Universities rethink early decision policy

When Yale University President Richard Levin told The New York Times in December that universities should look at collectively abolishing early admission, his comments prompted officials at many elite universities to look at their application processes.

While cautioning about potential abuses, senior administrators at Duke remain satisfied with the school's current admissions policies.

"On balance, I believe early admissions can serve students and institutions well, but only if it is carefully designed and appropriately limited," President Nan Keohane wrote in an e-mail. "If it is carried too far, then I think the costs far outweigh the benefits, both for students and for the colleges and universities."

Christoph Guttentag, director of undergraduate admissions, said the University limits the number of students admitted under early decision to about 30 percent of each entering class. Such applications account for 10 percent of the total applicant pool.

"In limiting the size of the entering groups, we are in the minority among selective colleges," Guttentag said.

He acknowledged that many students apply early because the acceptance outlook is better. "If there were no benefit to applying early decision, then it wouldn't make a difference to the student," he said. "Virtually every college gives some benefit to students applying through [this process]."

Students, while recognizing better admission prospects, said that was not their primary reason for applying early.

"After visiting, I pretty much decided this is where I wanted to go," junior Drew Preslar said. "I wasn't worried about getting in." Preslar said the reduced workload of completing only one application was an incentive.

Still, most agree that there may be negative consequences to early admission. For students, applying early may rush the decision process and limit choice.

In addition, Keohane worried that the process may penalize applicants with diverse tastes who consider more colleges.

Melissa Malouf, chair of the provost's Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid, said she believes these varied candidates are the ones the University should pursue.

"Universities need to make sure that the choice is well-informed, and that early admits will indeed contribute to the intellectual and cultural vitality of the student body--and not just to the vivacities of the OCameron Crazies,'" Malouf wrote in an e-mail.

Officials say early admission may also adversely affect diversity because its binding nature forces students to accept admission to a school, deterring financially underprivileged applicants by precluding financial award comparisons.

Guttentag emphasized that the financial aid process works the same for early-decision applicants as it does for regular-decision applicants, including equal consideration for merit scholarships.

"There are also a number of factors that mean that early decision can limit the diversity of the class, in both ethnic and socioeconomic terms, and thus undermine some important educational goals," Keohane wrote.

Guttentag believes the process would be more ideal if all colleges switched to a non-binding early admissions process.

"If every university had early action and a student could only apply to one early-action program, then the colleges would learn which students were most interested in them, and the students could express that interest in a tangible way," Guttentag said.

Guttentag said he is glad Levin has brought the issue up for public discussion, but cautioned that unilaterally abolishing early admission would be injurious to any university.