THE UNIVERSITY last week did its potential students a great disservice. Following colleges such as Princeton and Harvard, the University decided that it would no longer continue its early admission program for students, instead opting for an application deadline in early January for all applicants, which will take effect for applicants entering in 2008. President John T. Casteen, III and Dean of Admissions John Blackburn decided to do away with the early decision program in order to help equalize college admissions for low-income students.
Stopping a reasonable and rewarding program in the name of diversity isn't an intelligent way to improve the University's future student body. There are better ways to achieve this end than ending early admissions, and the University has the ability to improve the demographics of the student body through outside programs and more financial aid. However, one thing remains clear: The University must reinstate either an early decision or early action program.
Vienna, Va.-based AdmissionsConsultants, Inc. president David Petersam explained in an interview that students who apply for college through early decision are typically more committed than students who apply through normal admissions. Though Petersam applauds the University eliminating the program for symbolic reasons, he fears that colleges that eliminate the early decision program risk losing some of the most faithful students that apply.
The administration's primary argument against early decision -- that the program will increase income equality -- is not necessarily true. Petersam explained that eliminating the program is not going to make a statistically significant income difference, particularly since the University normally defers such a large percentage of students already. If the University is eliminating the program for the sake of diversity, the result will be most likely be a symbolic change, not a real one.
If the University feels that early decision gives an unequal leg up for students who are sure of which college they want to apply to, then it should diminish the benefits that students receive for applying early. One Harvard study from 2000 concluded that applying early for college is, on average, the equivalent of increasing a student's SAT score by 100 points. However, there is a simple way to respond to this potential result: Accept fewer students who apply early. Making the process more selective is a perfectly viable option to eliminating the program entirely.
Additionally, the University needs to offer better financial aid programs if early decision is failing to attract lower-income students. Dean of Admissions John Blackburn mentioned that only 20 students from the 948 early decision admission students applied for financial aid and that only one of the 172 students admitted early in last year's class applied for financial aid. However, these statistics should raise the more important concern of financial aid difficulty for all potential students, not just early decision applicants. It isn't a secret that tuition and other costs for the University are steadily rising, and removing the early decision program will not make it easier for low income students to avoid heavy debt. If nothing else, early decision helps avoid the cost of multiple applications for the few potential low-income students who choose to apply early to the University.
As another alternative, the University could also consider an early action program, which would allow students to apply early to multiple colleges as opposed to committing to solely one, such as the University. This way, students who want to apply early will be able to apply to multiple colleges. This will decrease a potentially unwanted commitment to the University while allowing committed students to be able to breathe easier and even consider multiple alternatives. In addition, Petersam mentioned that students who apply for early action to colleges are not significantly different from students who apply early decision to colleges. He added that while early action students may be slightly less committed to the college that they apply to than early decision students, they are both on average more committed than regular decision students.
The University should reward students who are committed enough to their institution to apply early, no matter what the demographics of the applicants are. Commitments to diversity need to come from other programs to improve student applicants outside of the University, not by restricting access to proactive students. If there are flaws and inequalities in the early admissions program, they should be addressed and fixed. But the University must not destroy a perfectly viable program for its few flaws and should instead improve and strengthen the current process. Only then will the most determined students feel that they were meant to be a Wahoo.
Adam Silverberg's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at asilverberg@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
