Here’s a concrete step to improving the “access problem” – Harvard’s cessation of its early admissions program, citing the system as a disadvantage to low-income and minority applicants (read about it here). Many universities possess binding early admissions decisions, by which students can apply before the regular decisions cycle – and face much slighter competition, in return for a commitment to attend. Harvard’s more genteel form, “Early Action” did not require a commitment to attend, but still promised substantially better odds of admission, at least in abstract: in the 2005 cycle of admissions 21% of early applicants were admitted, while only 7% of regular applicants. Early admissions programs are generally utilized by the more affluent, and a known route of college admissions counseling service expertise. Look, for example, to Ivywise, a pricey admissions counseling service. In their “testimonial archive” one can find comments to that effect:

IvyWise’s expert guidance, vast knowledge and enthusiasm throughout the college admissions process had become an integral part of our preparation and decision making for our daughter who ultimately decided to apply to Harvard University through the Early Action option. The compressed time element of the Early Action program requires a rigorous regimen of planning and preparation. IvyWise’s expertise comprised the most integral part of our daughter’s Early Action application and acceptance to Harvard University.” – Anonymous Parent, New Jersey, USA

After years of becoming accustomed to hearing that, say, it’s actually the SATs that “put low-income and minority applicants at a distinct disadvantage”, it’s enheartening to see a reasonable effort made to improve access to schools for these students. This step takes the best possible direction – it levels the field of admissions access without artificially increasing the prospects of low-income and minority students. This is a trend to be encouraged. If only Harvard would next set about righting the systemic factors that put reasonable University Presidents at a distinct disadvantage.