The Perils of “Early” Decision

I’m not a fan of binding Early Decision. I see my role as helping students to open doors; Early Decision closes them. It also begs to be used strategically, but college admissions is a process, not a game, so “plan” is a much more appropriate metaphor than “strategy.”

The downsides of filing early are plentiful and often dismissed far too casually. A denial in December is a decidedly unhappy way to begin the winter holiday season. Even the student who is deferred into the regular decision pool feels as though he has been bludgeoned by his betrothed. Adding insult to injury, he has to turn around and convince six different members of his wedding party that they, in fact, are each his true love. Even admitted students can be miserable. They can suffer from “buyer’s remorse” if they feel they settled for less than their dream, or subsequently discover a school they fall in love with, or see their friends eyeing multiple offers.

It used to be that a school would not admit an applicant early who they would not admit regular. Nearly 30 years ago, one of my most qualified students sat in my office in October of his senior year and declared his intention to apply early to Claremont McKenna. Personally, I thought it would be a great fit. Back then, however, I asked my standard ED question: “What’s the difference between an admit to CMC in December and admits to CMC plus three or four other schools in April?” His answer was “It’s December.” My reply: “Not good enough.” He applied regular decision and was admitted to CMC along with Pomona and UCLA, among others. He chose Harvard. (I recall that his grandfather had an influence in that choice; I still think he would have loved CMC.)

The tide started to shift a few years later. I was on the phone with the rep from a selective liberal arts college, discussing one of my students whom we both considered delightful and a good fit for the school. Then the rep suggested that perhaps the young man might want to convert his application to Early Decision. I played it cool, but I was quite taken aback; I felt we were dancing dangerously close to an ethical line. Barely a decade later, Tulane, in their push to recover from Hurricane Katrina, “legitimized” the practice by routinely encouraging strong Early Action applicants to convert to ED. Over the last few years a number of schools, including the University of Chicago, have followed suit.

Early Decision is a powerful tool for lowering an institution’s admit rate. A school with a 33% yield in regular decision needs to admit three students to fill every seat. In early decision they only need to admit one. So now, unlike 30 years ago, a school might offer admission early to a student who would not make the grade in the regular pool. This is the origin of the “boost,” the notion that a school might admit a slightly less qualified applicant ED over a more qualified candidate later. Families often stretch the meaning of “slightly,” but for now, I can count on one finger (maybe two) the number of schools that routinely preference ED candidates in any significant way.

Timing matters. Round I Early decisions are released mid-December, a month before the end of the first semester. That means applicants filing in November have to be strong candidates based on junior year credentials. A few years ago I had a student in love with a major urban university. He was a typical “up-and-comer,” with grades on a steadily upward trajectory, but not quite there yet. Senior grades would matter. I explained that he would be a better candidate in ED Round II, since by then the transcript would include official first semester grades. He went back and forth a number of times; (the allure of ED I is powerful, like the dark side in Star Wars.) The Dean of Admission, during his annual visit, met with the young man, a very likable fellow, in my office. After the boy left, I handed the Dean his transcript and said I was recommending ED II. The Dean took one look at the document and echoed: “ED II.” In the end, that’s what he did, and he was admitted.

Early Decision always benefits the college. It does not always benefit the student. I had a boy who met with an admission officer at one of the most selective NESCAC schools and later gushed: “We had a great meeting; he urged me to apply early!” The young man clearly interpreted the advice as an endorsement of his candidacy. As casually as I could, I asked: “Did he see a copy of your transcript?” Then I had parents who attended an information session at a moderately selective mid-sized university and reported: “They were encouraging students to apply early.” That’s because their admit rate early was 75%; they needed more kids to apply early so they could turn more of them down! 

U.S. colleges never discourage kids from applying and rarely discourage them from applying early, regardless of their qualifications. That’s the magic of the word “holistic.” High school boys (and often their parents) translate the word to mean: “grades don’t matter.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

The writing on the wall was etched into stone this year: the role of binding Early Decision will continue to grow. Our young people will be its beneficiaries as well as its casualties as it increases the selectivity of regular decision and the crushing pressure of “getting in.” Boston College, for example, had 3,200 applications between their two rounds of binding Early Decision this year, during which they admitted roughly 50 percent of the incoming class. In Regular Decision, there were 36,000 applications! “The Early Decision” needs to be weighed carefully and with gravitas.

Curious to see where Browning boys end up enrolling? Check out our matriculation history.