YinYang|Getty Stock

In the world of elite college admissions, “early decision” is often a golden ticket for the privileged – and a missed opportunity for everyone else. That’s why the system is now at the center of an antitrust lawsuit against 32 elite U.S. colleges and universities.

Early decision, or ED as it’s commonly known, allows students to apply to their first-choice college early, typically by Nov. 1, a couple of months ahead of regular deadlines. Colleges send out their early decisions by mid-December, several months before regular decisions are made. If a student gets in under early decision, they’re required to attend. (“Early decision” is distinct from “early action;” under the latter, applicants are informed early, but not bound to attend.)

One study found that applying ED raises the probability of acceptance by 40 percentage points – and admissions data shows many colleges dole out a high proportion of their acceptances to early applicants.

ED may sound like a system that rewards passion and focus. But by forcing families to make decisions without the benefit of comparing financial aid packages or leveraging scholarships from one school against others, ED favors wealthy applicants.

Filed in U.S. federal court in Massachusetts in August against a consortium of elite universities and college application platforms, the lawsuit argues that ED disadvantages low-income and middle-income students – while also driving up the net price for those who do commit to attend. Students can’t contest an ED financial aid offer, so if the package isn’t generous enough (typically the only reason one can turn down an ED offer), students are often at a significant disadvantage when they restart the college application process belatedly.

The complaint alleges that institutions engaged in a “horizontal agreement to reduce or eliminate competition” – meaning they teamed up to rig the system in their favor, limiting students’ choices and potentially compelling them to pay more than they otherwise would. The challenge frames ED as not only a threat to equity in education, but also as a matter of consumer protection.

Shaan PatelOct. 22, 2025

Over a decade of studying consumer protection in higher education, I’ve learned that when colleges engage in practices that disadvantage students, the root cause is almost always money. Early decision is a symptom that grew from that root cause.

The way higher education is financed forces even the wealthiest institutions to act like desperate businesses. Colleges do not – and increasingly cannot – rely solely on government funding, such as federal student loan dollars, so they aggressively compete for students who will pay tuition. This forces them to act like businesses by offering discounts in the form of financial aid to attract the “customers” they need.

To understand the current lawsuit, we need to look back to 1989, when the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division began investigating colleges that participated in what was then known as the Ivy Overlap Group, through which elite school leaders collaboratively set similar financial aid packages for students who were admitted to multiple Ivy League institutions. The government alleged the group was engaged in collusion and price-fixing and filed suit against the Ivies and other top-ranked institutions that participated in the Overlap Group. For their part, the colleges insisted they were trying to increase access for the largest possible group of admitted students and make true need-blind admissions possible.

The colleges later sought and received an exemption from Congress to continue the practice. A 1994 settlement allowed colleges that used need-blind admissions and offered need-blind financial aid to continue sharing some information. That statutory shield expired in 2022, and the new lawsuit accuses schools of now using early decision for the same anticompetitive ends.

Defenders of early decision argue it is a form of charitable collaboration among colleges that allows schools to efficiently build their incoming classes, boost their “yield” rates (the percentage of admitted students who enroll) and save financial aid for the neediest students. But just how charitable is the practice when selective schools use early decision to enroll large proportions of incoming classes, leaving other applicants to scramble over a small number of remaining seats? Early decision can make middle-class families feel strong-armed into a binding commitment before they know the final cost.

Early decision undermines the equalizing promise of higher education: Studies show that early decision applicants are disproportionately from high-income families who are more willing and able to pay, and that certain students with lower academic performance are more likely to apply early decision. Other research has found students are often offered less grant aid in the ED process than they would have received in the regular cycle, making it a sophisticated tool for schools to maximize revenue. By optimizing their yield – the percentage of admitted students who enroll – schools are also using ED to boost their college’s rankings among peer institutions and its credit-worthiness for financing.

Kim CookOct. 2, 2025

While the legal challenge focuses on elite colleges, ED creates ripple effects across higher education. First, it eliminates consumer choice by forcing a binding decision before students can compare prices, to say nothing of the fact that these “consumers” are often minors.

Second, it perpetuates the practice of “leveraging” financial aid, allowing universities to identify customers willing to pay full price, much like an airline charges more for last-minute bookings. Known as dynamic pricing, it’s terrible for consumers who lose bargaining power.

Third, early decision deepens inequities in college access. Wealthier students already benefit from multiple campus visits, private counselors and family wisdom, while low-income students often have overworked school counselors, a lack of college know-how and the omnipresent anxiety of college costs that put ED out of reach. These students are especially vulnerable to misleading offers from predatory for-profit institutions.

Advocates of early decision and some charitable organizations, such as Questbridge, have set up programs to help more students navigate the ED process, but even that doesn’t change or eliminate its inherent inequities. So how can colleges adopt a fairer approach?

Cap elite preferences in admissions. Institutions should limit the proportion of a class enrolled through early decision and legacy admissions because they disproportionately benefit wealthy students.

Rebuild firewalls between admissions, financial aid and fundraising offices. These offices have different purposes and constituencies, and when they coordinate too closely, pressures mount to admit full-pay students or legacy applicants to please donors.

Mandate socioeconomic diversity that more closely mirrors society at large. This would force a radical rethinking of recruitment and admissions.

The mandate for these ideas could come from Congress, accreditors or state regulators; all three are tasked to hold accountable institutions that receive public funds. Healing the warped financing of higher education will require a redesign of the system. But education must be a right that everyone can access, not a product sold to the highest bidder.

Stephanie Hall is an expert on college accountability and the for-profit education industry whose research and advocacy have been instrumental for federal and state legislation, congressional oversight and federal agency action.

Tags: education, colleges, college admissions, students

Read More

© U.S.News