virtue of honesty is being committed to awareness of the facts.Independence and integrity are also core virtues for Rand’s account of self-interest. Given that one must think and act by one’s own efforts, being committed to the policy of independent action is a virtue. And given that one must both identify what is in one’s interests and act to achieve it, the virtue of integrity is a policy of being committed to acting on the basis of one’s beliefs. The opposite policy of believing one thing and doing another is of course the vice of hypocrisy; hypocrisy is a policy of self-destruction, on Rand’s view.Justice is another core self-interested virtue: Justice, on Rand’s account, means a policy of judging people, including oneself, according to their value and acting accordingly. The opposite policy of giving to people more or less than they deserve is injustice. The final virtue on Rand’s list of core virtues is pride, the policy of “moral ambitiousness,” in Rand’s words. This means a policy of being committed to making oneself be the best one can be, of shaping one’s character to the highest level possible.The moral person, in summary, on Rand’s account, is someone who acts and is committed to acting in their best self-interest. It is by living the morality of self-interest that one survives, flourishes, and achieves happiness.4. Criticisms of Rand’s EthicsEvery aspect of Rand’s philosophy is subject to lively criticism and debate, but her normative views are the ones most focused upon.From the broadly defined conservative right, the main criticisms are (a) that Rand’s metaphysical naturalism involves an atheism that undercuts religious metaphysics, (b) that her strong emphasis upon empirical data and reason undercut epistemologies based on faith and tradition, and (c) that her normative individualism undercuts the commands of duty, obligation and selflessness that are necessary for achieving social values. From the left, again defined broadly, the main criticisms are (a) that Rand’s individualism atomistically isolates each of us from genuine society, (b) that her advocacy of free markets enables strong-versus-weak exploitation, and in left-postmodern critique (c) that her philosophical fundamentals commit her to an untenable foundationalism and absolutism.Here we will focus only on the arguments over Rand’s account of self-interest, which is currently a minority position and subject to strong criticism from both the philosophical left and the philosophical right.The contrasting view of self-interest typically pits it against morality, holding that one is moral only to the extent that one sacrifices one’s self-interest for the sake of others or, more moderately, to the extent one acts primarily with regard to the interests of others. For example, standard versions of morality will hold that one is moral to the extent one sets aside one’s own interests in order to serve God, or the weak and the poor, or society as a whole. On these accounts, the interests of God, the poor, or society as a whole are held to be of greater moral significance than one’s own, and so accordingly one’s interests should be sacrificed when necessary. These ethics of selflessness thus believe that one should see oneself fundamentally as a servant, as existing to serve the interests of others, not one’s own. “Selfless service to others” or “selfless sacrifice” are stock phrases indicating these accounts’ view of appropriate motivation and action.One core difference between Rand’s self-interest view and the selfless view can be seen in the reason why most advocates of selflessness think self-interest is dangerous: conflicts of interest.5. Conflicts of InterestMost traditional ethics take conflicts of interest to be fundamental to the human condition, and take ethics to be the solution: Basic ethical principles are to tell us whose interests should be sacrificed in order to resolve the conflicts. If there is, for example, a fundamental conflict between what God wants and what humans naturally want, then religious ethics will make fundamental the principle that human wants should be sacrificed for God’s. If there is a fundamental conflict between what society needs and what individuals want, then some versions of secular ethics will make fundamental the principle that the individual’s wants should be sacrificed for society’s.Taking conflicts of interest to be fundamental almost always stems from one of two beliefs: that human nature is fundamentally destructive or that economic resources are scarce. If human nature is fundamentally destructive, then humans are naturally in conflict with each other. Many ethical philosophies start from this premise—for example, Plato’s myth of Gyges, Jewish and Christian accounts of original sin, and Freud’s account of the id. If what individuals naturally want to do to each other is rape, steal, and kill, then in order to have society these individual desires need to be sacrificed. Consequently, a basic principle of ethics will be to urge individuals to suppress their natural desires so that society can exist. In other words, self-interest is the enemy, and must be sacrificed for others.If economic resources are scarce, then there is not enough to go around. This scarcity then puts human beings in fundamental conflict with each other: For one individual’s need to be satisfied, another’s must be sacrificed. Many ethical philosophies begin with this premise. For example, Thomas Malthus’s theory that population growth outstrips growth in the food supply falls into this category. Karl Marx’s account of capitalist society is that brutal competition leads to the exploitation of some by others. Garrett Hardin’s famous use of the lifeboat analogy asks us to imagine that society is like a lifeboat with more people than its resources can support. And so, in order to solve the problem of destructive competition the lack of resources leads us to, a basic principle of ethics will be to urge individuals to sacrifice their interests in obtaining more, or even some, so that others may obtain more or some and society can exist peacefully. In other words, in a situation of scarcity, self-interest is the enemy and must be sacrificed for others.Rand rejects both the scarce resources and destructive human nature premises. Human beings are not born in sin or with destructive desires; nor do they necessarily acquire them in the course of growing to maturity. Instead one is born morally tabula rasa (“blank slate”), and through one’s choices and actions one acquires one’s character traits and habits. As Rand phrased it, “Man is a being of self-made soul.” Having chronic desires to steal, rape, or kill others is the result of mistaken development and the acquisition of bad habits, just as are chronic laziness or the habit of eating too much junk food. And just as one is not born lazy but can by one’s choices develop oneself into a person of vigor or sloth, one is not born antisocial but can by one’s choices develop oneself into a person of cooperativeness or conflict.Nor are resources scarce, according to Rand, in any fundamental way. By the use of reason, humans can discover new resources and how to use existing resources more efficiently, including recycling where appropriate and making productive processes more efficient. Humans have, for example, continually discovered and developed new energy resources, from animals to wood to coal to oil to nuclear fission to solar panels; and there is no end in sight to this process. At any given moment, the available resources are a fixed amount, but over time the stock of resources are and have been constantly expanding.Because humans are rational they can produce an ever-expanding number of goods, and so human interests do not fundamentally conflict with each other. Instead, Rand holds that the exact opposite is true: Since humans can and should be productive, human interests are deeply in harmony with each other. For example, my producing more corn is in harmony with your producing more peas, for by our both being productive and trading with each other we are both better off. It is to your interest that I be successful in producing more corn, just as it is to my interest that you be successful in producing more peas.Conflicts of interest do exist within a narrower scope. For example, in the immediate present available resources are more fixed, and so competition for those resources results, and competition produces winners and losers. Economic competition, however, is a broader form of cooperation, a social way to allocate resources without resorting to physical force and violence. By competition, resources are allocated efficiently and peacefully, and in the long run more resources are produced. Thus, a competitive economic system is in the self-interest of all of us.Accordingly, Rand argues that her ethic of self-interest is the basis for personal happiness and free and prosperous societies.6. Rand’s InfluenceThe impact of Rand’s ideas is difficult to measure, but it has been large. All her books were still in print as of 2017, had sold more than thirty million copies, and