View profile

Early Decision Isn’t As Common As You Might Think — But It Still Favors the Wealthy

We can debate whether or not early decision is now “the norm.” Either way, it still favors the wealth
The Weekly Dispatch
We can debate whether or not early decision is now “the norm.” Either way, it still favors the wealthy and well-informed.

The New Norm?
November 1 is just two weeks away — and that means tens of thousands of students are racing to finish their early-decision applications. 
Early decision, we’ve been told in recent years, has become “the new normal.” That’s certainly true for wealthy students who hire private tutors like James Murphy, a private testing and admissions consultant.
He’s going to help them navigate that system, but it doesn’t mean he likes it.
He dug into the stats recently for a report for the College Board and wrote a column about it for The Hechinger Report: “A boon for colleges and wealthy families, ‘early decision’ is unfair—and here to stay.”
So is early decision really on the rise?
Yes. In 2012, just over 5 percent of all the students who applied that year to four-year colleges applied early, according to Murphy. Five years later, in 2017, that number climbed to 7.6 percent.
That’s not exactly the new normal.
Not by a long shot. The number of private, non-profit colleges offering early decision rose to 12 percent from just under 10 percent. Most of that new growth, Murphy points out, was among colleges that already enroll high percentages of their applicants. 
Then why does it matter?
First, it encourages high-school students and their families to see college admissions as a game to be won. “It forces students to think about applying strategically,” he says. “I’m all for the kid who goes to Elon, falls in love with it, and applies early. Great. Why should that kid, if he can get into Elon, have to go through all the anxiety?”
But once he, as a private tutor, is talking about “strategy” with families, something feels off kilter. 
Ultimately, he acknowledges, that’s not the biggest public worry.
“The harm that’s being done to families who feel a need to engage in this kind of game theory is not a big concern,” he says. “That not why a college should choose not to do it. They should choose not to do it because what studies there are out there — and there aren’t enough — indicate that the benefit goes largely to wealthy white students who have private advisors.”
A 2016 Jack Kent Cooke Foundation report analyzed Common App data for high-achieving students. It found that 29 percent of them from families making more than $250,000 applied early decision. In comparison, just 16 percent from families with incomes less than $50,000 did the same.
Early decision isn’t going anywhere, though. 
It was 13 years ago that Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Virginia all scrapped their early-admission policies. Maybe other institutions would follow? They didn’t. And all three went back to some type of early-admission policy within a few years.
Early decision provides certainty for colleges in an uncertain admissions process, letting some of them now lock down half of their freshman class months ahead of time.
Instead Murphy suggested that other carrots and sticks need to exist [maybe new federal policy, maybe public shaming] that focus on the real issue: selective colleges that are under-enrolling low- and middle-income students. Murphy would rather see more talk on changes like an endowment tax on wealthy universities that don’t enroll a substantial number of students on Pell Grants. 
“Basically,” he says, “we should be addressing the outcomes that early decision contributes to.”
Reading list:
Keeping Watch on Students
A couple of headlines jumped out this week in the ongoing debates about colleges tracking their students (and applicants):
The Washington Post published a deep look at all the ways colleges are building digital dossiers on prospective applicants to better predict who might enroll. (This story is a great example of something that most people within higher ed have long known about but the public isn’t nearly as aware of.)
Student journalists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill used public-records requests to show the details of the implementation this year of SpotterEDU, a system for tracking student-athletes through a device in the classroom that automatically connects to their phones.
(Most athletics departments have long used staff and student assistants to keep an eye on athletes’ class attendance. Twenty years ago as an adjunct at the University of New Mexico, I had athletics staff call me to confirm that one star basketball player had shown up to class. He hadn’t. The next class, he was there, answering his own phone in the back of the room. “Yes,” he whispered, exasperated. “I’m here.”)
Lee Gardner at The Chronicle of Higher Education takes a broad look at the advantages of all this tracking as well as its critiques: “Colleges are tracking them with greater sophistication, but the students don’t seem to care. Should you?”
College Is a Distant Dream in Much of Rural Michigan
Thirty-two of Michigan’s counties don’t have colleges. Having no easy access to education after high school creates a vicious cycle that perpetuates poverty in these communities that their residents struggle to break.
How To Help
We say it every week because it’s true: We love hearing from you. Please keep the feedback and ideas coming. Reach us both at
You can make a tax-deductible donation to Open Campus through the Institute for Nonprofit News (our fiscal sponsor). Thank you!
One more request: please forward this email to other people you think would be interested. They can sign up here.
Did you enjoy this issue?