The New York Times reported yesterday that Princeton had received 3,547 applications through its new single-choice early action admissions option. This applicant pool is roughly three times the size of its current freshman class, indicating that many prospective students remain drawn to the opportunity to receive accelerated admissions decisions from schools in which they are particularly interested.
This is especially true now that Princeton and a few other elite private institutions have implemented single-choice early action, which does not commit prospective students to attend the school to which they apply. Although this is a marked improvement from the past strategy of binding early decision admissions, it still limits applicants' options since in most cases the single-choice early action process prohibits them from applying early to other private institutions.
Not only do middle-income applicants remain disadvantaged through such an approach, but the institutions themselves lose out on an opportunity to obtain early commitments from prospective students. A superior admissions strategy, therefore, is a non-restrictive early action process along the lines of what the University announced last year it would adopt starting with the class of 2016. This approach allows maximum flexibility to middle-income students who may want to apply early at other schools to access certain financial aid options, and it entices students in search of certainty to apply early to the University knowing they can do so at other schools as well.
The most obvious problem with single-choice early action is that it continues to discriminate against middle-income students, albeit in a less overt way than did early decision. Middle-income applicants who cannot afford the full cost of attendance at single-choice early action institutions can, at least, use the process since it does not commit them to attendance before they receive financial aid offers from other schools and outside sources. It does, however, force them to forgo applying for certain financial aid awards at other private institutions such as the University of Notre Dame, Boston College and the University of Southern California that are contingent upon prospective students applying early. Thus, if middle-income applicants are not accepted at the schools to which they apply through single-choice early action, then they may lose out on the opportunity to attend those other institutions since they will not be able to access financial aid for which they might otherwise qualify.
At least one institution, Stanford, has created a workaround solution by allowing students to apply to those schools that offer early-action contingent financial aid awards. This does not appear to be a widespread policy among schools using single-choice early action, however, and it highlights another flaw with the process. Because the standards governing single-choice early action are slightly different at almost every institution, students who may be considering the option will have to conduct substantial research into each school's requirements to ensure they are making the right decision. For example, the fact that the single-choice early action options at Harvard and Princeton allow prospective students to apply early action to any public institution may make them more appealing than the single-choice early action process at Yale, which only allows prospective students to apply early action to public institutions in their home state.
Finally, the single-choice early action process limits institutions' ability to secure early commitments from well-qualified applicants. Some of these individuals may have a short-list of schools to which they wish to apply, but could be dissuaded from applying to those schools which limit their early admission options. Schools would do better to leave applicants with a full array of options so that even if they are unsure of what their top choice is in the fall, they can apply early action and make a commitment in the winter rather than the spring.
With this in the mind, the University should move forward with the implementation of its non-restrictive early action process. Once this system is in place, the benefits associated with an accelerated decision-making process should accrue to both applicants and the University as a whole.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 22 hours 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 | YesterdayWhile 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.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | YesterdayLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
