“I can assure you that the ED/EA issues that were very much active in our discussions last year will likewise be a very big topic for discussion this year,” Wilder said. “These issues will be put before the assembly in some motions. There’s always the possibility something could be changed.”

The other potential resolution would come from Princeton’s side. Hargadon released a statement at a press conference this summer saying he plans to step down after this year. His successor will have the opportunity to reformulate Princeton’s stance on the issue if the central administration does not intervene.

If the showdown does reach a critical point and Princeton and Brown are expelled, it might prompt a reevaluation of the entire Early Decision system, according to Fallows.

“There would have to be some transition, because in the long run, Princeton and Brown will have to be included,” said Fallows. “They won’t be labelled as rogue states. It will signal that there’s a real difference of opinion on this, that it’s a problem to be addressed or solved.”

But if nothing changes on either end, Fitzsimmons said, the issue may expand far beyond Princeton and Brown depending on the results of this year’s admissions season.

“Each institution in the end has to decide what is going to be best for their future student body and their institution,” he said. “We will have to step back and see if this new rule is serving students generally. Does it make sense for a student to apply to 15 Early Action schools along with an Early Decision school? People really don’t know what’s going to happen.”

For this year at least, there are no indications of movement towards a stable solution to the issue.

“In the end, students have a choice,” Hargadon wrote. “After all, if they wish to file multiple early applications, there are plenty of excellent institutions where they are welcome to do just that.”

—Staff writer Dan Rosenheck can be reached at rosenhec@fas.harvard.edu.