continued to sell approximately one million copies each year. A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club early in the 1990s asked readers to name the book that had most influenced their lives: Atlas Shrugged was second only to the Bible. Excerpts from Rand’s works are regularly reprinted in college textbooks and anthologies, and several volumes have been published posthumously containing her early writings, journals, and letters. As an outsider with iconoclastic views, Rand’s influence within the academic world has been limited, though university press books and scholarly articles about her work continue to be published regularly. Outside the academic world are several institutes founded by those influenced by Rand. Noteworthy among these are the Cato Institute, based in Washington, D.C., the leading libertarian think tank. Rand, along with Nobel Prize-winners Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, was highly instrumental in attracting generations of individuals to the libertarian movement. Also noteworthy are the Ayn Rand Institute, founded in 1985 by philosopher Leonard Peikoff and entrepreneur Edward Snider and based in California, and The Atlas Society, founded in 1990 by philosopher David Kelley and based in Washington, D.C.7. References and Further Readinga. Primary SourcesRand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. Random House, 1957.Rand’s magnum opus of fiction.Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New American Library, 1967.A collection of twenty of Rand’s essays on politics, history, and economics. Also includes two essays by psychologist Nathaniel Branden, three by economist Alan Greenspan, and one by historian Robert Hessen.Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead. Bobbs-Merrill, 1943.The novel of individualism, independence, and integrity that made Rand famous.Rand, Ayn. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. New American Library, 1979.Rand’s theory of concept-formation. Includes an essay by philosopher Leonard Peikoff on the analytic/synthetic distinction.Rand, Ayn. Philosophy: Who Needs It. Bobbs-Merrill, 1982.A collection of Rand’s essays on the nature and significance of philosophy, including her critiques of other thinkers such as Kant, Aristotle, Rawls, and Skinner.Rand, Ayn. The Romantic Manifesto. World Publishing, 1969. Paperback edition: New American Library, 1971.A collection of Rand’s essays on philosophy of art and aesthetics.Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New American Library, 1964.A collection of fourteen of Rand’s essays on ethics. Also includes five essays by psychologist Nathaniel Branden.Rand, Ayn. We the Living. Macmillan, 1936.Rand’s first novel, set in the Soviet Union in the years following the Russian Revolution.b. Secondary SourcesBadhwar, Neera, and Long, Roderick T. “Ayn Rand,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010/2016.Two philosophers present an overview of Rand’s life and work in the major areas of philosophy, with special attention to several major disagreements among philosophers working within Objectivism.Binswanger, Harry. The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts. Los Angeles, CA: A.R.I. Press, 1990.Written by a philosopher, this is a scholarly work focused on the connection between biology and the concepts at the roots of ethics.Branden, Nathaniel. The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism. Cobden Press, 2009.A comprehensive overview of Rand’s philosophy based on the lecture series presented under Rand’s auspices in the 1960s.Branden, Nathaniel, and Branden, Barbara. Who Is Ayn Rand? New York: Random House, 1962.This book contains essays on Objectivism’s moral philosophy, its connection to psychological theory, and a literary study of Rand’s novel methods. It contains an additional biographical essay, tracing Rand’s life from birth up until her mid-50s.Burns, Jennifer. Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. Oxford University Press, 2009.Written by a historian, a scholarly discussion of Rand’s ambiguous relationship with free market, libertarian, and conservative movements.Gotthelf, Allan and Salmieri, Gregory. A Companion to Ayn Rand. Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.The editors have compiled a series of scholarly entries on all of the major elements of Rand’s philosophy.Gotthelf, Allan and Lennox, James. Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013.Ten philosophers debate Rand’s epistemology, with focused articles on her theories of perception, concepts, and scientific method.Gotthelf, Allan and Lennox, James. Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue: Studies in Ayn Rand's Normative Theory. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010.Eight philosophers debate Rand’s ethical theory.Hessen, Robert. In Defense of the Corporation. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, http://1979.An economic historian, Hessen argues and defends from an Objectivist perspective the moral and legal status of the corporate form of business organizations.Hicks, Stephen. “Ayn Rand and Contemporary Business Ethics.” Journal of Accounting, Ethics, and Public Policy 3:1, 2003.A philosopher explores the implications of Rand’s ethics for the foundations of business ethics.Hicks, Stephen. “Egoism in Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 10:2, 2009.A philosopher compares and contrasts the positions that underlie Nietzsche’s and Rand’s theses on egoism and altruism.Kelley, David. The Evidence of the Senses. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986.Written by a philosopher working within the Objectivist tradition, this scholarly work in epistemology focuses on the foundational role the senses play in human knowledge.Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand’s Marginalia. New Milford, CT: Second Renaissance Books, 1995.This volume contains Rand’s critical comments on over twenty thinkers, including Friedrich Hayek, C. S. Lewis, and Immanuel Kant. Edited by a philosopher, the volume contains facsimiles of the original texts with Rand’s comments on facing pages.Peikoff, Leonard. The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America. New York: Stein & Day, 1982.A scholarly work in the philosophy of history, arguing Objectivism’s theses about the role of philosophical ideas in history and applying them to explaining the rise of National Socialism.Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton, 1991.This is the first comprehensive overview of all aspects of Objectivist philosophy, written by the philosopher closest to Rand during her lifetime.Rasmussen, Douglas and Douglas Den Uyl, editors. The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1984.A collection of scholarly essays by philosophers, defending and criticizing various aspects of Objectivism’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.Reisman, George. Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 1996.A scholarly work by an economist, developing free-market capitalist economic theory, especially that coming out of the Austrian tradition, and connecting it to Objectivist philosophy.Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. Ayn Rand, The Russian Radical. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.A work in history of philosophy, this book attempts to trace the influence upon Rand’s thinking of dialectical approaches to philosophy prevalent in 19th century Europe and Russia. Also an introduction and overview of the major branches of Objectivist philosophy.Smith, Tara. Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. Cambridge University Press, 2006.A scholarly work by a philosopher on Rand’s meta-ethics and its application in normative ethics.Wilkinson, Will, editor. “What’s Living and Dead in Ayn Rand’s Moral and Political Thought?” Cato Unbound, 2010.Four professors of philosophy—Douglas B. Rasmussen, Michael Huemer, Neera K. Badhwar, and Roderick T. Long—discuss and debate the current state of Rand scholarship.Zwolinski, Matthew. “Is Ayn Rand Right about Rights?” Learn Liberty, April 2017.A philosophy professor argues that Rand’s theory of individual rights is subject to three major criticisms.Author InformationStephen R. C. HicksEmail: [email protected] UniversityU. S. A.

