Independent educational consultants (IECs) have a front-row seat to how chaotic the college admissions process has become. We see it daily in our work with families: longer admissions cycles, record-breaking numbers of applications, widespread deferrals, and waitlist activity that lasts deep into the summer. The result is heightened anxiety and second-guessing, diminishing predictability, and growing confusion about how admissions decisions are actually made.
We spend much of our time educating families, allaying fears, and tempering expectations. Part of why this task has become so Herculean is that many of the forces shaping admissions outcomes are largely invisible to students and parents. Even well-informed families struggle to understand how results can feel so unpredictable—and so disappointing—for students who appear to have done everything “right.”
There are many reasons the system is now riddled with speed bumps along the road toward achieving its ultimate purpose: making one-to-one matches between students and colleges that are strong academic, social, and financial fits. A frequently cited culprit in the modern admissions mess is the growing prevalence of Early Decision, long criticized for privileging the well-resourced and prioritizing institutional interests over student flexibility. Yet the debate around ED has remained binary: abolish it or preserve it. Given the recent legal challenge to the practice, it’s entirely possible the courts will answer this question in favor of the former.
Colleges, meanwhile, appear to be doubling down on ED. Once largely confined to private, highly selective institutions, ED is now used by a broader range of universities, including public flagships. In recent years, institutions such as the , the , and the have introduced Early Decision plans. Traditional ED schools continue to admit disproportionate percentages of their classes—often half or more—through binding early rounds.
Despite its obvious drawbacks, ED persists for a reason: it works.
The Power of Early Decision
Early Decision has become an increasingly attractive tool for colleges struggling to manage enrollment in an era of unprecedented application volumes. An ED application is the strongest signal of genuine interest. By forgoing the use of their “silver bullet” elsewhere, ED applicants are forced to put their money where their mouth is, figuratively and literally.
ED’s benefits to colleges are obvious. The practice allows institutions to stabilize yield, shape their incoming classes earlier, use admissions resources more efficiently, and reduce financial and enrollment uncertainty. In a system strained by volume and unclear motivations, this certainty is invaluable.
ED also benefits students who are able to make a binding commitment, emotionally and financially. While the statistics are skewed by recruited athletes and other special early admits, ED generally confers higher admit rates. If admitted under an ED plan, students benefit from early clarity that enables them to exit the process earlier, alleviating anxiety and avoiding the effort and expense of submitting additional applications.
Despite its advantages for some, ED is not viable for all students. Some are not prepared to commit by early fall. Others cannot responsibly make a binding decision without comparing financial aid offers. And for students who apply ED and are deferred, the process extends uncertainty rather than resolving it.
Why Early Decision Matters Now, More Than Ever
The expansion of Early Decision plans comes at a time when application volumes continue to swell, causing admit rates to plunge and outcomes to become increasingly unpredictable. Many IECs must frequently debunk the perception that the admissions process is “random” to parents who expect it to be a “meritocracy” with predictable outcomes determined by linear, objective metrics. To be sure, the odds of being admitted to certain schools may resemble those of winning the Powerball, but the process is hardly random. Struggling to understand levers they cannot see, many students understandably feel powerless. Their attempt to grasp some semblance of control often manifests in a “spray and pray” application strategy.
This deluge of applications taxes already-stretched admissions resources, lengthening admissions cycles at schools like the , which, in the 2024-25 cycle, implemented an Early Action round with an October 15 deadline. EA used to mean apply early and hear back early—in the not-too-distant past, many students received definitive answers from many EA schools before winter break. Now, however, EA means apply early and hear back later (and later)—students may or may not have all the answers before leaving for spring break.
And, when students finally do hear back from colleges, the decisions often involve more waiting in the form of deferrals and waitlists. These tools buy time for strained admissions offices to review applications, shape their classes, and preserve yield. IECs will immediately recognize the result: a self-perpetuating loop of delays, student stress, and uncertainty on both sides of the desk.
The Emotional Roller Coaster
The University of Michigan’s inaugural rollout of Early Decision illustrates how the opacity and unpredictability of today’s admissions system artificially heightens emotions in an already-stressful process. While Michigan has yet to release this cycle’s statistics, it appears to have been extremely conservative in admitting its first round of ED applicants. Many hopeful Wolverines received the disappointing news that their decisions were “postponed” (Michigan-speak for deferred) in mid-December, along with unclear messaging around whether they would be considered in the Early Action or Regular Decision rounds. Many postponed applicants scrambled to write their Expression of Continued Interest (Michigan-speak for a Letter of Continued Interest) during final exams or over winter break in a frenzy fueled by Reddit theorizing and social media influencers. Just three weeks later, Michigan surprisingly admitted another round of students, some postponed ED applicants (who were no longer bound to attend) and some EA applicants. This action created a new wave of anxiety among still-deferred ED applicants as well as EA applicants whose status was still pending, many of whom prematurely asked to write Letters of Continued Interest.
With 115,000+ applicants vying for roughly 16,000 admissions offers, the vast majority of qualified Michigan applicants are bound to be disappointed. Nevertheless, the system’s lack of student-centered messaging and guardrails amplifies the anxiety.
