Debating Early Admission

Michael Dannenberg: YES -- It does more harm than good

Let’s face it: Early decision exists to help colleges manage their enrollment. Its secondary purpose is to provide students with advance certainty as to their college plans. But early decision discriminates structurally against low-income students. It has a disparate impact that harms minority students. And it contributes to the college application frenzy. Its most vocal proponents are private college admission counselors who charge families up to $30,000 each for advice on how to game the system. Colleges should step up and end the practice of binding early decision.

Savvy poor and working-class students don’t apply early decision because they need to compare financial aid packages, and a binding early decision in fall prevents financial aid comparisons in spring. Upper-income students, on the other hand, face little problem with financial aid comparisons. In fact, according to Harvard professor Christopher Avery, early decision applicants are 50 percent less likely to apply for financial aid as compared to regular decision students.

Minority students, who are disproportionately low-income and often attend poorly resourced public schools with few guidance counselors, are unlikely even to be aware of the early decision option. According to Avery, the early decision pool at 15 of the most elite colleges is three times as white as the regular decision pool. University of North Carolina (UNC) reports 82 percent of its early decision applicants were white, compared with 61 percent of regular applicants. Out of concern for diversity, UNC has dropped binding early decision for a nonbinding early action program.

Students know that applying early is an advantage because college admission officers tell them so. Even those applying regular decision are told to get their applications in early because rolling regular admission slots fill quickly and later decisions become more competitive. Avery’s study, backed up with research by former Princeton president Bill Bowen, finds that applying early is worth the equivalent of 100 extra points on the SAT. So, more and more upper-income kids feel pressure to apply early and lock in four-year college decisions before they’re ready. Those who don’t are punished.

College admission officers willing to go to the mat for diversity and fairness, as well as those who want to help kids to make the right choices, should get their institutions to end early decision. U.S. News & World Report dropped it from its rankings. UNC, Yale and Stanford eliminated it. This summer, the University of Delaware quietly followed suit. All colleges should do the same. It’s the right thing to do.

Steven Roy Goodman: NO -- It gives students more choices.

The students and families I guide through the admissions process each year like to learn admissions decisions as soon as possible. Early decisions are good for students, high schools, colleges and the nation.

For students: Binding and nonbinding early notification gives students an opportunity to finish the admissions process earlier. High school students with settled college plans can turn to academic and extracurricular activities without worrying about their impact on college applications. In most cases, early decision also improves a student’s chances of admission.

Early admissions gives students and parents more time to explore alternative college options and secure the funds necessary to attend a particular college. Low- and middle-income students for whom financial aid awards are overwhelmingly determinant of where they attend cannot be forced to accept early admissions offers unaccompanied by good faith financial aid packages.

For high schools: School administrators, particularly high school guidance counselors, are besieged, sometimes seeing more than 900 students per counselor. Early admissions programs streamline the college admissions process, freeing counselors to handle fewer recommendations, carefully advise more students, and keep up with changes in the admissions world.

For colleges: Early notification programs are very precise enrollment management tools. Colleges spend millions of dollars every year trying to recruit students who may or may not be interested in particular schools. Colleges that reserve a third of their incoming class for early decision applicants can regain some of the predictability of the process, in terms of numbers of incoming students and needed tuition revenue.

For the United States: It is in our interest as a country to have stable universities that are fiscally healthy. We want universities that, through the free market of ideas, attract people willing to contribute at least some of their own resources to their education. We also want Americans of all socioeconomic strata to have access to universities with the ability to deliver academic programs that are increasingly needed in our global society.

Early decision tests the market positions of various colleges and communicates these shifting realities to prospective students and parents. Students can then make use of this information to seek better financial aid packages earlier in the process. Giving prospective students and families more time to negotiate with colleges helps keep universities honest and healthy. This, in the long run, helps us all.