There not it’s who vaccine selling death and covert sterilisation"I also looked at their children and wondered why they got so sick. This time the answer came rather quickly and from the mouth of an Aboriginal woman: “Before the white man came, we had good health and no sickness.” –Dr. Archie Kalokorinos"As far as I know disposable needles are still being used in Africa. If I did that here I would immediately be deregistered and probably goaled. In Sept 1993 I purchased a copy of the special edition of Scientific American dedicated to immunology...(it shows) a Nigerian infant being vaccinated. Unfortunately the person doing the vaccinating was using a nondisposable needle!" --Medical Pioneer p. 294. 2000)."One research worker in the laboratory had been immunizing animals against diseases like tetanus and Diptheria. His experience showed that after being immunized, some of the animals died suddenly within 24 hours. These deaths had been attributed to anaphylaxis. Authorities the world over had decided that this was so (it is a severe allergic reaction). I suggested that vitamin C deficiency was the cause. The animals involved did not make their own. Like primates they required it in their diet. To discover the truth only required a simple experiment.....The result was definite, unquestionable and final. Half of a group of animals were supplemented with vitamin C before being immunised. None died. The un-supplemented half continued to die at rates equal to those found in previous experiments.The importance of this discovery can hardly be stressed. In Australia and all over the world, infants were being immunised. Those whose vitamin C status was low were at risk. here, at last, was experimental evidence that supported my claims that stepping up immunisation campaigns among Aboriginal infants increased the death rate.""forced me to look into the question of vaccination further, and the further I looked the more shocked I became. I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instances of these diseases you will realize that this is not so . . .My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business [medicine] is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organization and the unofficial policy of the 'Save the Children's Fund' and ... [other vaccine promoting] organizations is one of murder and genocide. . . . I cannot see any other possible explanation. . . . You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection."--(International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)"It was similar with the measles vaccination. They went through Africa, South America and elsewhere, and vaccinated sick and starving children...They thought they were wiping out measles, but most of those susceptible to measles died from some other disease that they developed as a result of being vaccinated. The vaccination reduced their immune levels and acted like an infection. Many got septicaemia, gastro-enteritis, etcetera, or made their nutritional status worse and they died from malnutrition. So there were very few susceptible infants left alive to get measles. It's one way to get good statistics, kill all those that are susceptible, which is what they literally did." --Dr Kalokerinos, M.D."My book instead proved that HIV - wherever it came from - was a harmless retrovirus that was being used as a cover story to explain/conceal an emerging depopulation operation in the Third World. HIV was also a cover for other agendas outside the Third World. As long as AIDS is the target of WHO/UN "humanitarian" efforts, the actual causes - which are easily reversible - of death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are allowed to remain and fester and expand." Rappoport“Now this next statement should shock everyone, but especially the poor who in any way think that these "vaccinologists" experts have their best interest in mind. Dr. Johnson says on page 17, "We agree that it would be desirable to remove mercury from U.S. licensed vaccines, but we did not agree that this was a universal recommendation that we would make because of the issue concerning preservatives for delivering vaccines to other countries, particularly developing countries, in the absence of hard data that implied that there was in fact a problem."So, here you have it. The data is convincing enough that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice, as well as the regulatory agencies and the CDC along with these organizations all recommend its removal as quickly as possible because of concerns of adverse effects of mercury on brain development, but not for the children in the developing countries. I thought the whole idea of child health programs in the United States directed toward the developing world was to give poor children a better chance in an increasingly competitive world. This policy being advocated would increase the neurodevelopmental problems seen in poor children (also in this country) of developing countries, impairing their ability to learn and develop competitive minds. Remember, there was a representative of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. John Clements, serving on this panel of "experts". He never challenged this statement made by Dr. Johnson.It also needs to be appreciated that children in developing countries are at a much greater risk of complications from vaccinations and from mercury toxicity than children in developed countries. This is because of poor nutrition, concomitant parasitic and bacterial infections and a high incidence of low birth weight in these children. We are now witnessing a disaster in African countries caused by the use of older live virus polio vaccines that has now produced an epidemic of vaccine related polio, that is, polio caused by the vaccine itself. In, fact, in some African countries, polio was not seen until the vaccine was introduced.The WHO and the "vaccinologist experts" from this country now justify a continued polio vaccination program with this dangerous vaccine on the basis that now that they have created the epidemic of polio, they cannot stop the program. In a recent article it was pointed out that this is the most deranged reasoning, since more vaccines will mean more vaccine-related cases of polio. But then, "vaccinologist" have difficulty with these "uncertainties". (Jacob JT. A developing country perspective on vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. Bulletin WHO 2004; 82: 53-58. See commentary by D.M. Salisbury at the end of the article.)” Blaylock"If we look closely, we realise that health for all, according to the WHO, means medicalization and vaccinations for all. That is to say sickness for all."---lanctot md"I was told by this preacher that when the government introduced the National Immunization Days in 1997, most of the children after vaccination started dying. The preacher told me that they had so much death that his cassock, that he wears to go and conduct the burial ceremony, got old. He said "I buried the children and my cassock got old." In the same room there was one mother who had four children, and she hid one and took three other children for vaccination, and three children died and that one survived. Now when I went to do my presentation and I asked most of the people who were there - about two, three thousand people - each person had the same story. .........At the main hospital in Mbarara during that month of 1977 more than 600 children had died following polio vaccination. 600 children ! So even some of the timid medical practitioners who were initially afraid to come out, started coming out giving information and saying 'Oh, we knew this oral polio vaccine was trouble because as soon as the child receives it, they get a temper-ature and their health goes downhill and there is nothing that you could do.' "----“In Africa polio does not kill anybody and they say it's very rare to catch. It's really very rare to get paralytic polio. They say it's in very rare circumstances, so what is it that is killing people in Africa ? Malaria. Every five seconds a child is dying of malaria in Africa. Now to get theories of pdose of life-saving anti-malaria is about $5 but there is no government to give anti-malaria. When somebody gets malaria, if they have no money they even die. So the question I was asking and many people were asking was 'If you really want to help children, why begin with a disease that they don't have ? (applause) Why not look for something that is killing them and save them from what is killing them ?' And then (inaudible) ............. 'you know what, I like you very much. I save your children from this killer disease. Now there are no other diseases apart from this rare polio, so let's go and fight that as well.' But you don't begin with the rarest disease and spend all the government's meagre resources fighting polio, which is not a threat to most people, and then ignore something that is killing them in large numbers like malaria, like AIDS, like cholera, issues to do with sanitation, stunted growth - all the main things that matter to people the government was not fighting.” emphasis added]"The forcing of them to take a vaccine against a disease they know to be harmless and which they know how to cure in its harmful state was seen as government hell bent on killing its own population for the benefit of commanding whiteworld.....Uganda spent nine million of its meager resources marketing this European product (the money spent would have build 120,000 protected water springs giving 30% of the country access to clean water, it would have built ten ultra modern research centers looking at, for example, pests that are threatening the banana crop, but government chose European impose priorities." "-2003“According to government, measles was a threat to national interest, claiming more than 40,000 lives every year (a statistic which is laughable since most people who get measles stay at home and treat it and the majority of sick people go to private clinics that do not keep records this figure was of course trumped up). This of course is a questionable statistic since the majority of deaths in Uganda are not registered and few parents remember any measles death. No point in registering a person once he has died. Forty thousand people are far much less than those killed in Uganda annually due to the civil war, dwarfs the figure for malaria, which kills a child every five second and for which governments is happy to ignore. “"The HPV vaccine has only been tested for five years on possibly as low as 100,000 ten year old girls in Africa."