Application Inflation Is a Rational Outgrowth of Uncertainty
Michigan is hardly the only institution that has experienced ballooning application numbers that far outpace any growth in the number of seats since the pandemic. Many speculated that the removal of standardized testing requirements spurred this growth, reducing barriers for applicants who would have previously opted out because of a lower test score. Yet, this theory is belied by explosive growth in applications at schools like the , which reinstated its testing requirement for students entering in Fall, 2023. Between the 2019-20 and 2024-25 cycles, UTK’s first-year applications grew by nearly 150 percent.
Application inflation shows no signs of slowing, and it is often accompanied by the temptation to apply broadly. IEC listservs and Facebook groups are flooded with inquiries about logistics of exceeding the Common App’s 20 allotted slots. Each spring, news outlets regale students who are admitted to dozens, or even hundreds, of colleges, and receive staggering amounts of scholarship money. These stories glamorize accumulation and reinforce the idea that admissions is a numbers game, a form of trophy hunting rather than a mutual selection process.
Yet, the temptation to apply widely is a rational response to a broken system riddled with uncertainty, one in which demand for seats at certain institutions far outweighs supply. When early rounds absorb capacity, when deferrals proliferate, and when timelines stretch deeper into senior year, applying everywhere becomes a hedge. Every additional application, however, imposes costs—on admissions offices, on institutional timelines, and on other applicants whose outcomes are delayed.
LOCIs: Another Symptom of the Dysfunction
The evolution of the Letter of Continued Interest is yet another indicator of how far the system has strayed from efficiently pairing students with colleges.
LOCIs were once somewhat rare, meaningful updates—a way for deferred applicants to share significant new information and reiterate genuine interest at a handful of top-choice colleges. Today, they have become mass-produced, performative love letters that students, spurred by social media influencers framing LOCIs as essential, feel they must submit to every college where allowed.
Understandably, colleges need some way to measure interest. Yet, with so many deferrals and so much uncertainty, students feel compelled to stay under consideration everywhere. Rather than a sincere, targeted expression of continued interest, LOCIs now create yet one more hoop for students to jump through with little upside.
The wildly inconsistent deferral policies among colleges muddy the waters even further. Some colleges encourage updates; others explicitly direct students only to send midyear grades. Others won’t even consider midyear grades, and still others ask students to check a portal box to remain under review.
In our practice, we’ve had more students asking to write LOCIs than ever before, even when they have no meaningful updates and when the college has expressly stated “no new information.” Even when LOCIs are permitted, professions of love for a college, and perhaps even a pledge to attend if admitted, are meaningless if they are repurposed en masse. That’s why schools like the University of Southern California accept only updated transcripts from deferred students “in the interest of equity.” While a well-written LOCI may have once benefited a hopeful Trojan, USC’s policy levels the playing field and eliminates an exercise that provides no meaningful differentiation. In other words, if USC (or any other school) is everyone’s favorite, no school is anyone’s favorite.
A Structural Question Worth Asking
Rather than continuing to debate whether Early Decision should be abolished or preserved—or wait for the legal system to resolve it for us—it would be helpful to find an alternative way that enables students to express genuine interest without being prematurely forced into binding commitments.
One possible framework is a nonbinding, sequential early-action model—an approach that preserves ED’s signaling value while allowing for student optionality. Imagine a cross between ’s four Early Action rounds, Restrictive Early Action plans used by and other highly selective schools, ’s rolling Early Decision option, and ’s Summer Session Early Notification program.
This plan would require colleges to adopt uniform, designated early rounds. Students could apply to a single institution in each and receive a definitive admit or deny decision within one month. Students would not be bound to attend if admitted and would be free to stay in the process, continue applying elsewhere, and compare financial aid packages. Wake Forest and UChicago have shown that institutions can speedily review a manageable number of applications. While colleges would not enjoy the certainty afforded by ED, an early application would clearly signal genuine interest on a student’s part, and the distribution of spots in the early rounds would incentivize students to apply to their top choices first.
Sequential Early Action is imperfect and would require large-scale institutional coordination and shared timelines in order to be effective. That’s no small feat. Yet, with broad institutional buy-in, the decision plan would align incentives, accelerate one-to-one matches between students and schools, and preserve student optionality. Most importantly, it would begin to temper the anxiety-ridden guessing and waiting games caused by overapplying and widespread deferrals.
An Invitation to Practitioners
Independent educational consultants occupy a unique position in the admissions ecosystem, translating opaque systems into actionable guidance. Our work allows us to understand institutional constraints and how policies impact family decision-making. Most of us entered this profession to help students identify their values and priorities and find institutions that meet their academic, social, and financial needs, not to guide anxiety-ridden families through a prolonged exercise in strategic hedging.
The current system is unsustainable and overdue for reform. If the courts outlaw binding Early Decision programs, colleges will have no choice but to consider alternative ways to identify which students genuinely want to attend their institutions. If colleges are forced—or inspired—to rethink early admissions, IECs should be part of those conversations.
By Beth Kraemer, MLHR, JD, 51Թ (IL)