Harvard and Princeton have recently re-instituted early action undergraduate admissions programs after cutting them in the fall of 2007. Presumably, these two premier institutions initially took the lead in abolishing their nonbinding early action programs in an attempt to influence peer universities to follow in their footsteps. The move seems to have backfired

But few other institutions were willing to axe their early decision programs, and with an ever-increasing environment of competition for top students, it would seem that Harvard and Princeton were forced to bring back early action as part of a prolonged effort to stay on top of the college admissions game.

In fact, other colleges have gone in the opposite direction, going to lengths to differentiate themselves from the competition. For example, Sewanee: The University of the South recently cut tuition in an effort to make itself more attractive to prospective students. Efforts such as Sewanee’s demonstrate that competition is a two-way street: While students work harder and harder to distinguish themselves as the best, top schools must also work harder and harder to attract them.

The interesting thing about Sewanee’s tuition cut is that tuition costs are, in certain respects, arbitrary. Washington University meets 100 percent of demonstrated need, which means that the cost of attending the University is, for many students, significantly lower than its sticker price. Sewanee currently meets an average of 96 percent of demonstrated student need. This suggests that the price of attendance, for students who receive financial aid, will not change. Instead, it would seem that tuition is being cut either to attract students who are turned off by a high sticker price or to draw those who would not apply for financial aid in the first place.

Harvard’s and Princeton’s elimination of early action stands in marked contrast to Sewanee’s recent move. While Harvard and Princeton eliminated early action in an effort to lead colleges into a climate of fairer competition, Sewanee lowered tuition to bolster itself in this competitive field. The failure of Harvard and Princeton to effectively lead the field demonstrates that no college—not even the best—can expect to be a model for other schools, if imitating its moves does not stand to give them a direct numeric benefit.

With so many schools at the top, the boundaries between them have blurred. For a student to choose one college over another, there has to be something that sets it apart—and increasingly, that something need not be the actual quality of its programs.

We already knew this to some extent, but these recent moves suggest more than anything else that there is more to a college’s appeal than its programs and the quality of its education, at least in the eyes of high school seniors. We would like to see a field of colleges whose admissions options are as fairly competitive as possible to allow students to truly compare programs—for example, one uniform deadline and relatively similar parameters for factors such as tuition.Thanks to competition, however, it seems that early admission isn’t going anywhere.

But insofar as influence is possible in the college admissions game, we encourage the University to market itself to prospective students on the quality of its educational programs, not on its admissions options or on the sticker price of its tuition. Instead of competing to attract a universal set of “top” students, we believe that each university should aim to attract those who will thrive best in its particular programs—and we hope that our own will continue to do so.