President Tilghman and Dean of Admission Rapelye have started to explore future admissions options. As they do this, they shouldn't exclude the option of ending early admission altogether. In the end, they will find that it is the only option worth exploring.
I applied to Princeton early decision in the fall of 2002. A month and a half later, I was admitted to the University. I consider myself a fortunate beneficiary of the early decision process. However, we are at a historic moment when early admission is widely being recognized as an undesirable system, and we at Princeton are lucky enough to have the reputation and influence to bring it to a halt.
I understand why the University has early decision. First, because it is binding, it reassures the University that for those students who apply early, Princeton really is their top choice. Second, it allows the admissions office to ensure that certain special students will enroll here; the University doesn't end up without this talented musician or that talented athlete. Third, and again because it is a binding agreement, it gives the University's yield a significant boost. A high yield in turn works wonders in the U.S. News & World Report rankings. Please believe that I too enjoy a number one ranking, even if such rankings are trivial. Though there are clearly several advantages to the current process, I feel that ultimately much more is lost than gained.
By this point, the arguments against early admissions are also familiar: that it is socioeconomically inequitable since not all students attend privileged high schools with in-the-know, connected college counselors; that students often use early admission to gain a strategic advantage because of how greatly it increases their chances of admission rather than because a certain school is actually their favorite; that it compromises the academic experience of senior year for many high school students and their teachers; and that it creates unnecessary hype and puts unhealthy pressure on applicants and counselors. Although I believe all of these to be true, I think there may be an even more convincing reason why Princeton should end early admission.
Princeton should end all early admission because we can. That is to say, we should do it because we have the opportunity to be a leader and a trend-setter. We have already fallen behind other schools by not moving from early decision to the non-binding early action, and this was reflected by a dramatic dip in applications this past fall. The number of early applications we received was down by 25 percent while Yale and Stanford, both of which switched to a non-binding system, saw their number of applications rise by more than 50 percent.
The writing is on the wall: All forms of early admissions will soon be gone. It's simply a matter of which elite institution acts first. As a student here, I want to take pride in the fact that my University has the courage of convictions to act in such a way that might initially hurt its ranking but that will send a powerful message. That message is that we, Princeton, recognize an unhealthy system of admissions and we're going to fix it.
We will be praised by the vast majority of the academic community — teachers, college counselors, and school heads. And students and parents will certainly appreciate a return to sanity. I can see the front-page New York Times headline now: "Princeton ends early admission, rescues application process." The Harvards, Yales, and Stanfords will all follow. Isn't that better than us following them?
P. G. Sittenfeld is a freshman from Cincinnati, Ohio. You can reach him at pg@princeton.edu. He is president of the Class of 2007.
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.