“In the area of the iris that corresponds to the uterus, in three of the girls he saw tissue damage, and in the fourth he saw drug residue. In each of the four cases, on reporting back to the patient what he was observing, he was informed that the girl had recently received the cervical cancer vaccine. All were virgins.Tissue damage in the uterus is what he sees in women who have had such things as abortions and prolapses, and can be a precursor to cancer. It can also cause infertility - as it can prevent the embryo from being able to hold on to the uterus wall. It also often results in lack of sensitivity with sexual intercourse, pain, discomfort and/or frequent discharges.”“Kelly was said to be involved in the apartheid regime’s most secret project. According to a previous London press account, Kelly was involved in Code-named Project Coast, trying to create a genetically engineered weapon to attack only the country's black population and to develop a vaccine to block human fertility in blacks. Dr. Kelly had visited the project's headquarters soon after he was appointed in 1972 to be head of the microbiology department at Porton Down, Britain's top-secret biological warfare establishment in Wiltshire. ““A northern state in Nigeria that is at the heart of a spreading polio outbreak said Sunday that it would not relent on its boycott of a mass vaccination program, which it has called a U.S. plot to spread AIDS and infertility among Muslims ....Kano state officials say their lab tests carried out late last year found estrogen and other female sex hormones in the polio vaccine -- proof, they say, that the vaccines are contaminated.”“Francis Crick, who worked with James Watson to crack the molecular code of DNA, suggested medicating public drinking water to lower the fertility rate. This is decreasing birth rates; it is part of the Depopulation program. Dr. Gary Glum’s book called, Full Disclosure, discussed Francis Crick’s plan. It is very shocking to hear the actual words of Francis Crick. He said 'in 1962 the Seva Foundation held a symposium called “Man and his Future.”' Now, the Seva Foundation is the pharmaceutical company. . . .at which the Keynote Speaker was Francis Crick. His favorite tactics of population control included putting a chemical, which today we know is fluoride that would cause sterility in the water supplies of those nations he judged as “not fit to have children”.............Quoting Francis Crick: This approach may run against Christian ethics, but I do not see why people should have a right to have children. We might be able to achieve remarkable results after 20 or 30 years by limiting reproduction to genetically superior couples. “The Associated Press obtained a copy of the committee's interim report that ruled the vaccines safe. However, it acknowledged the tests showed "trace amounts of estradiol," a form of the female hormone estrogen the vaccine's Muslim detractors claim could cause infertility. ...Muslims in Nigeria's north have been wary of vaccine campaigns since 1996, when families in Kano state accused New York-based Pfizer Inc. of using an experimental meningitis drug without fully informing of the risks.....The company denied any wrongdoing. A U.S. court dismissed a lawsuit by 20 disabled Nigerians who allegedly took part in the study, but a U.S. appeals court later revived it.”“Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply. Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby. Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby. - Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”."At present, we are doing research on the Tetanus Vaccines that were given last March 1994 by our Dept. of Health to women of reproductive age. Many of the women complained of bleeding (miscarriages) and allergies. We got alarmed recently when we received communications from Magally Llaguno that the vaccine in Mexico contained hCG . . . If you have enough [research] papers, could your group do a press release via international press like Reuters so that all countries could be alerted?"“According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is tween 80 “In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80.” (Fertility Impairing Vaccine And Methods of Use’ This application claims the benefit of U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/070,375, filed January 2,1998, U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/071,406, filed January 15,1998.) ““The current research on the stabilizer Tween 80 reveals the following: “Neonatal female rats were injected ip (0.1 ml/rat) with Tween 80 in 1, 5 or 10 percent aqueous solution on days 4-7 after birth. Treatment with Tween 80 accelerated maturation, prolonged the oestrus cycle, and induced persistent vaginal oestrus. The relative weight of the uterus and ovaries was decreased relative to the untreated controls. Squamous cell metaplasia of the epithelial lining of the uterus and cytological changes in the uterus were indicative of chronic oestrogenic stimulation. Ovaries were without corpora lutea, and had degenerative follicles.” ~ PMID: 8473002. Female lab rats injected with Tween 80 developed impaired sexual organs as well as premature development of their sexual organs.”"Previous studies by Gajdova et al. have shown that polysorbate 80 (also known as Tween 80) administered by intraperitoneal injection to neonatal female rats on days 4-7 after birth produced estrogenic effects including earlier vaginal opening, prolongation of the estrus cycle and persistent vaginal estrus. Some of these effects were evident many weeks after cessation of administration of polysorbate 80." [Gajdova et al - "Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tween 80 on female reproductive organs in rats." Food Chem Toxicol 31(3):183-90 (1993) Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, Limbova, Bratislava.] ““Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tween 80 on female reproductive organs in rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 1993 Mar;31(3):183-90. PMID: 8473002 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Neonatal female rats were injected ip (0.1 ml/rat) with Tween 80 in 1, 5 or 10% aqueous solution on days 4-7 after birth. Treatment with Tween 80 accelerated maturation, prolonged the oestrus cycle, and induced persistent vaginal oestrus. The relative weight of the uterus and ovaries was decreased relative to the untreated controls. Squamous cell metaplasia of the epithelial lining of the uterus and cytological changes in the uterus were indicative of chronic oestrogenic stimulation. Ovaries were without corpora lutea, and had degenerative follicles. PMID: 8473002 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]“Administration of tetanus toxoid (either as TT or Td) in mass campaigns is generally as part of a high risk approach delivering the vaccine to women of childbearing age in a given locality............. 5 doses of tetanus toxoid for women of child-bearing age as for non-HIV infected personsadded emphasis)"One CFR published policy objective is substantial worldwide depopulation including half of the current U.S. population being targeted. This population reduction program is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merck Fund, both financially and administratively linked to the Merck pharmaceutical company--the world's leading vaccine manufacturer........Records show the Merck pharmaceutical company received a major share of the Nazi "flight capital" at the close of World War II when its president, George W. Merck, was America's biological weapons industry director. These facts were revealed by Norman Covert, Army public relations director at Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD, and veteran news correspondent Paul Manning in his book "Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile" (Lyle Stuart, Inc, 1981). "“An astonishing journal paper. 