Michelle Dubert | Why should Harvard lead the way?

On Dec. 11, 2002, I did math homework for the last time. I was done with derivatives forever, since the following day I was accepted early decision to Penn. High school sort of went uphill from there.

Last year, 22,754 of the world's overachievers applied to Harvard, 3,869 of whom applied early. But Harvard's recent decision to nix the program for the class of 2012 and beyond, while garnering praise from some academics, will leave anxious students to languish in Cloroxed classrooms, wallowing in their self-pity until April rolls around and some big envelopes start wading through the mail. It's all in the name of equality. Or is it?

The claim first proffered by Harvard was that the early-admissions process was unfair to minority and low-income applicants. Erasing the policy would establish a more equitable playing field and create more diversity among the student population. Quick on Harvard's heels, Princeton commended the decision and announced days later they would adopt the same policy - and just two days ago, the University of Virginia joined their ranks. But the question of whether early admissions is indeed discriminatory deserves attention. Furthermore, should Harvard dictate a universal Ivy League etiquette?

Mercifully, the answer to the latter is no. While Harvard's decision has caused the other Ivies to re-evaluate their admissions policies, Penn depends on early admissions for its success.

"We like admitting students who select Penn as their fist choice and not as their backup school," Penn spokeswoman Lori Doyle said. "Our student body is happy to be here and it makes for a better student experience." Dean of Admissions Lee Stetson had said it would be "presumptuous" for Penn to mold to Harvard's new protocol.

But the basis to dissolve early admissions revolves chiefly around money, which Harvard has plenty of. The school's endowment weighs in at $29.2 billion, up $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2006 and the highest of any university in the nation (it stands twice as large as Yale's endowment and over seven times as large as Penn's). Harvard would not disclose what percentage of the endowment is allocated to financial aid each year.

Harvard Admissions maintains that eliminating their early-action program will enable prospective students to shop for the best-priced education.

"Low-income students are often discouraged from applying early because they fear they won't have an opportunity to compare financial-aid packages," Princeton spokeswoman Cass Claitt told me. "We feel that eliminating these barriers will help level the playing field."

Still, there is a disconnect.

Early decision locks students in a contract that binds them into an aid package without room to negotiate. Harvard, however, currently operates with early action, which is non-binding in matriculation and aid. So where is this stripping of choice?

The policy change comes just months after Harvard revamped its financial-aid program, which ended "parental contributions" to tuition for students in families with incomes of less than $60,000 per year. This group sounds stunningly similar to those targeted in the early-admissions dismissal, and free tuition sounds like a devastatingly difficult offer to compete with.

Doyle asserts that the way to create a more diversified student population is through tweaking financial-aid strategies, not an overhaul of admissions policy. "We don't think early admissions has been an impediment to improving access," she said. "We need more need-based financial aid. Early decision is just one piece of the puzzle - it's part of the bigger picture."

In fact, Penn has witnessed an increase in early-decision applications among minorities and lower- to middle-income families, which Doyle attributes to an outreach campaign to inform students of the merits of applying early. "We're very committed to increasing diversity, and, because of that, we have improved our financial-aid programs" for the people most in need, she said.

Looking to Penn's example, early admissions doesn't have to be a casualty in the push for diversity. In many ways, this announcement sounds more like political correctness run amok - disadvantaging the "advantaged" fortunate enough to know what they want - than it does an equalizer in admissions.

Michelle Dubert is a College senior from Closter, N.J. Her e-mail address is dubert@dailypennsylvanian.com. Department of Strategery appears on Thursdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.