The Admissions Funnel Is Clogged. Here’s How to Fix It.

Adapted from an essay originally published in The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 22, 2026). 

As Early Decision 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 were sued 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 criticism of ED on the grounds that it favors wealthy students who can pay full freight. While ED was historically the province of elite private institutions, more universities are adopting the strategy. In the 2025-26 admissions cycle, the University of Michigan and the University of Southern California introduced ED plans. At traditional ED schools, more students are applying early, and colleges are admitting larger shares of their classes that way.

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 and 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 the admissions system more broadly, ED alleviates the strain caused by a post-pandemic application surge that shows no signs of slowing. Applications have jumped dramatically at many institutions without comparable increases in seats or staff. 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 senior year. Other families need to compare merit aid offers. And, while ED is not legally binding, broken ED commitments can lead to dire consequences for students and high schools alike. 

But what if colleges could enjoy most of the benefits of ED without the downsides of forcing students to make a binding commitment? If enacted strategically, Sequential early action (SEA)—a structured, nonbinding early process—could do just that.

Colleges would offer three nonbinding SEA rounds in October (SEA1), November (SEA2), and December (SEA3). 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. Like ED pools, SEA pools would be smaller by design, enabling admissions offices to 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. Receiving answers from SEA colleges within a month would eliminate painfully long waits, provide closure, and avoid the false hope of deferrals. SEA can also 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. Admissions offices struggle to process growing numbers of applications while attempting to discern which students are genuinely interested in attending.

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.

You can read the full original essay at The Chronicle of Higher Education here.