Gann was accepted in December 2002–meaning he relaxed while many of his classmates remained on edge until spring, when the regular-decision letters were sent out. But he could belong to one of the last classes to enjoy the pleasures of a stress-free second semester. For much of 2003, Early Decision programs have been under attack from educators, college counselors, parents and students who complain that they put too much pressure on kids to make a decision before they’re ready. A number of prominent schools, including Yale, Stanford and the University of North Carolina, have dropped Early Decision in favor of nonbinding Early Action, which lets students know in December whether they’ve been accepted but doesn’t prohibit them from applying to other schools. Even Gann admits he felt pressured. He was still interested in Stanford but thought he should make a choice to apply to one school in order to increase his odds. “Early Decision gave me peace of mind, but it took away choice,” he says. “I did feel afraid that I might not get into my top choices if I didn’t apply to one of them early.”
Just a decade ago, the application calendar was fairly standard: the vast majority of students submitted their essays, transcripts and recommendations by late December or early January, and heard back from colleges in March and April. They then had until May 1 to weigh offers. But in the early ’90s, colleges began to pay attention to their yield–the percentage of accepted students who enroll–because it could push schools up a few notches on college rankings.
One of the best ways to boost yield was to guarantee that a certain percentage of the class would attend. (Every year, a few students do back out of Early Decision commitments, generally because they need more than the school is offering in financial aid.) The popularity of Early Decision skyrocketed–so much so that by 2002, some of the most competitive schools were admitting more than 40 percent of their freshman class early. That meant the odds of getting in through regular decision were much slimmer. Many top students felt hopelessly behind if they hadn’t picked a first choice by Labor Day.
That kind of pressure inevitably produced a backlash. Yale’s president, Richard Levin, is generally credited with leading the charge in 2001. His main complaint has been that most students who apply early aren’t really ready to commit to one school; they’re applying mostly to gain an edge in the increasingly competitive admissions game. Critics also say that the program favors wealthier students and discriminates against applicants from low-income families, who need to compare aid offers. At the University of North Carolina, which switched in 2002 from Early Decision to Early Action, the ED applicant pool was 18 percent minorities, compared with 33 percent of regular-decision applicants, according to UNC admissions director Jerome Lucido. Since the switch, Lucido says, the school has had “positive reaction from our families and students.”
Yale and Stanford will have to wait until spring 2004 to see how the change in policy affects their incoming classes. At both, students who apply early are still limited by the schools’ “single-choice Early Action” rules. “Students can’t apply early to other schools,” says Stanford admissions director Robin Mamlet. She says Stanford wanted to “honor the original intent of Early Decision”–to give students with a clear first choice the chance to hear early. At the same time, she says, “we didn’t want students to occupy seats that may go to another student at a different school.” Another sign that ED’s power may be waning was the announcement in July 2003 by U.S. News & World Report that the magazine was dropping yield as a factor in its annual college rankings. Although yield accounted for only 1.5 percent of a school’s ranking, U.S. News editors said they wanted to defuse growing criticism.
Schools that have never had Early Decision policies say they’re happy to see the trend reversing–if only slightly. “We believe in Early Action because it’s the fairest system to the student,” says Michael Behnke, vice president and dean of college enrollment at the University of Chicago. Unlike Stanford and Yale, Chicago allows students to apply early to other schools. Chicago has a relatively high yield on its early pool (40 percent eventually attend), and Behnke credits aggressive recruitment.
It’s unclear how many other schools will follow Yale and Stanford’s lead in abandoning ED. At Princeton, dean of admissions Janet Rapeleye says she has no plans to change the policy. University of Pennsylvania admissions director Lee Stetson, an outspoken supporter of Early Decision, says that in 2003, 45 percent of the incoming class was accepted early. “Since these students have always wanted to come to Penn, they become campus leaders while here,” he says. He also contends that students who have applied early are more likely to graduate than other students. One way to avoid the problem of losing minority applicants, he says, is to recruit aggressively, which Penn says it does. As a result, the school in 2002 had an increase of 20 percent in black ED applicants. But even if schools like Princeton and Penn stick with Early Decision, many educators believe the pressure to decide early should ease in the next few years. At Harvard, which offers Early Action, admissions dean William Fitzsimmons says he was pleased by all the changes. “It’s possible that without yield as a factor, the incentive that Early Decision offers schools will be taken away,” he says. “Yale and Stanford’s decisions give us joy to see that Early Action, which we’ve been advocating for years, has come to the forefront.” That’s easy for Harvard to say, of course. Its overall yield is close to 80 percent. Still, Fitzsimmons adds, waiting until spring helps students make the best choice–whether it’s “the small school in the country” or a certain campus on the Charles.
