Early Unfairness

From introducing concentrations and electives into college curricula to competing in the first intercollegiate athletic competition, Harvard has a proud tradition of being an innovative forerunner in higher education. It added a significant mark on that timeline yesterday when it announced that it will abandon early admissions to the College.

Like many other schools, Harvard has long had an early admissions system whereby students who applied by November were informed of a decision by mid-December. Harvard’s system is non-binding, meaning early admits are free to apply to other schools and inform Harvard of their decision in May. The Office of Undergraduate Admissions says that students who apply early have no special advantage in the admissions process.

Yet, many still believe such an advantage exists. These students point to the fact that the early admissions rate at Harvard has historically been approximately double that of the overall rate. Although that difference can be attributed to the strength of the early applicant pool, to the untrained eye, the playing field seems uneven. The result, admissions officers say, is that some potential applicants are deterred from applying at all. These students think that they shouldn’t bother applying if Harvard has filled up nearly half of its spots with early admits and only six percent of the regular applicant pool will be accepted, as was the case for the Class of 2010. The resultant decrease in applications is exacerbated when some applicants confuse other schools’ binding “early decision” process with Harvard’s non-binding “early action.”

It is Harvard’s hope, and ours too, that moving to single-stage admissions will increase the diversity of the student body. As interim University President Derek C. Bok said yesterday, early admissions “advantage[s] the advantaged” because the pool of early applicants is disproportionately affluent and white. Most strong minority and low-income applicants apply in January. Their secondary schools, where the advisee-to-councilor ratio is astronomical, where most students don’t have the money to visit colleges or hire private councilors, and where bureaucracy likely impedes the processing of applications, are less likely to provide students the information and infrastructure needed to apply early. Besides mitigating some of the advantages of the privileged, the College plans to further attract minority and low-income applicants by using November and early December—a time now spent reviewing early applications—to further reach out to and recruit students who may not otherwise apply.

Harvard’s change should also help stem the college admissions frenzy that has increased exponentially among high school students and their parents. Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 said that early admissions programs act as “fuel for the fire,” pressuring students to make decisions quickly, get in as soon as possible, and try to game the system. Though there still may be tremendous pressure to get into a top college, the system will be clearer and more straightforward without these aggravating factors.

Finally, early admission often leads to a severe case of “senioritis.” Seniors admitted in December often slack off for four months, depriving themselves of further education, enrichment, and preparation while simultaneously depriving their school community of an energetic presence on campus.

This is not to say there aren’t risks involved for the College. Some students may get into other schools’ early programs and not consider Harvard. But given Harvard’s ability to attract students—it has one of the lowest admissions rates and the highest yields in the country—it is a risk worth taking. Fitzsimmons, who led the charge, Bok who fast-tracked it, and the Harvard Corporation, which approved the change on Monday, should be applauded for their audacity and vision in the face of overbearing precedent and potential detriment to the school.

The admissions office and the College have taken several steps in recent years to make the undergraduate admissions process simpler and fairer for all students. Harvards’ early action system served as a model for Yale and Stanford when they switched to non-binding early action programs, and the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative for low-income students has also spurred other schools, especially Yale, to expand its financial aid packages.

We hope that eliminating early admissions altogether proves to be as influential as some of Harvard’s past innovations. Harvard’s unilateral action will have some impact, but if other institutions do not follow suit, higher education will still be tainted. At the very least, all schools (including Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, for example) should eliminate binding early decision policies. These programs continue to disadvantage anyone eligible for any financial aid since binding programs prevent students from comparing aid packages from various schools. And we further encourage schools to follow Harvard’s lead in abandoning early admission altogether. Princeton and Penn, Yale and Stanford: The ball is in your court.