Last Friday, applicants to Harvard’s next class received e-mail notification of their admissions decision in December for what will likely be the final time. Three months ago, Harvard announced that it would terminate its flawed and unfair early action program, which lets students who submit applications by Nov. 1 get a response by Dec. 15. At the time, we said that Harvard had taken responsible action on behalf of students which should be a model for other universities. Although few schools have followed suit, we still hope that more colleges will follow Harvard’s lead and abandon their early admissions programs.

One of the principal advantages of eliminating early action is that it creates the perception of fairness. Although the admissions office claims its standards are just as high for the early round, the admit rate in December has historically been twice as high as in March because of a stronger applicant pool. These statistics create the perception of a skewed playing field, hurting Harvard in the eyes of the public and potential applicants, who are turned away because Harvard has already admitted almost half of its class. Because of this, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 has said that Harvard may attract more high quality applicants without an early admissions program.

Early admission programs benefit more privileged applicants and constrain schools from having an open, unbiased look at all candidates. Students at higher performing schools have the benefit of more qualified and informed guidance counselors who can better advise their students on the advantages of applying early. Applicants from lower performing public schools, where college counselors are so scarce that applications are processed slowly and guidance is impersonal and lackluster, are less likely to apply early despite their qualifications.

Additionally, wealthier students can afford the risk of not receiving adequate financial aid when they apply in early decision programs, where students admitted in December are required to enroll. When financial aid is a determining factor, an applicant should be able to wait to compare packages from all schools before committing to one. Colleges must seek the best applicants for their incoming classes and stop perpetuating the image of elite colleges as only for the socio-economically elite. Higher education has a long tradition of being reserved for those who can afford it, and convoluted admissions policies only validate this perception. Although Harvard does not have a binding early decision program, in ending early action, Harvard gives hope that other universities will follow suit and move to a uniform, single-round admissions process.

Early admissions also aggravates an already stressful process by adding terminology, confusion, and early deadlines. Eliminating early admission will hopefully relieve high school seniors from the admissions frenzy which has increased in recent years. If more schools eliminate early action, the lives of high school seniors will further improve.

To be sure, eliminating early admission is not a risk-free endeavor. Other schools that keep early admissions programs may be able to poach top-notch candidates who wish to learn their fate a few months earlier. But the potential costs are worth the benefits, even to schools without Harvard’s reputation that use early admission to lure top students.

The response to Harvard’s announcement has been lackluster so far. Only Princeton and the University of Virginia have ended their early admissions programs. Perhaps other schools have not followed suit because such an important decision takes time and careful scrutiny. Nevertheless, we still hope that next year we will be able to say that even fewer students are receiving admissions decisions in December.