Colleges and Early Decision: Overview

Introduction

The term early decision describes a type of college admissions program in which prospective students who apply to a school by a certain advance deadline (usually at the beginning of November of their senior year of high school) receive an earlier response to their application than students who apply under the regular admissions program. In return, the students must agree to sign a binding contract stating that if they are accepted, they will immediately withdraw all pending applications to other colleges or universities and accept the offer to attend (students may only apply to one institution under early decision, but they may still file applications with other institutions under the regular admissions process).

Early decision programs are not to be confused with early action or rolling admissions. The early decisions process is often criticized as a way for elite schools to secure highly qualified applicants early and increase their yield rates, which makes it more difficult for students who apply under regular admissions to be accepted.

In 2006, several Ivy League universities, including Harvard and Princeton, provoked a vigorous debate over the pros and cons of this process when they announced that they had decided to phase out or suspend their early decisions programs, reverting to an admissions system with a single application deadline and a single notification date for all applicants. Since then, some schools have seriously considered joining them while others, feeling that the benefits of early decisions outweigh the disadvantages, have decided to retain the process as one tool in a complex admissions system.

Understanding the Discussion

Binding contract: An agreement that is recognized by the law and has consequences if either party breaks the terms of the contract. In the case of college admissions, the typical penalty for breaking an early decision contract is the forfeit of a nonrefundable enrollment deposit. Additionally, students who back out of the agreement risk jeopardizing their chances of being accepted at another institution (except in the case of financial hardship).

Early action: Early action is similar to early decision, but without the binding contract. Students receive notification of their acceptance or rejection sooner, but are not required to enroll if they are accepted.

Regular admissions: A more typical admissions process in which student applications are all considered together after a certain deadline (usually the end of December or the beginning of January of their senior year of high school) and decisions are sent out at the same time (usually in March or April).

Rolling admissions: A “first come, first served” admissions process. There is no formal application deadline, applications are considered as soon as they are complete, and admissions decisions can be made at any time during the year. Though they may receive early notification, students are generally not expected to respond to offers until May 1.

Yield rate: The percentage of students admitted to a school that actually enroll.

History

The history of higher education in the United States dates back nearly four hundred years to the 1636 founding of Harvard University, the country’s oldest institution of higher learning (other early colleges include the College of William and Mary in Virginia, Yale University in Connecticut, and the University of Pennsylvania). For most of that time, the college admission process was much different and much simpler than it is today. Since the number of qualified students was relatively small, schools such as Harvard and Yale simply accepted every applicant who met their standards. These standards usually included a test of the school’s own devising, and specific requirements such as proficiency in Latin and Greek.

Now, admissions programs are much more complex. Early decision programs grew in popularity in the 1990s as college admissions became more competitive. Earlier in the century, the admissions process was different. Almost all college students came from private high schools, and it was unusual for applicants to apply to more than one school. Nevertheless, even during this period elite colleges engaged in competition to attract the best and most qualified applicants by easing up on some of their admissions requirements, for example, or accepting excellent students from public schools. This competition intensified in the latter half of the twentieth century, particularly after World War II when the government began paying for veterans’ college expenses and the number of people who wanted to attend college skyrocketed.

Indeed, over time, the face of college admissions changed: the number of qualified candidates increased to the point where schools could afford to be selective about the applicants they accepted, and the applicants began applying to several schools at a time to increase their chances of being accepted at a good college. These two circumstances created a situation of uncertainty for both schools and students. Students could not be sure their favorite colleges would accept them, and schools could not be sure their preferred candidates would enroll.

The first early decision programs appeared in the 1950s and expanded during the 1980s in response to this uncertainty. Along with binding contracts, early decision admissions represented a way for schools to meet their enrollment goals and to oblige preferred students to enroll, thus increasing their control over yield rates. For highly qualified students, receiving an early decision meant eliminating months of anxiety, and applying early also increased their chances of being accepted, because their applications would be considered against a smaller pool of candidates.

Critics have been wary of early decisions admissions from their inception. The major question in the debate relates to fairness: critics of early decision programs (which are far more common at elite institutions) say that they favor students from higher income brackets and hinder those from less privileged backgrounds. Unlike students from wealthier families who attend affluent high schools, low-income students and their families may not fully understand all the options for admission, or even know about the early decision process. In addition, early decisions programs are said to discriminate against applicants who need financial aid because they cannot consider aid packages from different colleges before making their decision about which school to attend. Finally, as the number of students admitted via early decisions grows, it becomes more and more difficult for regular admission candidates to be admitted, intensifying claims of unfairness.

Another controversial aspect of the early admission process is the effect early decisions have on students’ academic performance. Critics claim that since most grades from a student’s senior year do not factor into the early decision application, once students learn of their acceptance they put less effort into their studies.

In contrast, supporters of early decision say that the practice releases students from anxiety over the admissions process and frees them to concentrate more on their schoolwork. This group states that there are other, more effective ways of easing the challenges faced by low-income students, such as providing full financial aid to qualifying candidates, rather than eliminating early decisions. Supporters of early decision programs also argue that students who attend their first-choice school perform better and transition more easily into college life. Finally, they say that excellent schools need to keep admitting top-tier students to maintain their strong academic records, and that early decision programs help them to do so.

