An unfair process

Last week, in a decision which took many in the world of college admissions by surprise, Harvard declared that it would end its early admission option. At Princeton, where each year as many as 50 percent of admitted students come from the binding Early Decision applicant pool, there are several clear advantages for both the school and its students. Princeton gets the opportunity to shape its student body with a high degree of confidence — students accepted early are obligated to enroll — and prospective students who are sure they want to go to Princeton get the opportunity to display their enthusiasm. Yet, while these arguments in favor of early policies are valid, we nonetheless believe that other factors compel Princeton to strongly consider following Harvard in eliminating early admissions for the Class of 2012.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the early admissions process is that it tends to favor wealthier students at elite high schools. Many schools — Princeton included — tend to accept a higher percentage of students who apply early. Yet, students in need of financial aid have a huge disincentive to apply early because it prevents them from comparing financial aid and scholarship options. At the same time, students from schools with more established college advising programs are given a head start in applying for admissions and are often more aware of early admission programs to begin with. As interim Harvard president Derek Bok put it, early decision programs tend to "advantage the advantaged."

Early admission programs also hurt students because they encourage increased gamesmanship in the college admission process. High schools seniors are encouraged to choose the most selective school on their list of schools to apply to, instead of taking the time to consider which schools are really their best matches.

Despite Harvard's hope that by taking the lead in phasing out early admissions, other schools would follow, several of our peer institutions like Dartmouth and Rice have already committed to keeping their early programs. But Princeton needs to muster the courage to stand with Harvard.

While we recognize that a potential change in admission policy as drastic as this one requires significant study and discussion, it is our hope that Princeton will live up to its ideals as a university which is committed to admitting a student body made up of the best and the brightest — regardless of socioeconomic status. If so, we believe it will ultimately choose to get rid of an early admission process which is both flawed and unfair.