Last month, Yale President Richard C. Levin suggested that the nation’s top colleges should scrap early decision admissions programs. His comments have sparked a national debate on an issue important to all college-bound students. Levin was correct in asserting that the binding system of early decision disadvantages students for the convenience of college admissions committees. However, many of Levin’s criticisms do not apply to the non-binding system of early action used by Harvard and other colleges, and this process should be retained.

Early decision allows students to obtain a guaranteed place at the college of their choice as early as Nov. 1. However, the application requires a binding agreement to attend if accepted, which pressures students into making permanent choices before they are ready. And the pledge to attend is almost always made before students receive financial aid offers, meaning that a student may be forced to attend the college despite a very inadequate financial aid plan.

Colleges profit from early decision because it increases their acceptance yield—100 percent of students accepted early will attend. These numbers help colleges boost their U.S. News and World Report ratings, attracting even more applicants who are then stiffed under the early decision system. Colleges designed the early decision system for their own benefit—and students have been lured into taking up their early decision offers for the security they provide.

Early action, on the other hand, is a system worth keeping, albeit with a few modifications. It offers the same options to students as the regular admissions process, only on an earlier timetable. Under the early action system available at Harvard, for instance, students may apply early to as many schools as they choose, without having to declare a single first-choice college. The system gives students the early answers—and the security—they crave, while leaving them the freedom to compare financial aid packages and to defer any final decisions until the spring.

Still, there are imperfections in the early action system.

First, some schools offer early action but prohibit students from applying early to more than one school. This curtails student choice unnecessarily, and again favors colleges over students. The only acceptable early action system is one that allows students choice at all points during the admissions process.

Second, early action acceptance rates are almost always higher than acceptance rates for regular admissions. Well connected college counselors at elite schools often advise their students to apply early because of their better odds for acceptance. Though admissions committees claim this is the result of a stronger applicant pool, there is a widespread perception that students less well acquainted with the nuances of the admissions process are disadvantaged by delaying their applications. Colleges that use early action should work to remove any bias in the system, ensuring that candidates have the same chances of acceptance no matter when they apply.

Third, early action systems can sometimes deny students the answers they’re looking for. This year, 1,174 of 6,126 early applicants to Harvard were accepted early. Of those not accepted, only 191 were rejected outright. The other 4,677 were deferred to regular decision. As a result, 4,677 students have their hopes set on the roughly 1,000 places that will be filled in the spring (in competition with all of Harvard’s regular applicants). In last year’s process, only about 200 students were deferred and later accepted last year—fewer than one in 20.

According to Director of Admissions Marlyn McGrath Lewis ’70-’73, the vast majority of students are deferred because “we want to have as much choice as we can reasonably have.” No one wants the admissions office to reject a student hastily, and some candidates’ applications may hinge on senior year grades. But it seems cruel to keep thousands of students hanging on when there are so few spaces available. Students apply early because they want to find out the result early, a result that will help inform their decisions in the rest of the admissions process. By deferring so many students, Harvard is not only being disingenuous, but is also denying students the decisions they deserve. Harvard should render its decisions early and eliminate the three months of false hope so many of its applicants face.

Because of its unique position in the college admissions system, Harvard has been willing in many ways to structure its admissions process in students’ best interests. It is time for Harvard to improve on its record and for schools nationwide to follow its lead.