Stanford will not — at least for now — change its admissions program in response to Harvard and Princeton, Provost John Etchemendy said Wednesday, while fretting that fewer schools offering early admission would mean more applications for Stanford.

In a prominent op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times, the University’s chief academic officer and second-highest-ranking administrator passionately defended Stanford’s admissions procedures and responded to what he called often misguided critiques of the early admission process.

“Stanford is not, at this time, going to make any change to its early admission program,” Etchemendy wrote in an email response to a Daily inquiry about his piece. “My greatest fear, however, is that with Harvard and Princeton ending their early programs, the applications to Stanford’s early program will explode, making it unmanageable. That remains to be seen.”

Harvard announced Sept. 12 that it will to end its early action program in 2008, setting off a firestorm of debate among other elite schools about whether the status quo was fair and if the announced changes at Harvard would make a difference. Princeton followed Harvard’s lead, and on Monday, the University of Virginia became the first top-ranked public university to follow suit.

“It is a shame that the publicity, so abundant in its praise, has been so short on facts and clearheaded analysis,” Etchemendy wrote in the paper of record.

The Provost offered one of the most fleshed out rebuttals to criticisms of Stanford’s system.

“There is nothing about early admissions, in itself, that gives an advantage to those who apply early,” he wrote. “It all depends on whether the university imposes lower, the same, or higher standards to the early pool. Nor can you infer the standards by simply comparing admission rates in the early and late pools.”

Etchemendy wrote that Stanford holds applicants in the early pool to a “somewhat higher standard,” adding that the admissions department is careful to not “accept students early unless we’re confident they would get in during the regular round.”

The provost added that the SAT scores for early action applicants were 40 points higher than those of students admitted in the regular pool.

Relating to financial aid, he wrote that “36 percent to 40 percent of the students accepted early apply for financial aid,” while “in the regular round, only slightly more, 40 percent to 44 percent, seek aid.”

The Daily could not connect with Dean of Admissions Richard Shaw, who was attending meetings on the East Coast.

University spokesman Alan Acosta said that the provost’s piece should help clear up some confusion about the difference between binding early decision and non-binding early action.

“His ability to clarify that and to clarify some of the assumptions about getting in or not was a great addition to the public discourse on this subject,” Acosta said.

Etchemendy wrote in his article that the changes will likely result in more, not fewer college applications because students will no longer have the security of knowing their school as early as December. Instead, to play it safe, they will apply to more schools and institutions that still offer early admission, such as Stanford.

“This will increase the overall number of college applications, and that in turn will probably increase, not decrease, the pressure felt by all high school seniors going through the process,” he wrote.

His solution?

“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.”