Harvard's decision to do away with its early admissions program has created a lot of hubbub about whether or not such policies are equitable. But all the commotion over the fact that wealthy students are accepted at a higher rate during the early round does not get to the heart of the question of whether early admission, particularly binding early decision, is fair. If all those wealthy students accepted early were geniuses, it would be hard to dispute the fact that they deserved an acceptance letter, regardless of their socioeconomic background. The process would only be unfair if lower standards were applied during the early round than in the regular round, thus making it inherently easier for an early applicant to obtain a letter of acceptance; all students would want to reap the benefits of this kind of policy, but low-income students would be denied access because of the financial commitment required. To get to the heart of the issue we must examine the reasons why early admissions exists and evaluate the standards applied to early applicants to really gauge whether this system should persist at Dartmouth.
Many deans of admissions and college provosts across the nation have argued that the higher early acceptance rate is simply a reflection of the higher quality of students who apply early. My personal experience tells me otherwise. Admittedly, there are indeed a great number of top-notch students who apply early because they truly have their hearts set on a particular college. But I know that there are also many who are enticed by the higher acceptance rates of the early round and figure that their chances of acceptance would go up if they applied in November. In fact, the college counselors at my high school often suggested that "border-line" students apply early to their preferred school to up their chances of being admitted. The only thing I can conclude is that whatever the original aim of instituting early admissions was, it has now, to a certain extent, become another strategy used by students to increase their chances of getting into the college of their choice -- another bargaining chip in the college admissions game.
Students and colleges are basically striking an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" bargain: colleges give students an advantage during the early round while students essentially promise to attend if accepted. Take, for instance, Azusa Pacific University, a small college near Los Angeles. Newsweek reported on Sept. 25 that prior to enacting an Early Action policy, the University had difficulty attracting students. After instituting the policy in 2001, the number of applications received by the school increased 13 percent. This jump implies that many students are attracted to early admissions programs because of the perception that it will increase their chances of admission -- why else would so many more applicants immediately flock to this particular school unless they believed that early admissions would benefit them? The jump also helps explain why so many other schools are reluctant to give up their early admissions programs: it is a vital part of recruitment and colleges fear losing applicants to competitors if they do not take students early. Indeed, early admission has become as much a recruitment tool for colleges as it has become a means by which students hope to tip the scales in their favor.
The Dartmouth recently published statistics revealing the disparity between the types of students accepted during the early and regular rounds. Of particular interest was the fact that of the early matriculants, only 38 percent are receiving need-based financial aid, compared to 57 percent of the regular matriculants. These statistics would seem to suggest that early admission does indeed favor the wealthy. But to truly assess Dartmouth's early decision policy and gauge whether or not it is a fair process, we need to examine the standards applied during each round of admissions by taking a look at the average SAT scores, high school GPAs, extracurricular involvement, etc., of both the early and regular matriculants. If the scores and grades of both groups are about the same, then the low percentage of low-income matriculants in the early round simply indicates that fewer low-income students apply early.
However, if the scores of the early matriculants are generally lower than those of the regular matriculants, it would be strong evidence that somewhat lower admissions standards are applied during the early round (i.e. that an intrinsic advantage is conferred upon those who apply early). If this were the case, Dartmouth administrators would be gearing early admissions not primarily towards helping ease the frenzy of the application process for students, but rather towards increasing the yield of the College.
I don't doubt that schools with binding early admissions policies do have initiatives to increase the socioeconomic diversity of the student body; indeed, Dartmouth and many other schools offer quite generous financial aid packages. But I fear that their first goal is to lock in students, regardless of whether the means of doing so -- early admissions -- discourages economically disadvantaged students from applying in the first place.
If the admissions standards are indeed fair and equal in both rounds, then it should no longer matter when you apply since the results would ostensibly be the same. Economically disadvantaged students could thus just apply regular decision and compare aid offers without fear of having their chances of acceptance diminished because they didn't apply early. If the goal of the College truly is to attract and accept the brightest students in the nation (as it should be), then it has a responsibility to enact the same high standards during both early and regular admissions; this would ensure that the process is fair to both wealthy and low income students who choose to request admission to the Big Green.
