In mid-December, Cornell admitted 1,249 high school seniors, filling 41 percent of its available seats in the Class of 2013. The percentage represents an all-time high for Cornell, and is indicative of a step backward in the University’s commitment to economic diversity.

Just 10 years ago, only 31 percent of the incoming class was filled via early decision, which requires accepted applicants to commit to enrolling at Cornell. In the past decade, however, the University has seen a steady rise in the proportion of freshmen admitted through the binding program.

Early decision ensures Cornell its share of students who are passionate about the school and are willing to make a commitment to enroll. But it can be assumed that the University is motivated to increase the presence of early-admits from an economic standpoint. Put simply: Students admitted early require less financial aid than those admitted from the regular pool of applicants.

Former University Provost Biddy Martin said so herself in September of 2006, after Harvard announced it was putting an end to the practice of admitting students early. “I don’t know where we will end up,” Martin told The New York Times. “It’s been fairly widely recognized, certainly at Cornell, that [early decision] does put students in a disadvantaged position.”

Low-income applicants are deterred from applying early to Cornell and other schools with binding admissions policies because of the limits imposed on an applicant’s ability to compare financial aid packages. As the nation plunges deeper into an economic recession, it is socially and financially responsible to ensure that higher education remains affordable and available to the best and brightest.

While Cornell took a major step forward by expanding its financial aid policy in November, the robust package will be given to fewer students each and every year if the University maintains its practice of filling its class with wealthier early decision applicants.

Surely there are other reasons the University solicits its applicants from its early admission pool. From the perspective of an admissions officer, admitting a greater number of early decision applicants increases the University’s overall yield rate — or the percentage of accepted students who decide to enroll — which weighs heavily in most college ranking systems. Additionally, by filling more of its openings early, the University’s regular decision admit rate will fall, thus increasing selectivity.

It is time for Cornell to look beyond the ranking game to recruit the most talented and able individuals it can. As the University’s endowment shrinks, so too do the bank accounts of America’s working class. Cornell should devote its resources to an expanded commitment to economic diversity, and revising its early decision policies is a critical step in the right direction