Yale University President Richard Levin set off a swirl of controversy last month when he advocated the abolition of the early admissions process. He identified many of the problems that critics of the process have put forward -- it favors predominantly white, predominantly wealthy students who are "wired" into the college admissions process at an early age by parents and guidance counselors, while forcing students seeking financial aid to apply later because they need to weigh aid packages after receiving all their acceptance letters.
While we don't favor abolishing the early decision process, it must be curtailed to minimize inequity while retaining its benefit of pairing students with their first choice college. Early decision has run amok. Colleges are fond of early decision because it increases the percentage of accepted applicants who decide to matriculate -- which helps their standing in the U.S. News & World Report's all-important college rankings. The University of Pennsylvania is a worst-case example, admitting almost half of each class in the early decision phase, thus making admission via the regular acceptance pool much harder.
This vicious cycle will only get worse without reform. While the percentage of students admitted early to Dartmouth has not reached Penn-like levels, it is still a problem.
Limiting the percentage of students taken early is indeed the first step in eliminating socio-economic bias. The Ivy League and other highly-competitive colleges must agree to create a cap on the percentage of students taken early much lower than current levels. When admissions offices learn to curb their early decision appetites, the system will function as it was originally intended: matching students with their first-choice colleges without socio-economic bias.
