Tulane implements controversial early decision ban

Vivian Cook ’27

This fall, Tulane University placed Colorado Academy, a private college preparatory school, along with three other unknown high schools, under a year-long early decision (ED) suspension following incidents in which students violated their early decision agreements. 

The highly unusual suspension essentially means that students from the Colorado Academy class of 2026 were not able to apply to Tulane through the early decision route. By applying through early decision, students are bound to their enrollment should they get in, unless the student’s financial situation prevents them from doing so. Applying to universities through early decision can have major benefits in acceptance percentages, especially at institutions like Tulane, where approximately half of Tulane’s incoming class was admitted through this process in the 2024-2025 cycle. 

This suspension is a result of a 2024 incident in which a class of 2025 Colorado Academy senior was accepted to Tulane through early decision, enrolled at the university and then withdrew their application. While the reason for this change remains unknown, it is reported by Tulane admissions that it was for non-financial reasons, and the one-year long suspension was then placed. Throughout this ban, students are still able to apply through early action and regular decision, but both of these options are far less advantageous than applying early decision.

This suspension has sparked outrage, as many feel it is unfair and that universities should not have the ability to do this. It is especially infuriating because of the aforementioned advantage early decision truly has. Tulane admits half of their incoming class through ED applications, with an increased 68% acceptance rate for the graduating class of 2028 as opposed to their normal decision acceptance rate of 13%.

With this suspension, members of the 2026 senior class at these four schools do not have that opportunity and feel as though they are being punished due to the actions of only a few students. Clementine Clifton ’26, who has just gone through the college application process, explains, “It makes me feel nervous because the purpose of ED is to make your chances of getting into that school higher, and you would lose that and that’s scary.” 

Even so, universities rely on proper and accurate early decision enrollments just as much as students do. In an early decision agreement, students agree to enroll to that school if admitted and in exchange, they will hear back from the school earlier than the regular decision applicants. While an early decision agreement is not legally binding, students and their parents are often asked to sign something saying that they agree to the terms of ED before they submit. So, while it is not illegal for students to pull out of their decision, it is heavily frowned upon. A lot of schools depend on their ED enrollment numbers to determine the size of their class. When a student revokes their ED status, they start to disrupt the flow of how admissions officers build a class. 

There is one significant exception carved out for ED applications, however: financial reasons. Normally, students are able to compare financial aid and scholarship opportunities across different offers, a concept made impossible by the exclusivity inherent in early decision. In many cases, students get accepted through early decision but aren’t able to attend due to a lack of financial aid. Oftentimes, in these scenarios, schools are understanding and will release students from their commitment. Colleges will also sometimes allow students to back out because of a family emergency or other significant personal reasons.

It is uncommon for students to revoke their early decision applications for other reasons, but it does happen. And when it does, colleges can become frustrated with everyone involved, although Tulane is the first to act on these feelings. 

Students were not the only ones affected by the repercussions. Tulane has also stated that college counselors from these schools should use this ban to “enact a process that ensures their students fully understand the binding nature of early-decision agreements before signing them.”

At EA, the college counseling team tries their best to ensure that sticky situations revolving around early decisions do not occur. Catalina Guzmán, Executive Director of College Counseling, offers her insight as to how we as a school try to prevent these situations, saying, “For us, for example, we don’t send out regular decision information until the students tell us what the decision was for ED to try to avoid this type of situation.” By doing this, students won’t have to worry about even having to revoke their regular decision applications once admitted into their ED. Furthermore, Jade Johnson, Senior Associate Director of College Counseling, emphasizes the role that counselors play in these decisions as well, stating, These situations are double edged swords, but there also has to be some sort of accountability. On the student end… and the counselor. We’ve signed this agreement, and we know what it is.”

On the subject of the fairness of Tulane’s decision, both Johnson and Guzmán agreed, “fair is a relative term.” There is a lot of information about this situation that has not been shared with the public and the real story is always going to be twisted. When understanding the situation it has to be understood that it goes beyond Tulane University and this one student. Guzmán states, “I don’t know if it’s fair or not, because I don’t know enough about what’s happening behind closed doors at Tulane.” This is not a decision that is made casually or often for that matter, so it needs to be acknowledged that while it may seem “unfair” to the students now being affected by this suspension, they are not experiencing the repercussions of one student but rather the discipline of a school breaking the trust of this university.