EARLY decision seems great. It allows students to receive acceptances in December (and slack off for the rest of senior year) while also traditionally increasing the applicant's odds of receiving admission.
However, it is no coincidence that a number of prestigious universities have ended their early decision programs in favor of a single-choice early action program. Early decision programs bias against the less affluent while adding unnecessary pressure to the college decision process. In light of early decision's disadvantages, the University should follow school such as Yale, Stanford and the University of North Carolina in changing their early decision program to an early action program.
The importance of early application processes continues to grow in relevance. More and more students feel an obligation to take advantage of the admissions boost from early decision programs, estimated to be equivalent to roughly 100 SAT points by a 2000 Harvard study. As a result students make hasty, sometimes careless decisions in applying early to a college.
If this is the case for an early action applicant, he or she still has a plethora of options. Since early action is not a binding commitment, these applicants will still apply to other schools, whose offers of admissions can be accepted without repercussion. Early decision applicants, on the other hand, commit to the decision if accepted. If not accepted, they sometimes rush to complete the rest of their applications, which many early decision applicants put off completing.
Early decision programs have a proven bias against less affluent students. John Blackburn, Admissions Dean, stated in an interview that the number of applicants to the University from lower economic classes is much lower in early decision pools than regular-decision pools. Less affluent students tend to apply regular decision to have the option of comparing financial aid packages for various colleges.
Though Blackburn said that the Admissions Office gives "the same level of consideration" to both pools of applicants, the reality is that the acceptance rate of early decision applicants for this past year was around 40.8 percent versus 35.5 percent for regular-decision applicants. Admissions cannot legitimately be blamed for the discrepancy; they do not know the quality of applicants for regular decision, nor the number of applicants. Nevertheless, students from lower economic classes are the losers here as early decision biases against them.
The argument against early action programs is mainly one of practicality for the University. Because early decision binds students to the University, the Admissions Office already knows these students will be part of the incoming class. Since early action does not bind accepted students, their response rate adds another variable in filling up the incoming class. However, even Blackburn conceded that the response rate is "not an issue." Though Admissions may struggle to understand the response rate of accepted early action applicants at first, "We could after a few years."
The single-choice early action plan differs from the regular early action program in that it allows for a more predictable response rate. Students can apply to one school early with this program and will likely apply to their top choice at the time of their application, regardless of financial circumstances. Therefore, the University would still know that early applicants consider the University as their preferred destination. A very high enrollment rate would result from the early action acceptances. However, if conditions change for the student, they have the option of pursuing other universities.
In essence, early decision programs help the institution more than the student, while early action programs help the student more than the institution. By placing such an early deadline with the incentive of increased chance of admission, the University can guarantee a certain portion of the incoming class before the regular decision applicants arrive. Students, conversely, receive an edge in admissions at the cost of having to make college decisions often before they fully understand the impact of their choice.
Yale University President Richard Levin, in announcing the change to an early action program, stated, "It is our hope to take pressure off students in the early cycle and restore a measure of reasoned choice to college admissions." By giving accepted students a few months to iron out any doubts, the early action program accomplishes this goal.
Blackburn stated that the University has not settled on an early decision program. "We may look at it again, even next year," he stated, in reference to the early application process. Though switching to early action would initially require some additional work in understanding the response rate of accepted early action applicants, unnecessary pressure and the biases of the early decision program would be eliminated. The switch would represent progress --- the goal of every member of our University.
Rajesh Jain is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. He can be reached at rjain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
