Editorial: Fewer deferrals and more decisions

On Dec. 16, the University offered early action admission to 785 students. Of the 4,229 students who applied, the vast majority were deferred for reconsideration during the regular decision process. Last year, columnist Marni Morse wrote about Princeton’s extraordinarily high deferral rate compared to peer institutions. During the 2014 Early Action round, 78.9 percent of applicants were deferred, while only 1.3 percent were rejected. High deferral rates not only confuse candidates, but also prolongs the stress of the admissions process. The Editorial Board calls on the Office of Admissions to reduce the number of deferrals and give out more definite decisions to its early admit pool.

The Board acknowledges that deferrals give the Admissions Office more flexibility in admitting candidates. Without knowing the caliber of the regular decision applicants, it makes sense that the University would defer students who have a reasonable chance of being accepted. However, in 2014 the University deferred 78.9 percent of Early Action applicants. This suggests that in addition to deferring candidates with reasonable prospects for admission, the University also deferred a number of candidates who did not meet the University’s admissions criteria. By comparison, in the 2015 round of early applications, Stanford deferred 8.9 percent and Yale deferred 53 percent of candidates. Thus, the Board believes that even if the University adopted a slightly lower deferral rate, it would still have sufficient flexibility in the regular application process.

In addition, a lower deferral rate provides applicants with better information. Many students make decisions to update their Princeton applications or to apply to other schools based on the outcome of their early action applications. An incredibly high deferral rate sheds no light on students’ prospects for admission or the University’s assessment of students’ applications. If deferral rates are lower, deferred students will understand better than they do now that they are considered to be qualified applicants with a chance for admission to the University. Consequently, some will be motivated to submit extra letters, materials, and updated transcripts. Conversely, rejected students will gain a better understanding of the University’s assessment of their applications. While rejection at Princeton does not necessarily predict rejection at peer institutions, a clear rejection motivates applicants to invest wholeheartedly into the application processes for other universities.

Finally, the Office of Admissions acknowledged to the Board that “reducing the number of deferred candidates would require less work for the staff because [they] would not read those files again.” When the University defers a large number of students, they are required to re-examine each of those files during the regular decision round. As a result, a lower deferral rate not only helps the Office of Admissions, but also benefits regular decision and deferred applicants since admissions officers will have more time to thoroughly review this smaller pool of applications.

Deferral leaves many students in limbo because they have no idea what their prospects are for admission. Many students apply early in hopes that an early decision will reduce the stress of further applications during senior year. For students without reasonable prospects for admission, a deferral unnecessarily prolongs their stress. The Board believes that a lower deferral rate benefits both deferred and rejected applicants.

The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of The Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its Chair, the Opinion Editor and the Editor-in-Chief.

Jeffrey Leibenhaut '16 abstained from the writing of this editorial.