Early admissions spark debate

The recent decisions by Harvard and Princeton to drop early admissions have reignited a spirited debate: Is ending the practice a recipe for making the college application process better or worse?

Starting with the class entering in 2008, the Ivy League schools will cut programs common at many American universities that give high school seniors who apply in the fall a decision by mid-December — before most universities' regular admissions application deadlines.

Now, they will evaluate all students in the same pool and notify everyone together in the spring.

The schools argued that early admissions informally discriminates against disadvantaged students and fuels anxiety.

Only a tiny sliver of college-bound students will be affected by Harvard's and Princeton's decisions, but the schools' prominence — and the prospect of other schools following suit — have sparked debate among educators and alumni about whether scrapping early admissions will improve the application process.

Most universities admit some students through early admissions, though the rules vary from school to school. Harvard, for instance, has used "early action," which gives high school seniors who apply in the fall a decision by mid-December but still allows them to apply elsewhere in the spring. Princeton was among the schools using "early decision," in which fall applicants commit to attending if accepted.

Many support the changes, saying early admissions — particularly early decision — "structurally" discriminates against disadvantaged students. They say poorer families won't risk committing to one school without seeing what kind of financial aid they are offered elsewhere. And their guidance counselors may lack the expertise to properly advise them.

A study by Christopher Avery, a Harvard professor, of applications to 14 elite colleges found early pools do have a higher concentration of students who do not need financial aid (he also estimated early applicants got an admissions boost equal to about 100 SAT points). But so far, most schools have concluded the relatively low number of low-income applicants is not a problem that changing early admissions will solve.

The money worries may be misplaced at Harvard and Princeton, the world's wealthiest universities (by total endowment and endowment per student, respectively). Both meet full applicant need. But in practice, the schools say, less-wealthy applicants don't apply early. They are considered on the same merits in the regular round, but the schools say the differences between the pools are inherently troubling.