First, there is the issue of losing the brightest, most highly motivated students to rival institutions. Although I am not usually one to believe in rankings or other arbitrary comparative constructs, this area is one in which considering our sister institutions is useful. Many of the students with the most intellectual firepower, the highest standardized test scores and the most noteworthy accomplishments apply to college early. The nation’s “best” students, by whatever metric you use, are on top of their game when it comes to college applications.
Many of these students, because of their obvious merits, will be admitted early to places such as Yale, Stanford or University of Pennsylvania. A good number of these students will elect to go to the schools to which they were admitted early and not bother to pursue the application process further. Why would they, except for financial reasons? Many of these same students would surely apply to Princeton early if given the chance, as I am certain we will see over the next few years. By reinstating early action, we are putting ourselves back in the hunt for some of the brightest minds in the country and around the world. This fact is particularly true for athletic recruiting. As a formerly recruited athlete, I know that giving the coaching staff the ability to reassure these student-athletes earlier about the status of their admission allows Princeton’s athletic recruitment to be more competitive.
Second, a large pool of early applicants will allow the admission office a greater degree of control over the size and shape of the class than that of the present system. Every admission office at every major university in this country has specific statistics and demographics that they want to record. Whether it be racial diversity, gender diversity, mean SAT score, family income, class rank or anything else, every school has its goals when it comes to these metrics. Early action creates a “safety net” for fulfilling these class requirements. Princeton’s two rounds of admissions would allow it to target specific demographics at each go, easing the burden of trying to get everything right all at once. Furthermore, early applicant pools tend to be a lot more predictable than those of regular decision when it comes to turnover. Bringing back early action will also substantially increase overall student yield because applicants who get in early are significantly more likely to elect to come to Princeton than applicants who are admitted to both Princeton and other schools during regular decision.
The final and the most interesting reason why early action is a good idea is the increased loyalty it brings. Someone who applies to a single school is a whole lot less likely to ask the question, “What if I had gone to a different school?” Anyone who has read Barry Schwartz’ “The Paradox of Choice” will know what I mean when I say this: An increasing number of options often leads to a greater chance of decision regret. If you are only admitted to Princeton University and decide to attend, your willingness to believe in the merits of your institution through thick and thin is much greater than if you were admitted to all of the Ivies at once. When things get difficult, as they would at any school, the latter students could more easily ask, “Did I make the right decision?”
The central argument that the opponents of early action give, drawing from Luke Massa’s column and that of the Editorial Board on Friday, is that it disadvantages poor and minority students in the admission process. Opponents argue that wealthier students have better access to good guidance counselors and other application resources. While this argument is valid, it is in no way unique to the early action process. Affluent students applying regular decision have the same advantage over poor and minority students as they would when they applied early decision. This argument is more against the privileges of the wealthy applicants than it is against early action itself.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Massa and the board’s articles deal more with the spirit and circumstance of the decision than with the merits or shortcomings of early action itself. Massa’s column points out that the University is going against what it believes is “right.” While this ideal might be a noble, albeit vague, sentiment, it in no way refutes the concrete advantages that early action brings. The Editorial Board even says that it “[does] not deny the benefits of early action programs.” That is because these benefits are real and easy to see. Looking purely at the costs and benefits of both systems, it is impossible to deny that the reinstatement of the early action program is an excellent reversal of a bad policy; a policy which could have weakened Princeton’s reputation, academics and, most importantly, student life.
Nathan Mathabane is a sophomore from Portland, Ore. He can be reached at nmathaba@princeton.edu.
Read More
5Terra Advisory must distance itself from human rights abuses
Kristin NagyIt’s clear that 5Terra is making the wrong choice by failing to fully investigate their own plans and attempting to build a talent pipeline between students and PIF companies, putting Princeton’s values of service and ethical leadership at risk by wading into possible involvement in human rights abuses.
It’s clear that 5Terra is making the wrong choice by failing to fully investigate their own plans and attempting to build a talent pipeline between students and PIF companies, putting Princeton’s values of service and ethical leadership at risk by wading into possible involvement in human rights abuses.
Didn’t draw into your residential college? This rule says you probably can’t next year, either.
Jerry ZhuRising seniors who apply to their college’s draw receive an additional 0.1 points to their draw weight for every year they’ve lived in their college, ensuring that those who successfully drew in in their junior year get priority. The University must abolish this unreasonable rule to restore fairness to the room draw process.
Rising seniors who apply to their college’s draw receive an additional 0.1 points to their draw weight for every year they’ve lived in their college, ensuring that those who successfully drew in in their junior year get priority. The University must abolish this unreasonable rule to restore fairness to the room draw process.
Princeton, stop using ChatGPT
Ava JohnsonWhen chatbot tools like ChatGPT are consistently used in place of basic critical thinking and simple mental tasks, we lose our ability to complete these tasks ourselves.
When chatbot tools like ChatGPT are consistently used in place of basic critical thinking and simple mental tasks, we lose our ability to complete these tasks ourselves.