Such an honest discourse has been a long time coming, given the contentiousness of early admissions policies amongst academics. Opponents contend that early admissions policies bias the process against students who rely on financial aid while supporters, unsurprisingly, argue just the opposite: that early admissions enable the school to pursue deeper, more effective progressive recruitment. Between these polarized sides, no general consensus exists on the issue. As a result, early admissions policies have remained relatively untouched, until now. Given the rarity of such a moment, all schools, including Amherst, should take it upon themselves to re-examine their own early admissions policies.
There exists a fairly strong set of data that supports the opposition's claim that early admissions policies are biased against the socio-economically disadvantaged. In their book titled The Early Admissions Game, Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks and Richard Zechauser found that both the binding Early Decision and the non-binding Early Action policies had reduced prospects for financial aid rewards due to less competition amongst schools for socio-economically disadvantaged students. Moreover, they found that Early Decision candidates were on par less qualified than regular admissions candidates, yet they received a benefit equivalent to 100 extra points on the old SAT relative to regular admissions students. The net results, then, of these policies, according to the authors, were more advantages to wealthy students and a decrease in the academic quality of the admitted class.
Accepting this data, groups in support draw exactly opposite conclusions. They contend that the increased levels of "full-paying" students allow the school to continue to subsidize large financial aid programs and even to reach students with deeper socio-economic disadvantages. Moreover, they argue that removing the early admissions policies will not increase the amount of financial aid expended as schools will simply expend more resources to bring in more "full-paying" students to compensate for the loss of early admissions money. Such arguments are supported historically by Caroline Hoxby, in her piece titled "Benevolent Colluders?" who observed just such an effect after a similar loss in revenue by highly competitive schools, when they were forced by the FBI to stop sharing financial aid data to avoid competition.
Acknowledging both sides of the issue, the question of whether to do away with early admissions policies seems to be one of priorities. If a school takes it upon themselves to pursue socio-economic diversity at some expense, then abolishing early admissions policies create natural incentives for more disadvantaged students to apply. If the school is strapped for cash, or has some other priorities besides socio-economic diversity which are taking precedence, the abolition of early admissions policies makes little difference. What is clear, however, is that the absence of the early admissions option at some of the nation's most competitive schools threatens to seriously alter the nature of college admissions. Harvard interim-President Derek Bok expressed this sentiment when he described the "healthier admissions process" in absence of early admissions. Still, as Harvard Dean of Admissions Walter Fitzsimmons noted, the university would reconsider the new policy in the next few years should the quality of students accepted decline.
So what does this mean for us safely enrolled inside the Amherst bubble? Given its Marxian, by which I mean Tony, mission, as well as its considerable endowment, Amherst College seems a prime candidate for doing away with its Early Decision policy. Such a decision should be based on extended study of the history of Amherst admissions, and only after a thorough examination of our admissions and budgetary priorities. At the same time, there is no question that a school of Amherst's caliber should undertake such a re-examination. As long as Amherst claims the banner of socio-economic diversity, it holds the responsibility to question whether its policies are sufficient to meet its socio-economic goals. Given the unique opportunity created by Harvard's bold shift, that re-examination needs to begin now while the momentum still exists.
Grausz is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science. He enjoys spending his afternoons playing some serious Ultimate and dreaming about D.P. Dough calzones.