Early admissions concerns

The national trend, exhibited at Penn, of admitting large numbers of students early raises some troubling issues. Granted, it does speak well for the University that 40 percent more students chose to make Penn their top choice this fall than did so three years ago. But whether it is appropriate for elite schools to admit one third to one half of their freshman classes through early decisions is a matter on which Penn can and should take the lead in bringing to the fore of the higher education community. The increasing prevalence of early decisions makes the college admissions process much more precarious for two groups of students with the most to lose through making a poor choice: those on financial aid and those unsure of what school suits them best. Nearly half of Penn undergraduates receive some form of financial aid. And for many, aid is the deciding factor in choosing what colleges to attend. But students committed to one college in December do not have the option of comparing aid offers from multiple schools. Many students are scared away from the early decision process because of the need to accept the best offer. Those who do apply are left gambling that their aid packages will be sufficient, and have no leverage if the offer falls short of expectations. Meanwhile, for those students without a clearly defined first choice, the early decisions process dramatically redefines the college admissions timetable. Gone are winter recess campus visits and the April tradition of picking from among a small handful of acceptance letters. Students who apply early to Penn without a full commitment to the University are left possibly making a poor choice. Many high school students are simply not ready at the beginning of their senior years to choose the college that is right for them, but are drawn into making that decision by the allure of high early decision acceptance rates. These phenomena are not lost on parents and students -- the anecdotal evidence to that effect is overwhelming -- but have not been discussed widely enough by those in higher education. Penn officials can and should play a leadership role in creating a dialogue on these issues. Change cannot be effected by unilateral action on Penn's part, but only through open communication with other colleges in the Ivy League and the American Association of Universities.