Staff Editorial | Effects of early admissions under scrutiny

Harvard University is ending all Early Admissions programs for Fall 2007 applications. The decision caused a stir in the academic community, and seven days later, Princeton announced similar plans to drop its early admissions program. Colleges and universities around the country have entered a debate about the merits and pitfalls of EA, raising the questions of why colleges have these programs and who benefits from them.

Harvard said that they are eliminating EA in an effort to attract more lower income students, since the EA applicant pool is often comprised of high-income students. But eliminating EA will not be a cure-all for attaining economic diversity in incoming classes, a point raised by Harvard’s peer institutions. Yale University President Richard Levin said, “It’s not clear that eliminating Early Admissions will result in the admission of more students from low-income families.”

It is impossible to pinpoint the future effects of Harvard’s move or to determine whether it will ultimately be successful, but there do appear to be a number of reasons for such a switch to prove beneficial. An example cited by Harvard spokespersons is that of high school counseling programs—students who live in higher income school districts are more likely to receive guidance regarding which schools to apply to and when, and could apply to them sooner. In schools with a 50:1 student-guidance counselor ratio, students gain more advice regarding their post-graduation options. In less affluent school districts, schools may not have any guidance programs, which places the burden directly on students to seek out and apply to colleges.

However, there are many benefits that colleges reap from EA programs. It allows them to lock in top students early, making institutions more competitive. But these top students are often of elite economic status, leaving fewer spots for students who may not have enjoyed the luxury of being helped with their college search.

With socioeconomic diversity rising to the forefront in the college recruitment and acceptance process—and Vassar’s own president reinforcing this goal—it makes sense to determine where and when qualified, lower-income students may get lost in the mix. Last year, newly elected President Catharine “Cappy” Bond Hill said she sought to make Vassar a more diverse place and attract more lower-income students.

Looking at the Harvard model, we must ask ourselves: Should (or could) Harvard’s bold move be applied to Vassar in order to help attain this goal of attracting more economically diverse students?

The answer is unclear, but as it stands, it is evident that students are being encouraged to apply early to Vassar. Applicants can enter two rounds of binding ED processes—on Nov. 15 and on Jan. 1. According to the College Board, just over 38 percent of Vassar’s incoming class was admitted ED. Vassar applicants who apply ED also get in at higher rates: of the 592 ED applicants, just over 42 percent got in, compared with Vassar’s overall acceptance rate of 29 percent.

To be sure, a switch to a single application deadline would be tough to execute, and attracting an economically diverse student body is not as simple as eliminating EA; financial aid and recruiting programs matter just as much—if not more.

Harvard has said that after a few years, they will evaluate their admissions process to see if the quality of students has changed, and also if lower-income students are being admitted at higher rates.

For now, members of the Vassar community, including students and administrators, ought to be aggressive in continuing conversations about the admissions process at Vassar on all fronts. Harvard and Princeton may act as a type of testing ground for projects that Vassar could one day take on. It seems particularly pertinent now as our new president intends to make affordability a high priority for the College.