Growth of ED in the Public Sector

Typically, binding Early Decision (ED) programs have been offered by private institutions only (with one notable exception; more on this below!). But over the past few years, a growing number of public flagships have adopted ED policies, including University of Michigan last year and University of Florida this year. University of Vermont was also a recent adopter of ED, and has since expanded its program to include Early Decision 2 (ED2). College of William and Mary similarly has both ED1 and ED2. 

UVA has long offered a binding ED policy, but this was an outlier amongst flagship public institutions, and specific to an institution that has long courted out-of-state applicants. Otherwise, applicants to public institutions were limited to either Early Action (EA) or, in the case of the University of California system and University of Washington, Regular Decision (RD) only. The implication underlying these policies was that public institutions should avoid policies–like ED—that either implicitly or explicitly benefit full-pay students. 

So why the recent change?

1. Demand. Public flagships continue to grow in popularity, with the rise in applications to public institutions growing at a faster rate than their private counterparts. ED allows institutions facing a surge of applications to exercise more control over yield (the number of accepted students who choose to matriculate), which in turn allows them to avoid oversubscribing a class and overtaxing on-campus resources, particularly housing.

2. Revenue. The reason that public institutions initially avoided ED is now the very reason they are turning to it. ED favors out-of-state and full-pay applicants. Offering out-of-staters an admissions advantage in exchange for a binding commitment helps to subsidize tuition for residents and those who depend on financial aid. 

3. Culture. While there continue to be public criticisms of ED policies and the disproportionate advantage they provide to full-pay applicants, the big push to eliminate them entirely has largely dissipated (for now). This creates a cultural opening for pragmatically minded institutions to control yield and shore up revenue.

What does this mean for applicants?

1. Diminishing EA Advantage. Many applicants after highly selective institutions used to buffer their ED or Single Choice/Restrictive EA strategy with a handful of EA applications to public flagships. We can’t even tell you how many times we have had an Ivy-minded student pair an ED or SCEA application with EA applications to University of Michigan, UVA, UNC Chapel Hill, UT Austin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, etc. EA didn’t provide much of a boost, but often deferred applicants would see one (or more) EA acceptances that would help them streamline their college list and enter the RD round with some assurances. When a school introduces ED, however, any advantage that EA offered (even if minimal) typically evaporates. So while applicants will continue to take this approach, they are not likely to see the EA payoff they want.

2. Opportunities for Flagship Lovers. It used to be that applicants who loved the public flagships used to have limited opportunities to “put their finger on the scale” by applying ED to their first choice school. Now they can.

3. Growing Socioeconomic Divides Between In-Staters and Out-of-Staters. If most out-of-staters are coming in via ED, and ED applicants tend to be full pay, it only stands to reason that the wealth gap between residents and non-residents at public institutions will continue to grow.

4. Pressure to Choose. If you read this blog, you know that we have mixed feelings about ED. You also know that we encourage students to apply ED because it confers a material strategic advantage. This trend only adds to this guidance: you may not love it, but if you can apply ED, you probably should.

As for the larger admissions landscape? Our not-so-hot take is that ED will continue to dominate until the cultural winds shift direction, at which point the privilege argument may force institutions to balance pragmatism with equity. Until then, have a solid strategy that features a mix of early and regular decision applications and provides strong balance across selectivity tiers.