Since President Donald Trump first took office, higher education has come under a regulatory microscope. The administration enforced new controls on endowment taxation, free speech, antisemitism and the legitimacy of campus diversity initiatives such as race-based admissions at elite universities. Yet, amid these flashpoints, one of the most harmful and discriminatory practices in higher education has escaped scrutiny: early decision (ED).
The ED system, which universities market as a way for students to signal strong commitment by applying early, functions instead as a gatekeeping mechanism that privileges wealth over merit. As a binding admissions program, ED provides better acceptance chances to applicants who can afford to forgo comparing financial aid packages while spurning students who must weigh costs before commitment. If Trump, legislators and university leaders are serious about fairness in higher education, then they should instead turn their attention to dismantling this broken ED system.
At Emory University, ED admissions are the most common pathway into the University. Over 60% of Emory’s incoming Class of 2029 was enrolled through ED at more than double the acceptance rate of regular decision. That gap is not an accident. By leaning so heavily on ED, Emory tilts the scales toward wealthier students who can afford to commit to the $93,352 yearly cost of attendance without financial assistance.
Other elite universities exhibit the same pattern. At the University of Pennsylvania and Dartmouth College (N.H.), nearly half of each incoming class are ED admits, demonstrating how the practice is a gatekeeping tool for the Ivy League and its peers. In a recent class action lawsuit filed on Aug. 8, top universities — including Emory, the University of Pennsylvania and Dartmouth — were accused of conspiring to inflate tuition costs through the ED process. The lawsuit labels the ED system as a blatant antitrust violation, as would-be competitors essentially agree not to compete over a select group of students willing to pay the sticker price. Moreover, schools use intentionally vague language that leads students to believe ED is a contract, even though it is not legally binding. When students agree to attend a university and pay its full tuition cost by applying ED, schools lose the incentive to drive down costs to compete with other universities for applicants. This effect, the lawsuit claims, leads to higher tuition for all students. ED is not about student choice or institutional stability — it is about locking in wealth and squeezing fairness out of the admissions process.
Emory’s reliance on ED exposes a contradiction in the story the University tells about itself. As students, we have all heard Emory tout its commitment to diversity and inclusion through University leaders, orientation programming and campus tours. These words ring hollow as the University fills nearly half of each class with inherently more privileged students before regular decision admissions even begin. Before the University turns to expanding access and selecting students from the regular decision admissions pool, its coffers are already secured by a homogenous pool of wealthy students. As a result, low-income and first-generation students are transparently handicapped in the admissions process solely based on wealth. The concept of need-blind admissions is, in this sense, a scam. It may be true in the technical sense that Emory does not consider a student’s ability to pay when reviewing an application. But, when the ED applicant pool is already skewed toward those from affluent families, the outcome is predetermined.
ED supporters may argue that Emory is simply responding to economic pressures. Binding admissions boosts yields, helps stabilize enrollment and ensures the school extracts more tuition. However, this common argument misses the point: Universities are not just market actors extracting rent from their students — they are supposed to be public-minded institutions committed to education, mobility and the greater good. Moreover, I find it curious that universities such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Virginia do not have binding ED processes, yet they have steadily risen in rankings over the past few years and maintain strong endowments. If Emory were serious about being a leader in higher education and practicing its values, it would stop clinging to practices that entrench inequities simply because it is convenient to their bottom line.
My critique of ED and university admissions does not mean I endorse Trump’s assault on higher education. I find it deeply troubling for both students and society at large. The administration chose its targets — diversity initiatives, woke programming and race-based admissions — only because they supposedly disadvantage white, affluent applicants. Despite Trump’s desire to restore merit-based opportunity, the administration’s plans to fight against discrimination in higher education strategically omit the inequities of the ED system, which overwhelmingly disadvantage lower-income, first-generation and minority students.
Despite the lawsuit against ED, I doubt that either Emory or higher education more generally will willingly abandon this system. However, as students and advocates, we cannot lose sight of the institution we want to build. Vocal resistance does yield results: When the Trump administration attempted to freeze billions in education grants, grassroots organizing helped push ten Republican senators to sign a letter opposing the move, leading Trump to abandon it. With higher education under threat on multiple fronts, it is crucial to continue calling out how Trump’s agenda ignores real threats to fairness while pretending to defend meritocracy. Even when change feels unlikely, it is our responsibility to speak out against inequity and to keep raising our voices until they no longer echo into empty air.
Contact Ethan Jacobs at ethan.jacobs@emory.edu.
