I missed yesterday this very interesting Times op-ed by Stanford provost John Etchemendy on the subject of early admissions.

Etchemendy takes aim at some of the reporting on Harvard’s and Princeton’s decision to end non-binding early admission, and he also questions the merits of that policy change. His argument is nuanced and pretty well convincing: Early admissions don’t “advantage the advantaged,” he says, unless a) colleges have lower standards for early applicants and b) early applicants are wealthier than standard applicants.

At Stanford, Ethchemendy says, neither is the case.

He also torpedoes the argument that early admissions adds to the craziness of the admissions argument by pointing out that, for those who gain acceptance early, it actually can make the rest of their senior year quite pleasant. (That was certainly my memory of what it was like for my high school classmates who were accepted early; the rest of us wanted to punch them.)

Etchemendy’s conclusion?

The best way to decrease the frenzy of the admission season? Have colleges universally adopt nonbinding early admission programs, and then apply the same or higher standards to the early decisions as they do to the regular round. It’s a solution that’s fair for the students and practical for the colleges.

I’d like to hear some counter-arguments. And by the way, the Crimson points out that the editorial effectively removes Etchemendy as a candidate for the Harvard presidency. No offense, but I can’t blame him: Would you want to leave sunny Palo Alto for Cambridge?