Affirmative Action for the Rich: The Flaws and Inequities of Early Decision

Eilidh Thomson

Rhode Island, USA

Attribution: Isaac Davis, The Nubian Message, thenubianmessage.com, Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication

As the application cycle for American higher education begins its tumultuous rollout for the graduating high school class of 2026, thousands of students will sign binding commitments to their favored institutions. While providing the surface-level appearance of comfort and confidence to these young adults, in reality, Early Decision is a method that exposes the deeply inequitable structure and power of the American collegiate system. 

The concept of “Early Decision” in applications dates back to the 1950s, particularly spearheaded by competition between New England’s most prestigious institutions. The founders include schools such as Wesleyan, Williams, Dartmouth, Bowdoin, and Amherst, which struggled to compete with the more popular Harvard, Princeton, and Yale in securing their enrollment requirements. If they could promise prospective students a higher acceptance rate and more security within a relatively stressful process, they could ease the anxiety of their applicants and their bank accounts. Essentially, if colleges do not meet enrollment requirements, they are unable to extract enough tuition money, among other fees, from students to fund their well-oiled machine. Since its conception, it has been steadily growing in popularity, and in recent years, has reached unprecedented levels of participation. This is primarily because of the admissions advantage, with some schools taking over 60% of their incoming classes from the Early Application pool. Why would a young American with a favorite school neglect such a golden opportunity?

Likely because this “advantage” inherently favors students with the financial stability and guidance to navigate it. Students who ED are not given the privilege to compare financial offers before they commit. They can not negotiate how much aid they receive, and can not decline any unsatisfactory package. In addition, as merit-based scholarships are designed to entice students to accept offers, there is no incentive to provide merit scholarships to ED applicants, and most colleges don’t. Students from financially privileged backgrounds who worry about money less are therefore unaffected by this nuance of ED, whereas students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have to hesitate. This is evident from a Duke University study, where they found that students from families earning over $250,000 annually were twice as likely to apply early as those making less than $50,000. However, seeing that many schools fill over half their classes with ED admissions, it puts students who can not afford ED at a disadvantage and lowers their higher education opportunities, which perpetuates cycles of economic hardship. With this economic disparity, there is also a clear information disparity, as students with access to private counseling, years of preparation, and generational knowledge of the system prevail above those who must make these decisions without comparable guidance. The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) found that private schools employ an average of one college counselor per 38 students, while public schools average one per 400–500 students.

Unfortunately, there is a consequential racial disparity between applicants. According to a 2023 report by The Hechinger Report, roughly three-quarters of students admitted through Early Decision at elite universities identify as white, a striking contrast to the broader applicant pool. Considering again that many colleges fill over half their classes with ED applicants, by virtue of that fact, this system continues to disproportionately favor white applicants to higher education institutions.

This brings America back to the contentious debate of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action was struck down after the Supreme Court ruled that race-based policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The court found that these programs unconstitutionally discriminate by using race as a factor in admissions, and that it should be replaced by a “colorblind” approach. The offensiveness of affirmative action to its opposers is that it gives an unfair advantage to students of color by providing them with more opportunities in the context that marginalized groups have historically had less access to privileges like higher education. However, in a system where Early Decision persists in benefiting affluent white applicants, it appears hypocritical to contend that Affirmative Action would be the process providing unfair advantages based on race. 

The promise of higher education has always been one of mobility and merit, a belief that talent and effort can transcend circumstance. Yet as long as Early Decision endures, that promise remains unfulfilled. Colleges have the power, and the responsibility, to dismantle this system of inherited advantage and to build one that truly opens doors for all. Equality in admissions will not come from pretending everyone starts in the same place, but from finally acknowledging that they don’t.