1 November, 1993. FASEB Journal, volume 7, pp.1381-1385. Authors—Stephan Dirnhofer et al. Dirnhofer is from the Institute for Biomedical Aging Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. A quote from the paper: "Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization)."A birth control vaccine? What? Yes. A vaccine whose purpose is to achieve non-pregnancy where it ordinarily could occur.Sterilization? This particular vaccine is apparently just one of several anti-fertility vaccines the Task Force is promoting. Yes. There is a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines at WHO. This journal paper focuses on a hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin B (hCG). There is a heading in the paper (p.1382) called "Ability of antibodies to neutralize the biological activity of hCG." The authors are trying to discover whether a state of no-fertility can be achieved by blocking the normal activity of hCG. They state, "We conclude from our results that both the efficacy and safety of the WHO vaccine are not yet ensured."Another journal paper. The British Medical Bulletin, volume 49,1993. "Contraceptive Vaccines" is the title of the paper. The authors—RJ Aitken et al. From the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK."Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials [human trials testing efficacy], involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotro-phin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered ... incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides... Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG anti­bodies. However, the long-term consequences of such immu nity in terms of safety or efficacy are, as yet, unknown...The authors are talking about creating an immune response against a female hormone....The authors state, "The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone mat signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system."......Ownership of All Life p66)"In 1995, a Catholic human rights organization called Human Life International accused the WHO of promoting a Canadian-made tetanus vaccine laced with a pregancy hormone called human choriogonadotropic hormone (HCG). Suspicions were aroused when the tetanus vaccine was prescribed in the unusual dose of five multiple injections over a three month period, and recommended only to women of reproductive age. When an unusual number of women experienced vaginal bleeding and miscarriages after the shots, a hormone additive was uncovered as the cause.Apparently the WHO has been developing and testing anti-fertility vaccines for over two decades. Women receiving the laced tetanus shot not only developed antibodies to tetanus, but they also developed dangerous antibodies to the pregnancy hormone as well. Without this HCG hormone the growth of the fetus is impaired. Consequently, the laced vaccine served as a covert contraceptive device. Commissioned to analyze the vaccine, the Philippines Medical Association found that 20 percent of the WHO tetanus vaccines were contaminated with the hormone. Not surprisingly, the WHO has denied all accusations as "completely false and without basis," and the major media have never reported on the controversy. For futher details on this issue, consult the Human Life International website”"Non Voluntary Vaccinations of Akha Women. Possibility of link to In-utero deaths among Akha women which are frequent in this region. This vaccination given twice to three times during pregnancy. Akha women in Thailand say that if they object they are told that they will not be given identity papers for their child when born."” scientists have indeed found a way of “lowering the dosage” of gossypol, circumventing the toxicity of the substance, so as to suppress or even eliminate these “undesirable side-effects”, which include: low blood potassium levels, fatigue, muscle weakness and even paralysis. If these effects could be eliminated without reducing the anti-fertility effects, the Foundation figured, it would be a highly effective and almost undetectable sterilant. Although overtly, research into and development of gossypol as an anti-fertility compound was abandoned in the late 1990s, the cottonseed containing the substance was especially selected for mass distribution in the beginning of the current decade. Around 2006 a media-campaign was launched, saying the cottonseed could help defeat hunger and poverty. ”“ ….gossypol as a contraceptive was also elaborated upon (page 22): “Gossypol, a natural substance found in the cotton plant, continues to show promise as an oral contraceptive for men. Because it suppresses sperm production without affecting sex hormone levels, it is unique among the experimental approaches to fertility control in men. Foundation-funded scientists worldwide have assembled an aray of information about how gossypol works, and studies continue on a wide variety of its clinical applications. Dose reduction is being investigated to reduce health risks associated with the use of gossypol.” [“ Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, ……“a leading contraceptive researcher as saying: “Immunological birth control methods will be an ‘antigenic weapon’ against the reproductive process, which left unchecked, threatens to swamp the world.” .,,, wasn’t long before all the Foundation’s efforts began to have effect. In its …..The RF was happy to report the progress made by the Foundation’s Population Division in the field of anti-fertility vaccines: “India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”“ Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her……,“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.” ….. its …..Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor: “The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

Early Decision Can Help You Edge Out Your CompetitionBy Peterson's Staff Monday, March 21, 2016Does getting early decision mean an automatic entry into college? This article helps you find out the truth about ED applicants.There's a lot of hype floating around that some schools accept almost all of their incoming freshmen from their pool of Early Decision (ED) applicants. While it's true that there may be a higher acceptance rate among the early action pool, this doesn’t necessarily hold true at every school, nor does it mean that all the spots get filled up early. (It also doesn't mean that all schools even have early acceptance options, because some schools are doing away with them altogether.)Realistically, all schools only have so many openings set aside for the incoming class, and they want to give those spots to the best candidates possible. If they give away every bed they have by December, then they won't have room to accept the Colorado State Spelling Bee Champion who applies in February. Some schools hedge their bets just as some students do when applying to college. They may defer a portion of their ED applicants so they can eyeball what comes across their application desks later in the year.Early admission by the numbersIt’s generally true that many of the most exclusive schools are the ones most likely to offer Early Decision admission options, and research supports the buzz that you stand a better chance of scoring a coveted spot by applying early. On average, 25 to 50 percent of the freshman classes at these schools come from ED applicants. (Those numbers could be higher, depending on the school.) However, that means that come springtime, although there’s still another 50 to 75 percent of the class to accept, you’ll be competing against a much larger pool of applicants and your chances of getting accepted are lower. So, statistically speaking, a larger percentage of the ED applicants are accepted than of the applicants who apply during the normal timeline.There are a few schools who accept a very large majority of their incoming class from their early admission applicants, and the only way to know if your choice school is among those is to do your research. Ask the school directly about their admission statistics to get a better picture of your chances of acceptance and discuss what this means with your school guidance counselor. In some cases, an Early Decision application really may be the only way to edge out your competition. Before you send off that paperwork, make sure one more time it’s what you want since an early acceptance under ED means you have entered into a binding agreement to attend that school and you can’t apply anywhere else.Keep in mind as well that some schools, Ivy League included, are starting to do away with early application options altogether. Harvard and Princeton no longer offer the option of applying early and there are a number of schools that are considering doing away with their policies as well. There are several reasons for doing so, but the gist of their reasoning is that it skews the playing field and leaves a number of students at a distinct disadvantage when application time rolls around. Schools that are doing away with early application procedures hope to soothe the competitive nature of "getting in" and allow everyone the opportunity to apply at the same time and under the same conditions.Early action and financial aidIf you’re like most students, finances probably play an important role in making your final decision about where to apply. As part of your decision process about ED, you should meet with your choice school's financial aid office as early as your junior year. You’ll be able to get an idea if the school is an economically viable choice or if it’s just too far out