With the passing of the November 1 Early Decision (ED) deadline, most LM seniors are finally able to exhale. However, the rest of the country seems to be doing the opposite. A recent federal lawsuit filed against 32 elite universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, and many other top institutions, claims that ED is essentially an anticompetitive scheme that pressures students, inflates tuition, disadvantages low-income students, and violates antitrust laws.
From the perspective of students at LM—many of whom have an academic superiority complex and a not-so-subtle college obsession—the elimination of ED would be far from ideal. Eliminating ED would indeed cause significant concern for LM students, but also highlight tension in the plaintiffs’ argument on a broader scope. Doing so would contradict the very goal the plaintiffs are trying to achieve: leveling the playing field. In a college admissions system that is increasingly defined by unpredictability, where doing everything “right” does not guarantee acceptance and outcomes depend on countless variables, ED is one of the few options applicants have to reclaim a small measure of control over their own futures.
While ED does have some very real flaws, those flaws don’t justify destroying something that, for thousands of students, provides some amount of clarity in an otherwise chaotic process. Arguments that ED favors students with greater financial security, without the need for financial aid, and with better access to college counseling, are all true. Nonetheless, that doesn’t present grounds for ED to be entirely eliminated. Instead, it requires us to acknowledge the actual purpose that ED serves and the variety of circumstances that it supports. The reality is that while technically equity in the college admissions process can be achieved by stripping away resources like ED until everything is equally limited, that approach is not a progressive one; it is one that exacerbates the contingency of the college admissions process and only increases stress for applicants.
LM students are, without a doubt, characterized by an intense culture of academic ambition and performance. While this mentality is most definitely not a healthy one, it is a reality that is not likely to change any time soon. By senior year, many students’ lives are completely consumed by college research, campus tours, and building application strategies to match personal goals. For these students, ED is not a trap; it’s a strategy.
If ED were to be eliminated tomorrow, students would feel the impact immediately. Those who rely on an early solution for mental health or family stability would lose the timeline that fits their well-being. For many, having the option of ED provides earlier answers that reduces months of anticipation and uncertainty, allowing students and families more time to plan academics, finances, and logistics with greater confidence. Students who have a first-choice school—whether based on legitimate fit or prestige—would lose the system that allows them to show commitment. Even though students who apply ED may also apply to other schools Early Action (EA) or Regular Decision (RD), ED shifts the timeline to better fit the student on their own terms; without it, students face prolonged periods of mental strain as in the long, tedious, and high-pressure applications process. Ending ED would make the process of college applications fair on paper but, in reality, would fail to match the needs of each student. It would make the process even more hectic, mentally draining, and competitive, especially at high-achieving public schools like our own.
Be that as it may, the socioeconomic disparity in the matter cannot be ignored. At the end of the day, colleges are businesses that require tuition in order to operate, but that does not absolve them of the responsibility to ensure fair access to all applicants. This tension is visible in ED: while it can provide an advantage for students with greater financial resources or access to counseling, it can also provide certainty and reduce stress for students who are ready to commit early to one school. Rather than eliminating ED in its entirety, the system needs to be mended. For example, by offering better guidance resources for first-generation and underrepresented students, creating clearer admissions criteria, or ensuring that ED timelines do not disproportionately advantage students who require additional preparation, the benefits of ED can be maintained while mitigating some of the inequities it can create.
Inequity cannot be addressed by flattening the system into one uniform option, as eliminating ED would effectively do. Students’ lives are not uniform, their financial systems are not uniform, and their priorities are not uniform. That is precisely why we need ED, EA, Restrictive Early Action (REA), and RD. Having a menu of options reflects the diversity of student demographics and backgrounds and provides the flexibility that the system needs in order to thrive.
Students work hard enough throughout their time in high school to craft the perfect application and market themselves to the highest bidder. They deserve a true choice to pick the pathways that best fit their needs, a choice that acknowledges complexity rather than pretending there is a single “fair” pathway for everyone. ED is not the problem. A one-size-fits-all admissions system is.
