As the May 1 deadline for high school seniors to commit to colleges approaches, controversy has arisen once again over admission processes at some of the nation’s most selective schools. Last week, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported on a new Justice Department investigation into a number of colleges to determine whether the sharing of information between schools on early admissions decisions is a violation of antitrust laws. Though the specifics of the investigation are still unclear, it is apparent that more understanding of admissions processes is needed, and this investigation may also indicate that it is a good time for U.S. colleges to move away from using early decision entirely.
Early decision is the application option in which students may apply to a college early in a binding manner, meaning that an offer of admission would have to be accepted. This is different from early action, which allows students to apply and hear back from schools without the decision being binding. Applying early decision usually means that students have a higher chance of being accepted, but it also may lead schools to be less generous with financial aid, according to a report by The Washington Post. This makes it more difficult for students who need to apply in the regular pool in order to compare financial aid offers to get accepted into more selective schools.
The question that the Justice Department has raised relates to how colleges share information on students who have applied early. According to a U.S. News article from 2016, schools often communicate about which students have been admitted early, but the specific ways this affects admissions and financial aid are still unknown. This whole process should raise alarms—coordination between schools in this manner suggests that admissions decisions may rely on unknown factors, and for such a high-stakes decision, students deserve to know the details of what goes into this.
Information sharing and the practices schools are using in these decisions should continue to be examined closely, but the merits of early decision overall should also be questioned. Whether or not this information sharing is an antitrust violation, the news coverage of the investigation is a reminder of the fact that the early decision process is prone to manipulation and potentially favors students who need less financial aid.
One answer for how to make decisions more straightforward and less federal investigation-worthy is to move away from early decision altogether. Though many schools cling to early decision since it can boost enrollment ratios and rankings, the practice complicates how schools admit students and makes these processes more dubious. If this warrants the Justice Department getting involved, the current policy is likely not the right one. Schools could eliminate early decision but continue early action, which would maintain the benefits of an early application while still allowing financial aid comparison.
Even more importantly, ending the use of binding early decision could be a way to lower the already towering barrier that faces low income students hoping to attend these colleges. Many students are unable to commit to a school before they have compared the financial aid offers they receive, and needing time for financial aid should not affect likelihood of acceptance. Elite colleges only stand to benefit from a more socioeconomically diverse student body. The Justice Department investigation could represent a good opportunity to take a step in that direction.