of the ballpark.Ask your parents to bring their tax forms so they can get an idea of their likely Expected Family Contribution, and you can find out ahead of time what financial aid you’re likely to receive. By checking it out early on, you can avoid the wrenching disappointment of getting in but not being able to go. Acceptance decisions for early action applicants show up in your mailbox months before you hear from the Financial Aid office.Early admission and youSo what does all this mean? Should you apply for Early Decision at a school that you’re considering? Not unless you are 100 percent absolutely, positively certain that it’s THE school that you want to attend above all others. However, just because you really want to go there doesn’t mean you should feel like you have to apply early, either. Early application is really only a good tactic when you and the school are truly well matched. In a nutshell, don’t waste their time or yours if you’re not really sure it’s your top choice or if there is a strong likelihood you won’t get accepted.If you decide to go for it, give your all to that crucial essay by emphasizing your strengths and vividly describing what makes the school a perfect fit for you. Schools that have Early Decision options want to accept ED applicants because they are usually the most qualified and most sought-after students, and they are students who are communicating that by applying as ED, they really want to get in to that school. Admission committees look favorably upon excellent candidates who desire nothing more than to be a part of their student body. If it’s a competitive school, you fit the profile, and you really have your heart set on it, then by all means, apply Early Decision and better your chances of being able to call it your alma mater.Early Decision & Early ActionThe benefits and drawbacks of applying earlyEarly decision (ED) and early action (EA) plans can be beneficial to students — but only to those who have thought through their college options carefully and have a clear preference for one institution.Early decision versus early actionEarly decision plans are binding — a student who is accepted as an ED applicant must attend the college. Early action plans are nonbinding — students receive an early response to their application but do not have to commit to the college until the normal reply date of May 1. Counselors need to make sure that students understand this key distinction between the two plans.Approximately 450 colleges have early decision or early action plans, and some have both. Some colleges offer a nonbinding option called single-choice early action, under which applicants may not apply ED or EA to any other college.ED plans have come under fire as unfair to students from families with low incomes, since they do not have the opportunity to compare financial aid offers. This may give an unfair advantage to applicants from families who have more financial resources.ED applicantsApply early (usually in November) to first-choice college.Receive an admission decision from the college well in advance of the usual notification date (usually by December).Agree to attend the college if accepted and offered a financial aid package that is considered adequate by the family.Apply to only one college early decision.Apply to other colleges under regular admission plans.Withdraw all other applications if accepted by ED.Send a nonrefundable deposit well in advance of May 1.EA applicantsApply early.Receive an admission decision early in the admission cycle (usually in January or February).Consider acceptance offer; do not have to commit upon receipt.Apply to other colleges under regular admission plans.Give the college a decision no later than the May 1 national response date.Who should apply early?Applying to an ED or EA plan is most appropriate for a student who:Has researched colleges extensively.Is absolutely sure that the college is the first choice.Has found a college that is a strong match academically, socially and geographically.Meets or exceeds the admission profile for the college for SAT® scores, GPA and class rank.Has an academic record that has been consistently solid over time.Applying to an ED or EA plan is not appropriate for a student who:Has not thoroughly researched colleges.Is applying early just to avoid stress and paperwork.Is not fully committed to attending the college.Is applying early only because friends are.Needs a strong senior fall semester to bring grades up.Encourage students who want to apply early to fill out NACAC's Early Decision Self-Evaluation Questionnaire, in the Deciding About Early Decision and Early Action handout. You may want to share this with parents as well.The benefits of applying earlyFor a student who has a definite first-choice college, applying early has many benefits besides possibly increasing the chance of getting in. Applying early lets the student:Reduce stress by cutting the time spent waiting for a decision.Save the time and expense of submitting multiple applications.Gain more time, once accepted, to look for housing and otherwise prepare for college.Reassess options and apply elsewhere if not accepted.The drawbacks of applying earlyPressure to decide: Committing to one college puts pressure on students to make serious decisions before they've explored all their options.Reduced financial aid opportunities: Students who apply under ED plans receive offers of admission and financial aid simultaneously and so will not be able to compare financial aid offers from other colleges. For students who absolutely need financial aid, applying early may be a risky option.Time crunch for other applications: Most colleges do not notify ED and EA applicants of admission until December 15. Because of the usual deadlines for applications, this means that if a student is rejected by the ED college, there are only two weeks left to send in other applications. Encourage those of your students who are applying early to prepare other applications as they wait to receive admission decisions from their first-choice college.Senioritis: Applicants who learn early that they have been accepted into a college may feel that, their goal accomplished, they have no reason to work hard for the rest of the year. Early-applying students should know that colleges may rescind offers of admission should their senior-year grades drop.Students and parents can use our Pros and Cons of Applying to College Early, in the Deciding About Early Decision and Early Action handout, to weigh their options.Does applying early increase the chance of acceptance?Many students believe applying early means competing with fewer applicants and increasing their chances for acceptance. This is not always true. Colleges vary in the proportion of the class admitted early and in the percentage of early applicants they admit.Higher admission rates for ED applicants may correlate to stronger profiles among candidates choosing ED. Students should ask the admission office whether their institution's admission standards differ between ED and regular applicants, and then assess whether applying early makes sense given their own profile.The ethics of applying early decisionThe Common Application and some colleges' application forms require the student applying under early decision, as well as the parent and counselor, to sign an ED agreement form spelling out the plan's conditions.Make it clear in your school handbook and at college planning events that your policy for early-decision applications is to send the student's final transcript to one college only: anything else is unethical.Keep in mindED and EA program specifics vary, so students should get information as soon as possible directly from the admission staff at their first-choice college.ED and EA applicants must take the October SAT or SAT Subject Tests™ in order for these scores to make it to the college in time.Print out and share the Early Decision and Early Action Calendar with students and parents to be sure they are aware of all the required steps for applying early.Related DownloadsWhat to Know About Applying EarlyEarly Decision and Early Action CalendarA college-admissions edge for the wealthy: Early decisionBy Nick Anderson March 31, 2016Nathan Hanshew, 17, a senior at Washington Latin Public Charter School, is embraced by the head of the school, Martha C. Cutts, after learning that he received a full-ride scholarship to attend George Washington University. GW President Steven Knapp, at lower right, visited the school March 17 to make the surprise announcement. (Logan Werlinger/GW Today)Many of the nation’s top colleges draw more than 40 percent of their incoming freshmen through an early-application system that favors the wealthy, luring students to commit to enroll if they get in and shutting out those who want the chance to compare offers of grants and scholarships.The binding-commitment path known as “early decision” fills roughly half of the freshman seats at highly ranked Vanderbilt, Emory, Northwestern and Tufts universities, as well as Davidson, Bowdoin, Swarthmore and Claremont McKenna colleges, among others, a Washington Post analysis found.The Post found 37 schools where the early-decision share of enrolled freshmen in 2015 was at least 40 percent. At Duke University, the share was 47 percent, and at the University of Pennsylvania, it was 54 percent.