Editorial: Stay the course

Early admission programs have historically been criticized for exacerbating inequalities in the college application process. Students from low-income backgrounds are often unable to apply early to binding programs because they cannot evaluate financial aid awards before making a commitment, and the strategizing that surrounds the early admission game favors students from elite high schools with better college advising programs. In justifying the elimination of early decision in 2006, President Shirley Tilghman expressed her hope that it would make the application process “more fair and equitable,” given that early decision was “advantaging those who were already advantaged.”

Some might argue that although early decision disadvantages lower-income students, nonbinding early admission programs such as early action or single-choice early action do not have the same negative effects. While nonbinding early admission options are certainly fairer, all early admission programs result in two separate pools of applicants, one of which — the early pool — empirically has fewer minority, low-income and first-generation college students and a much higher acceptance rate.

Concerns regarding Princeton’s admission statistics, such as the yield of accepted students who matriculate, and the effects of those statistics on national rankings might suggest that Princeton should reinstate an early admission policy. This ignores the unique position of Princeton as a world-renowned university that can and should make principled decisions over strategic ones. In defending the elimination of early decision in 2006, Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye admitted that it was a risk, but one that the University was willing to take because “it is the right thing to do.” Moreover, evidence from the past few years suggests that there have been few negative repercussions: The quantity of low-income and minority students who apply and are admitted has increased, and the overall quality of admitted students has also increased. While the University has experienced a decline in yield, this is a consequence that it was willing to accept for the sake of creating a better and more equitable admission process, and it is a consequence that the University should continue to accept.

Princeton is in a unique position to change the nature of college admissions for the better by continuing to openly prioritize equity and inclusivity in the application process over impressive selectivity ratios and yield percentages. Despite other universities’ reticence to follow suit, the University should stay true to the principles it professed four years ago and resist a reimplementation of any early admission option.