Waking up for an 8:30 class is never an easy thing but it does have its perks. As you walk to class you see other intrepid students all struggling against a common foe. At Val after class a simple head nod across the dining hall between two apparent strangers can silently acknowledge the subtle horror that people have to undergo in order to take the classes that interest them. So it is always nice to have professors comment on your punctuality at the beginning of such classes even if you look like you just rolled out of bed. However; recent decisions by the administrations of some of the best colleges in the world do not reflect the same philosophy about being early. In all seriousness, as a student who chose the early decision option, I cannot see how the idea of canning the program even begins to combat the types of problems that plague higher education in the United States today.

The decision to radically alter the date at which students must submit their applications does not make the fundamental changes necessary to improve the admission process and higher education as we know it. The argument for ending early decision centers upon the idea that it "advantages the advantaged." Yet, students who come from wealthy families and have parents who are deeply involved in their education will still retain all of the advantages.

Many people have cited the fact that early decision limits students financial aid options by preventing students from weighing competing packages. Perhaps this is the case, but it shouldn't signal the removal of early decision. Early decision is only a proximate problem. Instead there should be serious discussion about financial aid reform and need blind admissions at every college. College should not be about whether or not you can pay. It should be about choosing a school that fits your needs and desires for your education. If eminent institutions of higher learning actually believe in the ideals that they so readily profess at information sessions and on campus tours, then early decision should not be the topic of discussion.

Instead, colleges should be debating serious reform of issues such as financial aid and standardized testing. It is common knowledge among college students and those who deal in the realm of admissions that a good SAT score can be bought. Wealthy parents can pay hundreds of dollars an hour for tutors who can produce tangible results by teaching how to take the SAT. This test alone has a much more profound impact on the college entrance than early decision ever could. Nearly every student who applies to college has taken the SAT at least once. Only a handful of colleges do not require it, making it one of the ultimate factors that determine admission to college. When a system like the SAT seems so broken, why has it not been a more contested system among college admission boards? Additionally, the argument that only the wealthy are taking advantage of early decision benefits fails on several grounds.

It is true that mainly those who are advantaged are utilizing early decision to gain entry to the school of their choice. According to a study by Chris Avery, a Harvard professor of public policy, early decision applicant pools have a higher concentration of students who do not need financial aid. But simply because the wealthy are taking advantage of a program isn't a good enough reason to completely dismantle it. When primarily rich white men were the only students attending college, the decision was made to change the admission process for the better. New criteria allowed for more egalitarian admissions, providing colleges with newfound diversity in many different ways. That is not the case with the current state of admissions. Disadvantaged students will still be competing with the privileged students who have gone to private school and have had extensive SAT preparation. Colleges across the country should be thinking of ways to educate students about financial aid and need blind admissions. Many students at my high school were oblivious to the fact that schools would give out scholarships and were often too concerned with their ability to pay. With guidance counselors varying so much between high schools, it is vitally important that colleges disseminate information about the other options available to students. Rather than defenestrating early decision, colleges should figure out ways to attract students to not only apply, but to apply early.

Early decision allows colleges to choose students from an applicant pool that not only strongly desires to attend the college they have applied to, but who also may be some of the most talented students in a given class. Whether it comes to athletics, musical talent or raw academic ability, colleges can choose not only the most talented students, but also those who have a passion for the college before they even arrive on campus. Eliminating early decision effectively destroys this matchmaking ability. The student who truly loves a certain college will be flung in amongst those who are ambivalent and may not add that much to the life of the college. The distinction disappears to both the student and the college's detriment. Last, and probably least, high school students who know where they want to go to college and don't want to drag the process out over their senior year will now be forced to do so.

Amherst College has been at the forefront of ending inequality in the college admission process. While the Harvards of the world may come out and champion the end of early decision, this decision is largely symbolic and superficial: these schools will continue to enjoy high numbers of applicants and high yields. On the other hand, Amherst has chosen initiatives that could possibly lower its ranking in U.S. News and World Report. Rather than addressing education inequalities in a self-serving way, the college has chosen a more progressive route that addresses the fundamental problems with higher education. It is nice to know that the administration appreciates punctuality just as much as the professors.

Dykens is a junior majoring in Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought. He enjoys Val food and hating on Harvard-where he didn't apply early decision.