[Sortable table: See the details of the early decision advantage]The rising influence of early-decision enrollment underscores a stark and growing divide in college admissions between the masses of students who apply to multiple schools through the “regular” process in quest of the best fit and deal and a privileged subset who apply early and simultaneously pledge to attend just one, without fear of cost, at a time when the sticker price for private schools often tops $60,000 a year. Call them the Shoppers and the Pledgers.College admissions: The Early Decision advantageNathan Hanshew, 17, a senior at Washington Latin Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., said he applied to a dozen schools but did not opt for early decision anywhere.“That was too risky,” he said. “You’re stuck in a bond, like a marital bond.”Shopping around paid off hugely for Hanshew, a Polish immigrant, who learned March 17 in a surprise announcement in front of cheering classmates that he won a full-ride scholarship from George Washington University.Kate Morrison (Family photo)Kate Morrison, 17, a senior at Walt Whitman High School in Montgomery County, Md., said she was drawn to Bowdoin after a soccer coach there encouraged her to apply early. She visited the Maine college last spring. “I just loved it so much,” she said. “I was really, really content.” No athletic scholarship, no financial aid. But she applied early decision in the fall and was admitted Dec. 11. Her search was done.This week, angst is cresting for traditional applicants as prestigious colleges finalize who’s in and who’s out. Ivy League decisions are scheduled to be released Thursday evening. But admitted early-decision students are tranquil; they’ve known for months where they’re going to college. Early-decision applicants also enjoy a crucial edge over the regulars: Their admission rates tend to be much higher. That’s because schools want good students who really want them, and they want to lock them down.At Penn, the admission rate for early applicants was 24 percent for the class that entered in 2015. The total admission rate, early and regular, was 10 percent. Eric Furda, Penn’s dean of admissions, said the academic credentials of students who win early admission tend to be stronger than those admitted later in the cycle. Furda also said more early-decision students than ever are qualifying for need-based financial aid.“This pool is becoming broader and deeper and more diverse than it’s ever been. It’s time to start telling that story,” Furda said. “I don’t want lower-income families to be told, ‘Don’t apply early decision because you’re going to need to compare financial-aid packages.'” These days, nearly as many early-decision freshmen receive need-based grants from Penn as their peers admitted in the regular cycle, he said.The Post reviewed 2015 admissions data for 64 schools as reported through a questionnaire called the Common Data Set. The analysis covered top-60 schools on U.S. News and World Report lists of liberal arts colleges and national universities, and it found 48 schools in which early-decision admits comprised at least a third of the total enrolled class and 16 in which they comprised at least half.[U.S. News college ranking trends 2015]While most early-decision admits enroll, a few do not. The most common reason: If a financial aid offer is deemed insufficient, an admitted student may be released from their pledge.Within the Ivy League, Penn appears to be the most aggressive user of the early process. The early-decision share of freshmen at Dartmouth College was about 43 percent. At Brown and Cornell universities, it was about 38 percent. Columbia University, which also uses early decision, is the only Ivy League school that refuses to make public its Common Data Set reports.Harvard, Yale and Princeton universities also allow students to apply early, but they do not require admitted students to decide on enrollment until May 1. That technique, which enables comparison shopping, is known as “early action.” Stanford, the University of Chicago, MIT and hundreds of other schools use early action.Georgetown University’s longtime dean of admissions, Charles Deacon, said he favors early action because students should be as sure in May of where they want to attend as they were in November. He calls it a “student-centered” approach to admissions, in contrast to “enrollment management” techniques in vogue at many schools.“No matter what anybody tells you, the early pool favors those who are more advantaged,” Deacon said. “They’re the ones who have been better advised. They know more from their families. There’s an advantage, for sure, and that plays itself out particularly at the early level.”Early decision, which developed gradually among elite schools from the late 1950s through the 1970s, has drawn criticism in recent years, earning a critique in a 2001 Atlantic article headlined “The Early-Decision Racket.” In 2006, the public University of Virginia announced that it was ending an early-decision program in an effort to attract more low-income students. It now uses early action.“For us, the early-action plan makes the most sense,” U-Va. dean of admission Greg Roberts said. “And it’s more in line with our values and enrollment goals.” Most top-tier schools with early decision are private. An exception is the public College of William and Mary, in Virginia.[Nation’s prominent public universities are shifting to out-of-state students]Though some schools have spurned the practice, the volume of early-decision applications to elite schools is growing, and some of them are filling a larger share of their seats with those applicants, making it far more difficult to get in during the normal cycle.At Williams College, a premier liberal arts school in Massachusetts, a little more than 40 percent of freshmen come through early decision. Williams President Adam Falk said early decision provides stability for the college in what can be a volatile market, and it provides peace of mind for successful applicants who can then leave “an insane-feeling rat race” during their senior year of high school.Jon Reider, a former Stanford admissions officer who counsels students at San Francisco University High School, said that 15 years ago, early decision was not a central part of most of his advising conversations. Now it is. Another important variable is that ultra-selective Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Yale are “single-choice” early-action schools, meaning that students may not apply early to any other private school, with few exceptions. So students must weigh their top choice carefully, and it can feel like making a life-altering gamble.But the calculations are much more complex than a simple ranking of choice, Reider said. Sometimes admission to that first-choice school is so tough to obtain, even in an early application, that it makes more sense to apply early decision to a second choice, or even a third choice. “You’ve got one chip,” Reider said. “One card to play. It’s an absolutely crazy system.”Even more bewildering: Some schools offer two rounds of early decision. Some — the University of Miami, for example — offer two rounds of early decision and early action.Charlotte Smith (Family photo)Charlotte Smith, 17, a senior at Walt Whitman High, put her early-decision chip on Wake Forest University, in North Carolina. Her application was deferred into the regular pool. For many applicants, that is demoralizing. For Smith, it was a relief.“I’m actually glad,” Smith said last week as she had several applications pending and some offers in hand, including some with scholarships. It’s hard in November, she said, “to pick one school and say this has everything I want.” As students, she said, “we’re still trying on different versions of ourselves.”Micah Guthrie, 17, a senior at Washington Latin, is shooting for liberal arts colleges but not through early decision. “I make a lot of my decisions last minute,” he said. In the fall, he said, “I really didn’t know a lot about a lot of colleges.”Grade Point newsletterNews and issues affecting higher education.Sign upMicah Guthrie (Nick Anderson/The Washington Post)Among his targets is Davidson, advertised on a sweatshirt he wore to school the other day. His mother, Michelle Guthrie, a registrar at Washington Latin, said money is a factor wherever he gets accepted. “We’ll make it happen,” she said. “But I’m hoping some scholarships come with those choices, too.”Davidson had the highest share of early-decision admits in its entering class among colleges The Post analyzed: about 60 percent. Davidson said it is firmly committed to access, with half of the early-decision students who were admitted qualifying for need-based financial aid. That is nearly the same as the share in regular admissions who receive need-based aid. The small college, which has a robust NCAA Division I sports program, said it also relies heavily on early decision for athletic recruiting.A few years ago, the share of early-decision students entering Emory was less than 40 percent, said John Latting, the university’s dean of admission. Now two rounds of early decision fill about half of Emory’s class. Latting said the volume of early-decision applications has doubled in the past four or five years.