Harvard University’s announcement on September 12, 2006 that they would eliminate the college’s Early Action admission policy sparked a national debate about the inherent inequities in similar policies at institutions across the country. Soon after its announcement, Princeton and the University of Virginia followed suit.

Currently, there are three chief models of early admission policies in place at colleges: Early Decision, Early Action, and single-choice Early Action. Early decision, the model currently in place at Brown, legally requires a student to attend the university if admitted. Early action is non-binding, while single-choice Early Action limits applicants to applying early to a single college. For the freshman class admitted for the fall of 2006, all schools in the Ivy League except Harvard and Yale had in place Early Decision policies.

Statistics clearly show a higher acceptance rate across the board for applicants who apply early to Ivy League colleges. An applicant to Brown who applied early had an acceptance rate 9.2 percentage points higher than someone in the regular pool, statistically increasing their chances of admission by more than two thirds (from 13.5% to 22.7%). The Brown admissions office claims that this increase does not reflect any particular advantage given to early applicants,^a implying that it is a result of a stronger applicant pool. The numbers, though, do not bear out this claim.

A survey of high school seniors applying to college in 1999/2000 (when Brown briefly offered an Early Action plan before switching back to Early Decision) indicates that applying early to Brown doubled their chances of acceptance overall.^b A comparison of acceptance rates for students in both pools who received similar SAT I scores indicates a significant advantage for students who applied early, especially in the lower score brackets (see Figure 1).


Figure 1: Brown Acceptance Rates, Class Entering 2000-01
Source: Avery, Christopher, et al. The Early Admissions Game. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. (p. 153).

Recruited athletes, alumni children, and minorities were excluded from the analysis to make the two applicant pools as comparable as possible. The gap has decreased recently, but the results still indicate an important fact about admissions at Brown: there is a specific advantage given to early applicants over similarly qualified regular applicants. In fact, early applicants to Brown had an average SAT I composite score that was only about 20 points higher than the average regular applicant^c while receiving an advantage comparable to a 100-point SAT score increase.^d

Students who take advantage of early admissions programs disproportionately attend more affluent and competitive secondary schools. These students have greater access to knowledgeable college counselors who can advise them about the advantages of applying early. A survey that compared nationally prominent high schools with a group of Massachusetts public high schools found that a median 40% of seniors at the prominent high schools applied early, compared with 5% at the public schools.^e

Admissions office data collected from 14 selective colleges also show a significant disparity along racial lines. Among the Early Decision schools in the sample, African Americans applied early at a rate of 3.6% compared with 7.4% overall. Hispanics applied early at a rate of 4.8%. Financial aid applicants were also less likely to apply Early Decision.^g By advantaging early applicants, colleges can reduce their financial aid obligations while still maintaining an ostensibly need-blind admission policy.

Opponents of eliminating early admissions point to the benefits conferred on universities. By deciding on a pool of applicants early, it allows administrators to fill the incoming class more confidently and maximize their yield (the percentage of admitted applicants who matriculate). In 2002, when Brown’s yield jumped from approximately 52% to 60%, former Dean of Admission Michael Goldberger attributed it to Brown’s move from Early Action to Early Decision.^h While yield is a valuable indicator of a university’s desirability among applicants, it no longer has an impact on U.S. News & World Report college rankings, making it a less significant factor in recruitment.

There is also an assumption that by accepting a significant number of students through an Early Decision program, more of the entering class will be students for whom Brown was their top choice. However, according to a survey of college students, only 63% of those who applied Early Decision did so at a school that was their "strong first choice."ⁱ Furthermore, 46% of students reported that their main reason for applying Early Decision was to increase their chance of admission, compared with 31% who applied because the school was their strong first choice.^j

Brown’s Early Decision policy clearly advantages students who are wealthier, less ethnically diverse, and who go to more affluent high schools. Because Brown’s philosophy is one that strives toward equity, avoiding any early admissions model would serve to reinforce its reputation and better compete with its peers. It would also be an important step toward making admission to elite schools more equitable with minimal detriment to the university. ● BC