Early-decision results recently rolled out, and for a growing number of applicants, these outcomes determine where they must enroll. As ED has become an increasingly popular tool colleges use to build their incoming classes, the practice has also come under intensifying attack. Thirty-two of the nation’s most selective colleges are now facing a lawsuit over claims that ED — which requires students to attend if admitted — reduces competition and allows colleges to raise tuition and lower financial-aid offers.

This lawsuit follows longstanding, persistent criticism of ED on the grounds that it favors the wealthy, disproportionately white, students who can pay full freight. James Fallows laid out the case in “The Early-Decision Racket,” a September 2001 Atlantic cover story. A recent New York Times opinion piece picked up where F

While ED was historically the province of elite, private institutions, more universities are adopting the strategy. In the current admissions cycle, the University of Michigan and the University of Southern California introduced ED plans. In the 2024-25 cycle, the University of Connecticut introduced ED and the University of Vermont added a second ED round. At traditional ED institutions, more students are applying early, and colleges are admitting larger shares of their classes that way. For its Class of 2029, Vanderbilt University issued 38.7 percent of its total admit offers to just 13.5 percent of applicants. At Tulane University, roughly two-thirds of the entering class has been admitted via ED in recent years — a strategy that landed its chief enrollment officer a job at Northeastern University that pays him over $1 million a year.

There’s a reason why early decision is so popular. It works. The entire point of the college-admissions process is to match students with institutions that fit their academic, financial, and social needs. Early decision achieves that objective, efficiently and on an accelerated timeline.

For students, ED is the clearest way to demonstrate interest in a college. Applying ED puts them in smaller pools with typically higher admit rates. With the early certainty of an ED admission, accompanied by a financial-aid package that meets their demonstrated need, students can put the admissions process behind them, plan for college, and enjoy the remainder of senior year.

For colleges, ED protects yield rate, a key measure of demand that also historically factored into rankings methodologies, and also aids in enrollment management. By requiring students to commit to attend if admitted, ED allows institutions to fill and shape their classes earlier in the cycle.

For theadmissions system more broadly, ED alleviates the strain caused by a post-pandemic application surge that shows no signs of slowing. At institutions like the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Northeastern University, and New York University, applications have jumped by around 50 percent since 2019, without comparable increases in seats or staff. Southern institutions have become especially popular — between the 2019-20 and 2024-25 application cycles, by my analysis, applications increased by roughly 70 percent at the University of Texas at Austin, 70 percent at the University of Georgia, and 145 percent at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Application inflation fuels uncertainty, motivating panicked students to overapply and further perpetuate the problem. When students admitted via ED withdraw other applications as required, admissions offices have fewer files to review and can focus on students who are more likely to enroll.

Despite its benefits, ED is not a viable option for every student. Some are simply not ready to make a binding commitment by November 1 of their senior year. Other families are unable to make the financial commitment and need to compare merit aid offers. While students are technically not legally bound by an ED agreement, they must promise to attend so long as it’s financially feasible (per the financial-aid calculation). And there are consequences for breaking an ED commitment. Tulane recently made headlines for banning a Colorado high school’s entire Class of 2026 from applying ED after a 2025 graduate backed out of a commitment.

But what if colleges could enjoy most of the benefits of ED without the downsides of forcing students to make a binding commitment? Sequential early action (SEA), if enacted strategically, could do just that. Here’s how it would work:

Colleges would offer three nonbinding SEA rounds in October (SEA1), November (SEA2), and December (SEA3). While students would be free to apply to any college under an early or regular decision plan, each student could apply to only one college in each SEA round, and colleges would either admit or deny within one month — there would be no deferrals.

While SEA could not guarantee yield like ED does, it preserves many of ED’s benefits. Applying via SEA would enable students to genuinely express that a college is their top choice, enabling the college to better predict whether the student would enroll. Some students may still be tempted to “trophy hunt” in SEA, but many would happily stand down after receiving an offer or two from top-choice colleges. Like ED pools, SEA pools would be smaller by design, enabling admissions offices to deploy resources and manage enrollment more efficiently. For students, SEA would be better than the status quo because they could shoot their “magic bullet” at their top choices while retaining the flexibility to compare admissions offers and financial-aid packages throughout senior year, rather than having to commit before knowing the full financial implications. Receiving answers from SEA colleges within a month would eliminate painfully long waits, provide closure, and avoid the false hope of deferrals. Additionally, SEA can save families hundreds — or thousands — of dollars in application fees.

SEA has the potential to unclog the entire admissions system. As applications rise and admit rates fall, students apply everywhere in the hopes of getting in somewhere. In addition to perpetuating uncertainty, this “spray and pray” approach creates an endless deferral spiral. Admissions offices struggle to process growing numbers of applications while attempting to discern which students are genuinely interested in attending.

The compounding effect of deferrals can be illustrated with an example from my college admissions consulting practice. After applying early action, Julia (these names have been changed) was deferred by her top choices, the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Florida, so she held onto offers from the University of Maryland and Ohio State University. Meanwhile, Ohio State deferred Ryan, who really wanted to become a Buckeye. While awaiting word from OSU, Ryan held offers from Indiana University and the University of Colorado at Boulder. A third student, Will, held offers from UW-Madison and Florida after being deferred by his top choice, Vanderbilt. The uncertainty surrounding each student delayed outcomes for others and demanded more admissions resources.

Under SEA, Julia would have known by December whether UW-Madison or Florida were options and likely would have withdrawn her other applications, freeing spots for students like Ryan, who might have applied to fewer colleges if he had been admitted to OSU in SEA. While Will would still be awaiting word from Vanderbilt, early SEA outcomes may have narrowed his list. Earlier decisions would release pressure systemwide.

SEA borrows elements of existing, creative models. When the size of the application pool is manageable, colleges can act quickly. The University of Chicago issues decisions within weeks through its binding “Summer Student Early Notification” plan. Wake Forest University’s binding Rolling Early Decision returns decisions in about a month. Auburn University’s four rounds of nonbinding Early Action beginning in mid-September are similarly swift.

With an October 1 materials deadline for the first round, SEA would place additional demands on high-school teachers, advisers, and counselors. But this deadline is just two weeks earlier than many existing Early Action deadlines, and high-school officials are already accustomed to preparing materials on accelerated timelines. Over time, fewer total applications and deferrals could reduce the overall workload for high-school counselors and teachers.

As with the current system, SEA rewards decisiveness. Unlike the status quo, however, SEA offers more efficiency, accessibility, and transparency in achieving the objective of the admissions process: making appropriate 1:1 matches between students and colleges. This new plan preserves institutional flexibility while providing clarity and choice for students.