“Mostly what’s going on is an unbelievably competitive marketplace” for top students, he said. “Early programs bring some calm to what is otherwise a frenzy.”Latting said Emory uses financial aid aggressively to ensure it enrolls a diverse class. About 20 percent of freshmen have enough financial need to qualify for federal Pell grants, a sizeable share for a private university. But Latting acknowledged that early-decision applicants, the Pledgers, tend to be more affluent than the regulars, the Shoppers. That creates added pressure on schools hunting for more students from low-income families.“I wouldn’t for a minute say this is the right system for the nation,” Latting said.Read more:At some colleges, your gender might give you an admissions edgeInside the admissions process at George Washington UniversityColleges often give discounts to the rich. Here’s one that gave up on ‘merit aid.’Meet the man behind the new SAT: ‘I’m in the anxiety field.’https://www.iecaonline.com/PDF/IECA_Library_ED-vs-RD-Acceptances.pdfEarly Admission Ivy League Schools 2016-12STRATEGYEarly acceptance rates to Ivy League schools are drastically higher than regular — but the reason why isn't as obvious as it seemsAbby JacksonDec. 21, 2016, 2:51 PM6,213The figures may look a little out of sync with regular decision acceptance rates to those who follow admissions trends.Courtesy of Stefan StoykovThe Ivy League classes of 2021 are one step closer to attending the school of their dreams.Last week, every Ivy League school, with the exception of Columbia University, reported the number of students who applied and were accepted early this year, giving a glimpse into the college choices of tens of thousands of students.The figures may look a little out of sync with acceptance rates released during the spring.Harvard reported the lowest acceptance rate of the bunch, with 14.5% of applicants gaining acceptance. That's nearly three times higher (meaning more students were able to gain acceptance) than last spring's acceptance rate of 5.2%, which includes both the early and regular decision applicants.Business InsiderHarvard isn't the only school where early application percentage rates are drastically higher than rates released in spring.To give you an idea of where the University stands in comparison to its peers, below are the decision acceptance rates for the class of 2020, released last spring:8. Cornell University — 13.96%7. Dartmouth College — 10.52%6. University of Pennsylvania — 9.41%5. Brown University — 9.01%4. Princeton University — 6.46%3. Yale University — 6.27%2. Columbia University — 6.04%1. Harvard University — 5.2%Every single Ivy League school, by a factor of two or three, appears easier to access when applying early. The contrast appears even starker if you were to isolate just the regular decision rate from the early decision rate, though all of the Ivies announce their spring numbers as a combination of the two.So what gives?Harvard UniversityMarcio Jose Bastos Silva / ShutterstockIvy admissions offices emphasize that the reason it appears easier to get into schools during early admissions is more a factor of the strength of the applicant pool rather than an ease of acceptance.In other words, students who apply early to Harvard are probably better qualified compared the larger applicant pool, and more confident in their chances of being admitted."We have continued to stress to applicants, their families, and their guidance counselors that there is no advantage in applying early to Harvard," William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, said, in a release from Harvard. "The reason students are admitted – early or during the Regular Action process – is that their academic, extracurricular, and personal strengths are extraordinary."Harvard releases a survey on incoming freshman every year that provides details on the makeup of the class. For the Class 2019 — the most recent survey conducted— the survey indicated that students admitted early had higher SAT scores than regular admissions students, on average. Early admissions students scored an average 2239, compared to 2217 for regular admissions.Still, schools certainly find early applicants attractive as they can lock in a higher "yield" — the number of admitted students who decide to go to the college. Early decision is binding, and early action means that students are only allowed to apply to one school early (though they can apply regular decision to other schools) and then make their final choice in the spring.Some higher education experts feel that there is certainly an advantage to applying early, and that its practice is troubling, as it disproportionately helps wealthier students. The early admissions process is not possible for students who need to weigh the different financial aid packages they are offered before making a decision.Early admissions "significantly disadvantages students from low-income and middle-income families, who are already underrepresented at such schools," columnist Frank Bruni wrote in The New York Times.Still, it doesn't seem that the early admissions process is going anywhere soon. The Ivy League had a record number of early applications this year, and, more broadly, about 450 American colleges accept early applicants.The Ivy League has released early-application acceptance rates — here's where they all standAbby Jackson and Andy KierszDec. 16, 2016, 12:09 PMThe Ivy League classes of 2021 are one step closer to attending the school of their dreams.Almost every Ivy League school reported the number of students who had applied and were accepted early this year, giving a glimpse into the college choices of tens of thousands of students.Business InsiderHarvard reported the lowest acceptance rate of the bunch, with 14.5% of applicants gaining acceptance versus 14.8% last year. Applications at the school were up by 5% from the previous year, with 6,473, an increase from 6,167, according to a representative for the school.Applications were up across the board. The biggest jump in application numbers came from Princeton University, which reported 4,229 early applications last year and 5,003 this year, an 18% increase year-over-year.Early applications come with some stipulations. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are restrictive early-action schools, meaning applicants can apply to only one school early but have until May to accept.Brown University, Columbia University (which does not release acceptance figures), Cornell University, Dartmouth College, and University of Pennsylvania are all early-decision schools, which means students must go there if they get accepted.Check out the number of early applications to each Ivy League school this year below:Brown University — 3,170 applications, 695 acceptancesColumbia University — 4,086 applications, does not release acceptance figuresCornell University — 5,384 applications, 1,378 acceptancesDartmouth College — 1999 applications, 555 acceptancesHarvard University — 6,473 applications, 938 acceptancesUniversity of Pennsylvania — 6,147 applications, 1,354 acceptancesPrinceton University — 5,033 applications, 770 acceptancesYale University — 5,086 applications, 871 acceptancesHarvard just released its early admissions decisions — here's how many students got inAbby JacksonDec. 13, 2016, 5:32 PMHarvard University released the early action decisions for the class of 2021 on Tuesday. Flickr / Sam S.Harvard University released the early action decisions for the class of 2021 on Tuesday.Applications at the school were up 5% from the previous year, with 6,473, compared to 6,167, a spokesperson for the school confirmed.Of those applicants, 14.5% gained acceptances, versus 14.8% last year."Early admission appears to be the 'new normal' now – as more students are applying early to Harvard and peer institutions than ever before," William R. Fitzsimmons, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, said, in a release from Harvard."At the same time, we have continued to stress to applicants, their families, and their guidance counselors that there is no advantage in applying early to Harvard," he continued. "The reason students are admitted – early or during the Regular Action process – is that their academic, extracurricular, and personal strengths are extraordinary."Harvard is an early action school, meaning that students can only apply to one school early, and have until May to decide if they want to accept. This policy differs from early decision, which requires a student to attend a school if they gain admission.Regular decision Harvard applicants will find out their admissions status in the spring.