With Harvard's decision on Sept. 12 to discontinue its Early Action program, college admissions issues have again come to the forefront of attention in the national education consciousness.
Ostensibly, Harvard's decision stems from the allegations that early admission programs bring an inherent bias to the college admissions table. Critics contend that early admissions unfairly favor those students with access to the best resources for guidance through the college admissions maze and, in the case of the binding programs, those with the financial resources to initially commit to one school. Proponents claim the programs offer students the option to cut short the stressful wait for an admission notification, without disadvantaging anyone. Fairness aside, Harvard's decision was surely motivated at least in part by its own strategic interests.
The New York Times recently wrote that Harvard is "the most prestigious college in the world," and that "the gap between it and every other university is often underestimated." Its status carries great financial profit for Harvard. Prestige brings desirability, which brings a whole range of financial benefits: more competitive incoming classes, greater donations from alumni, and the ability to engage more renowned professors to add to the institution's reputation. Clearly, it is in Harvard's interests to maintain its position of preeminence.
One way Harvard secures this position is by making the news. The way to maintain a high-status profile in any industry is to remind people regularly that you're still there, still doing innovative and interesting things and still worth talking about. Given that college admissions issues are on the national radar even in the quietest of times for college admissions, it makes sense that Harvard would use such issues to maintain its position of leadership in the industry of higher education.
Indeed, it has a history of doing so. In March 2004, then-president Lawrence H. Summers announced the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, which eliminated the parental contribution to tuition costs for students from families with annual incomes of $40,000 or less, starting in the 2004-2005 school year. In March 2006, Harvard expanded the initiative to include students with annual family incomes of up to $60,000. Each of these developments garnered extensive media attention, and each provoked a flurry of announcements by other universities that they would follow suit, attempting to ride the notoriety of Harvard's innovation. The same has begun to happen this time: On Sept. 18, Princeton University announced that it would end its early decision admissions program as well.
The specific issue that probably concerns the Dartmouth community, though, is our own admissions policy. Judging by the persistent debate over the merits of early admission programs, it is difficult to say for sure whether such programs are fair. But it is not difficult to predict the effect that eliminating our early decision option would have. Doing so would give the impression that Dartmouth determines its policy by merely following the industry leader. This is not an impression that I, for one, am interested in promoting. In fact, loudly defending our early decision program might even have served to build Dartmouth's institutional identity in the national consciousness. Appearing tempered and independent-minded attracts at least as much attention as rashly following the leader.
The degree to which Harvard's decision was actually influenced by a perception of unfairness in early admission programs is difficult to say. But because Harvard has so much to lose if its prestige suffers, and because its recent announcement so resembles a calculated strategy to garner national attention, it would be naive to say that the admissions decision was made solely with students' best interests at heart.
