Would ED/EA ever end without legislation?

[Anonymous]

It seems like if the economics are right, there's no reason colleges would stop doing ED/EA even though it's clear it's filling up college seats richest-first. Like ridiculously obvious.

Would they ever actually end it? It only seems likely to go further and become more widespread. The simultaneous application to eight schools at once sometime in winter of your senior year seems to totally be a thing that's going to disappear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like if the economics are right, there's no reason colleges would stop doing ED/EA even though it's clear it's filling up college seats richest-first. Like ridiculously obvious.

Would they ever actually end it? It only seems likely to go further and become more widespread. The simultaneous application to eight schools at once sometime in winter of your senior year seems to totally be a thing that's going to disappear.

A lot of schools are using early to fill up first gen and low income. They need early too.

[Anonymous]

it's filling up college seats with athletes first. it's ridiculously obvious that athletes are priority one - far above rich people.

I actually see fewer issues with people who pay more getting first dibs. That happens in every business. I just dont why we care who can sail the fastest.

[Anonymous]

What’s wrong with EA?

[Anonymous]

It fills up the class early with people who got cash. Athletes as mentioned. Requires overcommitting behavior like an auction. Avoids competition. Jacks up prices…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like if the economics are right, there's no reason colleges would stop doing ED/EA even though it's clear it's filling up college seats richest-first. Like ridiculously obvious.

Would they ever actually end it? It only seems likely to go further and become more widespread. The simultaneous application to eight schools at once sometime in winter of your senior year seems to totally be a thing that's going to disappear.

A lot of schools are using early to fill up first gen and low income. They need early too.

Isn’t it easier just to accept more Questbridge kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It fills up the class early with people who got cash. Athletes as mentioned. Requires overcommitting behavior like an auction. Avoids competition. Jacks up prices…

If you're responding to the PP, EA is non-binding so does not involve overcommitting.

[Anonymous]

no, nothing to legislate ... perfectly legal based on mutual consent and agreement

[Anonymous]

I wish there was no ED or single choice early options but two waves where everyone followed the same timelines similar to this:

Wave 1: apply by October 15, have non-binding result by Dec 15 where colleges could only offer admit up to 50% of spots for the class, offer defer to wave 2 up to an additional 25% of spots and deny the rest.

Wave 2: apply by January 15, have results by March 15.

Change up the commitment dates where Wave 1 must commit by April 1 and Wave 2 by May 1.

This gives students time to regroup and work on more apps if wave 1 doesn't work out. The earlier commit date for wave 1 could open more WL movement for wave 2 students before having to commit.

Another alternative could be offer an ED match to all students where they apply and rank order up to 8 schools they would commit to if matched. This would likely increase the number of admits by cutting down on the number of kids getting in to multiple while others being shut out. So someone could apply to all 8 ivys but only be matched to 1. I'm tired of seeing the same story every year about a kid who go into all 8. It's a great accomplishment but they can only go to one, a match system like med school or sorority rush seems to make the most sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was no ED or single choice early options but two waves where everyone followed the same timelines similar to this:

Wave 1: apply by October 15, have non-binding result by Dec 15 where colleges could only offer admit up to 50% of spots for the class, offer defer to wave 2 up to an additional 25% of spots and deny the rest.

Wave 2: apply by January 15, have results by March 15.

Change up the commitment dates where Wave 1 must commit by April 1 and Wave 2 by May 1.

This gives students time to regroup and work on more apps if wave 1 doesn't work out. The earlier commit date for wave 1 could open more WL movement for wave 2 students before having to commit.

Another alternative could be offer an ED match to all students where they apply and rank order up to 8 schools they would commit to if matched. This would likely increase the number of admits by cutting down on the number of kids getting in to multiple while others being shut out. So someone could apply to all 8 ivys but only be matched to 1. I'm tired of seeing the same story every year about a kid who go into all 8. It's a great accomplishment but they can only go to one, a match system like med school or sorority rush seems to make the most sense to me.

Questbridge has match and it runs smoothly every year. The issue is it would probably reduce application numbers in total, which universities don’t want.

[Anonymous]

Colleges can still discern wealth in the application even if EA ED were dismantled. Too, college could just reverse course and go Needs Aware. Doing away with ED doesn’t change anything. Limiting applications to say 8 schools per kid - that would change everything.

[Anonymous]

More donut-hole family whining. If you actually had financial need, apply ED to a needs-met school, problem solved! In our case apply ED to a state school you can afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can still discern wealth in the application even if EA ED were dismantled. Too, college could just reverse course and go Needs Aware. Doing away with ED doesn’t change anything. Limiting applications to say 8 schools per kid - that would change everything.

My ED kid only applied to 4. Which turns out was 3 too many. ED is great.

[Anonymous]

ED has been round for forty years, it isn’t going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

The ongoing antitrust lawsuit could put an end to it. Colleges, like any businesses, can't agree to restraints on trade. They can't agree to a particular deadline. And they coordinate to blacklist or punish a student who violates an ED agreement (which is not legally binding).

https://www.cohenmilstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Complaint-DAmico-v-Consortium-on-Financing-Higher-Education-August-8-2025.pdf