Discuss…I’m trying to figure out how these changes help/hurt students.
I think there are good and bad aspects for the students. I think that tuition deposits may go a lot higher to prevent students from changing their mind if they are recruited by other schools after the May 1 deadline.
I think that perhaps ED may open up to students who may not have been able to afford to ED before. But, I also think this could add more stress for the kids. More pressure to ED to get better housing/financial aid/ etc. and more stress after they’ve made their decision on where to go.
I’m not clear on the timing though and curious to hear other’s thoughts too.
Timing is ASAP, clauses were removed last week by approval of NACAC members. Agree that non-refundable deposits are likely to increase, and the concept of the May 1 deadline may die.
Will probably also see schools offer incentives to apply ED…like housing preference or early course registration (HPU actually did this last year, when it was against the rules)…putting more pressure on kids to apply ED and creating an even wider gulf between those who don’t need to compare fin aid offers and those who do.
Generally I think most schools are still going to offer their best financial packages upon/shortly after acceptance.
Will be interesting to see what develops.
This article was written before the vote occurred, but the author points out several implications of the anticipated changes:
My favorite quote from the article relates to the ability of colleges to continue to recruit after the May 1 deadline:
“This feels kind of like trying to court women in a bridal shop.” - ha ha! He goes on to say that it sends “inappropriate messages about integrity and commitment.”
I thought he made excellent points throughout the article.
Perhaps I don’t understand the article enough but it seems like a solution in search of a problem. It seems to me you are extending the decision making time which could cause students more anxiety in an already stressful situation. Currently you have relatively few students waiting on waitlists and colleges that need to use them. Overall there doesn’t seem to be a big problem and most students have their summers to prepare for where they are going to attend.
I don’t think having the ability to add perks for applying ED helps the students overall. If anything, it’s a win for the colleges’ marketing campaigns. Commit to us and get the new dorms with the fancy amenities! Ugh.
Or, a school who did not fill the class, goes back to rejected candidates and make them an offer of admittance (despite the fact that they committed somewhere else on May 1 or ED). Or, a school who didn’t fill the class, can go back and offer a discount to students who opted to attend else where----a last minute “Are you sure you don’t want to come here and we’ll match that other school or do one better.” This could benefit students.
Or a college could go to rolling admissions, offering its most desirable applicants early, but with a short deadline (e.g. 1-2 weeks, rather than May 1) to matriculate with a large deposit in order to keep the admission (or scholarships). And “early” would be so that the deadline to matriculate is before the college’s competitors that might otherwise win those most desirable applicants release their decisions.
If lots of colleges head this direction, it could be much more stressful for applicants (but perhaps a better preview of what it may be like when looking for jobs).
All that wooing that colleges can expect they’re going to have to do (on top of what they’re already doing) is going to prove very costly. I’m guessing it won’t be coming out of the endowment either.
It was in response to the ustice Dept coming after them with words like “antitrust.” (Frankly, it loses me there.) The question is what colleges will need to use this? I kinda doubt it’s the top ones.
The ED perks are really problematic for me, unless we start seeing more clear merit offers in ED (it’s all very murky now for schools that offer merit - how it affects ED admissions).
I like the idea of schools who did not meet their enrollment goals can go back with FA and merit to students they rejected or wait listed. This is good for students .
Could be, but not necessarily…depends on the $ we are talking about.
There are enrollment managers on the record stating that this new ability to poach committed students will cause them to significantly increase the non-refundable deposit a student makes when accepting an offer of admission. So, say these deposits go to $1,000+, any updated fin aid offer from school 2 will have to at least cover the lost deposit paid to school 1.
Most schools typically don’t have much left in the way of financial aid post May 1, so not sure many schools will be offering increased fin aid packages to many students, if at all…but we shall see.
Personally I think ED is where we will see material and significant perks, which harms/disadvantages any student who wants to compare offers of fin aid. We already saw High Point last year offer better housing for admitted ED students, as well as priority course registration and early move in days (and that’s when it was technically in violation of NACAC ethics).
Schools are not meeting their target numbers in their upcoming class in May. That’s even before counting summer melt. It’s going to be a nasty shoot out, IMO, with schools poaching other students already committed. They had better bear in mind that their own committed student are also up for grabs by other colleges. I guess just releasing a list of schools still with opening after May 1 is just not aggressive enough
IMO, More kids are multi committing to seats at Colleges, sending multiple deposits. That NACAC did not condone this behavior was some resistance to doing this on a even more of a wide spread basis. Looks like they are taking a “can’t beat them, join them” attitude to this.
It’s become a buyers’ market for those who can pay for college, other than at the most selective schools.
It is impossible to know how this will play out, but my prediction is that this will turn out to be almost universally bad for students. It is likely to increase the pressure to ED, and to ED strategically. I think ED has already grown absurdly out of proportion. It is likely to get worse.
I agree that this will have particular impact on families who need to be able to compare financial aid packages and therefore cannot participate in the ED round, but it will also have a deleterious impact on students who may still be figuring out their path at 17.
The big argument in favor of this is supposed to be that families benefit when schools have to fight to gain and retain the business of their students. But this shoot out to retain students is going to drain the coffers of schools, fighting it out to retain middle class kids, and will leave fewer dollars for other goals, which could include the FA packages offered to lower income students. Depending on how intense the competition get, it could also drive some additional schools with weak endowments under.
I also think there is something unseemly about wanting colleges to compete for customers (not students) just like automobile companies or hotels. This mentality is already present, and this will take it further. I think the students as customers model has a corrosive impact on how colleges do business and what they prioritize.
I agree with @lookingforward that the very top colleges are not going to be that concerned about this. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Duke, etc. are probably not going to get a lot of successful poaching. But I don’t think this rule change will only impact colleges way down the prestige food chain. I think a surprising number of colleges will be edgy and will therefore look to lock in even more students ED. We already have colleges which are admitting 50% or more of their entering class through ED. Could that go to 55-60%? Eww. Really ramps up the pressure to commit early to a school where you have a reasonable chance…because the people in the RD round will be competing for a diminished number of slots.
But that’s just my read. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
@BookLvr WashU is already at 60% of the class ED or ED2. Others are as well, I’m sure, that’s just one I remembered from this spring.
My D works in admissions at her college. She is insisting that ED is no longer binding. That ED and EA will essentially be the same. I cannot find anything online confirming this to be true. Her school does not have ED or EA but my son is debating whether or not to apply ED for next fall. Has anyone heard of ED no longer being binding?
@Marcie123 I haven’t heard this, but that’s interesting. As long as there’s an ED agreement, there is an obligation, at least theoretically. ED was never legally-enforceable; the only enforcement mechanism was name-sharing, which was being investigated by DOJ beginning spring 2018 as a possible antitrust issue. I haven’t heard any updates on that particular aspect following DOJ’s requests to preserve records. Maybe DOJ is now trying a less-obvious route to get rid of ED.
ED has never been binding in the case of asking for financial aid but not receiving enough to support attendance, where you then say thanks but no thanks and apply elsewhere. But no school will attempt to force attendance.