The world has apparently changed, irrevocably and for the better, with Harvard's decision to end early admissions entirely. This may very well be true: it is certainly a move of noble intentions. But so much of the analysis of Harvard's plan has focused on the goodness of their hearts, and so little on what Harvard without early admissions might actually look like. Today, that picture is one of distinct disadvantage for lower-income and minority students who may not, for varying reasons, apply early. The main reason seems to be that other colleges -- but not Harvard -- have binding early-decision programs that sometimes entice students away from a shot at the nation's #2 ranked school. Binding policies also often require a decision before financial aid details become available. (I've never been convinced that this is a tragedy; plenty of top-ranked schools don't require a binding decision. I'll concede the point anyway, because I'm not an admissions expert.) The real problem was never Harvard to begin with -- they don't force anyone to make uninformed decisions. But the hope is that Harvard will pressure other schools to abandon their binding policies. So far, so good, except for one thing: This could actually become an incentive for other schools to keep their early action or early decision programs, since they'd have a larger pool of available students who would be, essentially, fair game. So, let me sketch an alternate vision of what might happen after Harvard's bold move:
 |  | |
 | ||
