Harvard is Still Right

In his recent New York Times op-ed on Harvard’s elimination of its Early Action program, Stanford provost John Etchemendy described the publicity surrounding the change of policy as “short on facts and clearheaded analysis.” Indeed, we will have to wait until May 2009—when the first affected class will have committed to their universities—before the first set of concrete evidence will bear on the wisdom of the change. Nevertheless, we remain confident that higher education stands to benefit from the end of early admissions programs.

Both Early Action (EA) and Early Decision (ED) programs create a perception, if not a reality, of preferential treatment to socioeconomically advantaged applicants. Moreover, this perception likely discourages applicants without good counseling from applying at all.

EA programs are often incorrectly understood to be binding contracts that lock students into attending their institution of choice, should they be accepted. In this case, perception is more damaging than fact. It is commonly known that misinformation and lack of individual attention to detail are both rampant problems in poorer, overcrowded and understaffed school systems. Often all that is understood is that a huge proportion of a class is filled up during the early round, followed by the assumption that acceptance in that round means the loss of the opportunity to compare financial aid packages.

We also maintain that early admissions programs at elite colleges are unlikely to reduce stress, as Etchemendy suggests. While the small majority of overqualified applicants with clear-cut first choice schools will indeed feel more secure with an admissions offer in hand come December, the vast majority of early applicants to Harvard, Stanford, and peer institutions are not admitted. Having a rejection or deferral hanging over their heads for four months before any positive news can mitigate the bad hardly contributes to less chaos during senior year. Stress for everyone is lessened and—more importantly—evened out across all applicants with a single notification date.

Ultimately, we are glad that Harvard—and now Princeton and the University of Virginia—are taking this bold step. The status quo is simply not good enough. Applicants to Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and the like come disproportionately from private schools and wealthy backgrounds. For the most disadvantaged students, the complexities of college admissions can be overwhelming. Even if abolishing early admissions means inconveniencing a few—even many—of the more affluent and resourceful admits, that’s a cost we are willing to bear in order to create a more simple and friendly process likely to extend the reach of elite colleges. On balance, the chance of improving the perception that elite universities are only for the elite makes Harvard’s decision a laudable one.