Colleges and Early Decision Today

The controversy over early decisions remained a hot topic in the sphere of higher education into the 2020s. When Harvard and Princeton made their announcements, spokespersons from both schools indicated that they felt eliminating early decisions would ease student stress over an already complicated process and serve to reduce inequities in the system of college admissions. They hoped that other institutions of higher learning would follow their lead, and some, including the University of Virginia, did.

However, other elite universities, such as Northwestern, have argued against eliminating early decisions, and some have even expanded the number of ways students can apply early. Many who are reluctant to remove early admissions programs have argued for compromise solutions similar to early action systems, in which accepted students have more time to make their final decisions and do not have to sign binding agreements that force them to enroll.

Despite criticisms, schools who participated in early decision received a growing number of applications by the mid-2010s and into the 2020s. Many commentators hypothesized that interest in taking advantage of early decision had only increased further following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as college admissions processes changed in response to the public health crisis. Some colleges eliminated or reduced requirements, either temporarily or permanently, related to standardized test scores because of the pandemic's negative impact on education, drawing more students to apply for early decision who would otherwise not have qualified. Even as a selection of colleges increased the number of students they would accept through early decision while others decreased this proportion, scrutiny of these programs in general became more prominent following the Supreme Court's ruling in 2023 that the college admissions policy of factoring race into the decision was unconstitutional. Because the case raised fresh concerns over equity in admissions processes, several institutions began reevaluating their programs, including early and legacy admissions. In 2024, after such a committee review, Brown University opted to retain its early decision program, arguing that it allowed for a highly qualified and diverse class and assured financial aid packages comparable to those applying through the regular decision process. Regardless, the growth in early decision admissions did not match the growth of applications, causing the early decision admit rate to decline over the same period of time.

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

Afram, Ruby Z. “Civil Rights, Antitrust, and Early Decision Programs.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 115, no. 4, 2006, pp. 880-920.

A., M. “'Tell Me Now': Acting on Early Action.” University Business, vol. 15, no. 1, 2012, p. 13.

"Brown University to Reinstate Test Requirement, Retain Early Decision, Further Study Legacy Preferences." Brown, 5 Mar. 2024, www.brown.edu/news/2024-03-05/admissions. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.

Carapezza, Kirk. "Colleges Are Filling More Spots with Students Applying Early. Who Benefits? The Rich." GBH, 17 Oct. 2023, www.wgbh.org/news/education-news/2023-10-16/colleges-are-filling-more-spots-with-students-applying-early-who-benefits-the-rich. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.

Chapman, Gabrielle, and Stacy Dickert-Conlin. “Applying Early Decision: Student and College Incentives and Outcomes.” Economics of Education Review, vol. 31, no. 5, 2012, pp. 749–63.

Contomichalos, Sarah Kinney. “Reducing Anxiety In The Admission Process for the International Applicant.” Journal Of College Admission, vol. 221, 2013, pp. 54-58.

"Cornell Reduces Proportion of Students Admitted through Early Decision Track." The Cornell Daily Sun, 30 Nov. 2023, cornellsun.com/2023/11/30/cornell-reduces-proportion-of-students-admitted-through-early-decision-track/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.

Edmonds, Dan. “Early Decision: Better for Colleges Than for Students.” Time, 29 Oct. 2013, ideas.time.com/2013/10/29/early-decision-better-for-colleges-than-for-students/. Accessed 24 Nov. 2014.

Fliegler, Caryn Meyers. “Admission Officers Speak Out.” University Business, vol. 16, no. 4, 2013, pp. 33-37.

Hoover, Eric. “The Uncommon Rise of the Common App.” Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 60, no. 12, 2013, pp. A18-A22.

Jaschik, Scott. “Early Action Backlash: At Admissions Counselor Meeting, Many Criticize Impact of Early Action.” Inside Higher Ed., 2 Oct. 2015, www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/02/admissions-counselor-meeting-many-criticize-impact-early-action. Accessed 5 Nov. 2015.

Karabel, Jerome. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Houghton Mifflin, 2005.

Knox, Liam. "Early Application Data Are Rosy, if Complex." Inside Higher Ed, 16 Nov. 2023, www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2023/11/16/early-admissions-data-show-big-bump-applications. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024.

Lorin, Janet. “Colleges Fill More Seats Early, Favoring Richer US Students.” Bloomberg Business, Bloomberg, 9 Jan. 2015, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-09/colleges-fill-more-seats-early-favoring-richer-u-s-students. Accessed 5 Nov. 2015.

Park, Julie J., and Kevin M. Eagan. “Who Goes Early?: A Multi-Level Analysis of Enrolling via Early Action and Early Decision Admissions.” Teachers College Record, vol. 113, no. 11, 2011, pp. 2345–373.

Rivera, Carla. “More High School Seniors Taking Early Admissions to College.” Los Angeles Times, 18 Feb. 2015, www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-early-20150218-story.html. Accessed 5 Nov. 2015.

Rudolph, F. The American College & University: A History. U of Georgia P, 1990.

Seltzer, Rick. "Early Decision: For the Privileged?" Insider Higher Ed, 14 Oct. 2019, www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/10/14/panel-examines-who-benefits-early-decision. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.

Vultaggio, Julie, and Stephen Friedfeld. “Stressors in College Choice, Application and Decision-Making -- And How to Reduce Them.” Journal of College Admission, vol. 221, 2013, pp. 6-12.

Zakaria, Fareed. “The Thin-Envelope Crisis.” Time, vol. 181, no. 14, 2013, p. 18.