August Moon | Contributing Illustrator

In 2014, the New York Times released an Upshot article that claimed WashU was the worst university in terms of socioeconomic diversity in the nation. Even 11 years later, that statement is probably not a surprise to current students. As a first-year who arrived on campus just a few weeks ago, I can already see how having “funds” (aka access to your parents’ credit card) seeps into our campus culture and daily life. 

I attended a private high school and was very surprised upon arriving to WashU that many aspects of the culture here are the same. I thought that WashU’s student body would feel more representative of the world around us — something that is important at a school that claims to value diversity in perspectives and backgrounds. When I learned that 41% of my class also went to private schools, the vibe here started to make more sense (just think about all those Uber rides to Remix). 

To give the University some credit, since 2014, WashU has made concrete strides toward diversifying its student body such as the implementation of need-blind admissions and the no-loan policy. And progress has been made — the share of Pell Grant eligible students has jumped from just 6% in 2014 to 23% in 2025. 

Still, progress is not a destination but a continual process, so what should be the next step? To me, the direction is clear: reduce reliance on Early Decision (ED) in the admissions process.

Over the summer, a lawsuit was brought against WashU and 31 other prestigious colleges and universities over their use of ED admissions. The suit’s argument is that the “binding” nature of ED applications eliminates universities’ incentives to offer competitive financial aid packages for accepted students, driving up the price of attendance. In other words, by mandating acceptees to attend, WashU and other universities have artificially inflated the price of college. 

So, why do people apply ED if it may mean paying more without knowing their other financial aid offers? For many, the deciding factor is simply that it’s easier to get in. For the Class of 2028, the ED acceptance rate was upwards of 25%, whereas chances of getting in Regular Decision were around 9%. In addition, most varsity athletes are required to apply ED as part of their verbal commitment to WashU. En masse, WashU fills its classes with ED applicants — over 60% of the first-year class in 2025 were admitted through ED.

Despite its predominance, the ED application process disadvantages low-income students because applicants have a lower chance of being accepted into the given university if price is a serious consideration in where they attend school. ED is marketed as a binding decision to applicants (through a “contract” that seems legal but is by no means legally enforceable), meaning that students who were accepted ED feel obligated to attend, even if their financial aid offer is lower than they would prefer.

I pose this question to the University: if applicants who don’t need to consider price in their college decision have a better chance of being accepted, do we truly have need-blind admissions?

To be clear, WashU does not necessarily give less financial aid to ED applicants. However, when people apply ED, they lose the ability to compare their financial aid offers from different acceptances. Maybe an applicant’s ED school gave them mediocre financial aid, but would another school have been more generous? The applicant in question will never know, because they are led to believe that once they are accepted to a school ED, they must withdraw their Regular Decision applications from other schools.

The lawsuit filed over the summer highlights this idea; by taking away applicants’ sense of choice, the ED admissions process is net negative for students. This is a serious challenge to the overarching influence of ED that requires a thoughtful response from institutions like WashU. 

I’m not necessarily arguing that ED should be abolished outright. In fact, there are certain ways that the existence of ED may foster socioeconomic diversity in the admissions process; if WashU could not guarantee that a share of students would attend, they might have to rely on merit-based scholarships, which take away from need-based financial aid funds. I want to bring attention, however, to how the school’s heavy use of ED may contribute to the lack of socioeconomic diversity that pervades our campus. It’s time to move past our reliance on ED and seriously consider whether its unintended consequences are causing us to backslide on our progress.

Universities should be institutions that uplift young people by extending the reach of their resources. They should be places of opportunity — opportunity for students to create better lives for themselves and their families, and opportunity for students of all backgrounds to learn from each others’ perspectives. A school’s socioeconomic diversity reflects their commitment to these principles. WashU is most certainly not the only university in the nation that relies on ED admissions. In light of the lawsuit, this moment may be an opportunity for WashU to both make meaningful strides forward in the name of diversity and also lead a national movement away from the practice of ED admissions.