The 2000s mark the renaissance of the early college application.
It feels as though we’ve seen everything: early decision (ED), early action (EA), restrictive early action (REA), rolling admissions (RA). The list of ways to apply to college goes on.
The first whispers of these early admission plans arose in the 1950s, as Harvard, Princeton and Yale introduced the “ABC system.” Under this program, admissions officers would visit high schools who traditionally got a lot of students into their top-tier institutions.
The officers would talk to students, look through transcripts, and engage with counselors to finally give each prospective student a ranking of A, B or C. A student marked with a C was unlikely to be admitted, a B was possible, and an A was likely.
In a 2001 interview with The Atlantic Karl Fusternberg, then Dean of Admissions at Dartmouth College, said that the ABC system “gave students from certain backgrounds a lot of access. It reflected the privileged relationships that existed.”
A more modern look at early admission emerged in the late 1950s as Amherst, Bowdoin, Dartmouth, Wesleyan, and Williams allied to offer early decision in the context that we now think of it: a higher chance of getting in coupled with compulsory commitment to attend.
We arrived at the now widespread phenomenon of early decision somewhere in the mid-1990s as the children of the Baby Boomers began applying to college, marking an expanded applicant pool and jump in prosperity.
As colleges and universities became more selective, admissions officers were faced with more difficult decisions in choosing students.
In the view of The Academy Life Editorial Board, these tough decisions have been wrongly remedied by the implementation of early decision as the sole form of early admission to a given college. Though colleges are businesses and have little responsibility to do right by their prospective students, institutions are undermining diversity on their own campuses by selecting binding early decision as their only early option.
It is true, of course, that the ultimate goal of any college or university is to generate income. Schools are organized to make classes as strong as they can—by whatever means necessary—and early decision makes a lot of sense from that perspective.
You will almost never have to wonder whether an early decision applicant will attend the school they applied to. The point of applying early is that you have a preference, and colleges will hopefully see that and extend preference to you.
Though most schools cite higher early decision acceptance rates as a facet of a stronger applicant pool, many argue that there are other distinct advantages to applying early. Whether it is a better read on your application due to a smaller pool of applicants, the peace of mind of knowing your status earlier, or just being able to finish your most important application by November 1, there are clear and sizable benefits.
This said, we as an editorial board believe that the early decision application hurts both applicants and the institution in question.
Since early decision is a binding admissions plan, students who are accepted must attend, barring any insurmountable financial difficulties. It is generally noted that denying an offer of admission at the school you applied early decision to will not only hurt your chances at other schools, it could also hurt the chances of future applicants from your school getting of into your ED pick.
The issue with the “binding” plan is that financial aid becomes less of a bargaining chip. Applicants in the regular decision pool can evaluate the financial aid packages that they’ve been offered and decide on a school to attend that way. Early decision applicants must take whatever financial aid package they are offered.
This concept severely restricts the type of student who is able to apply to a school early decision. Since there are no guarantees of any kind of aid, it is advised that students make sure they will be able to afford the college that they are applying to if admitted. This chokes the applicant pool by ensuring that students of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to apply early.
We believe that this situation is detrimental to both the students and the university. In the past few years, we’ve seen schools across the nation trumpet their dedication to diversity. Many of these schools are the same ones who choose to strangle their applicant pool by offering early decision.
If colleges could come together to offer one kind of early admission option–Restrictive Early Action, which allows students to apply non-binding to any one institution early–they would all benefit from a more diverse student body.
Though this goal may seem lofty, it would allow schools to maintain many of the same advantages that early decision offers them. If students could only apply to one school early, they would definitely be applying to their top choice. This ensures that admissions officers don’t have to worry about the motives of the students applying.
Not every student who received an early acceptance letters would attend, but the majority of them would. Then those whose financial aid packages were not high enough would not be bound to try and “make it work” financially. This would allow students who were not confident that their families would be able to afford their top-choice school to evaluate their options more fully before committing. It would also allow students who did not think that they would be ably to pay for a college, but were then granted enough aid to do so, to attend their dream school.
It is important to note that this point of contention only surfaces at the most selective colleges, so this is a targeted issue. In the age of the most competitive college admissions to ever exist, however, a rapidly increasing number of students are facing with this tough decision.
Although colleges have no responsibility to make the process of applying any easier, they would help their own student bodies if they would take a step back reevaluate the actual impacts of early decision.
