<p>
[quote]
If someone got blacklisted only from the ivy league but could still go to MIT, I guess the blacklist doesn't even reach all the best universities, let alone all 4-year colleges in the region or country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, this is true, they will never reach all of the close to 4000 colleges in the country. Remember, the schools have their own intergrity that they are trying to uphold and none of them wants to be known as the school that disrespects the ED contract and a student's commitment to attend another college (poaching is very much frowned upon and most schools will avoid it like the plague). However, as I stated in my previous posting, the world of elite college admissions is a small one, where all members of the peer schools know each other. </p>
<p>31 colleges comprising the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE) includes all eight Ivy League schools, other top research universities like MIT and Stanford University, and leading small liberal arts colleges like Amherst College and Williams College.</p>
<p>Member Institutions
Amherst College
Barnard College
Brown University
Bryn Mawr College
Carleton College
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Duke University
Georgetown University
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
MIT
Mount Holyoke College
Northwestern University
Oberlin College
Pomona College
Princeton University
Rice University
Smith College
Stanford University
Swarthmore College
Trinity College
University of Chicago
University of Pennsylvania
University of Rochester
Washington Univ. in St.Louis
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
Williams College
Yale University</p>
<p>Yes, they all meet as a group and talk about college admissions, ED practices that take place in the high schools so at the end of the day these things do come out in the wash.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how such a huge bureacracy of keeping track of ed applicants could function.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You wouldn't need a "huge bureacracy." All you need is a simple 9 digit number: the Social Security Number. All a college would need to do is send a file to a central processor listing the SSNs of all the students they accepted ED. The processor uploads the file, and gives colleges access to query that file. Colleges have all the SSNs of their applicants in their systems. They query the processor on those SSNs. (That can be done through a batch file; I'm not suggesting that anyone actually input the data again.) Or only of those in their "accept" or "maybe" pile. Any matches that come through - automatic reject. Once the programs are written, all this processing can be done in very little time.</p>
<p>Now, I have no idea if anything like this really exists. I'm just playing out a possible scenario. But it might exist or it might be in development. Not that hard to do.</p>
<p>Sybbie, that's why I'm not an adcom. But still, I would doubt a college would deprive themselves of a student they want because a classmate of that student was dishonorable. Now if this were a trend in the high school, I would agree more with you. But adcoms are smart enough to know that one slimeball does not represent the whole high school. Though, I will admit I have never spoken to an adcom on this issue....for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would doubt a college would deprive themselves of a student they want because a classmate of that student was dishonorable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hi Fred, </p>
<p>It is not often that balck and white where it looked at as one person doing something wrong (because we know that some students are kids that only look at the here and now and not the long range ramifications of their actions), but as a process and how well the GC handles this process and how the GCs professional ethics and integrity comes into play in doing the right and the best thing for all students. We have a responsiblity to sit down and explain to our students what EX means (I really break it down and will meet with parents to ensure that they understand what this means from a financial point).</p>
<p>This is the main reason why a GC won't let one student doing something to game the system or put the GC in a position that compromise stheir repuation and jepordizes the relationships that they have taken time to build with admissions counselors. </p>
<p>I can only speak from my own personal experience that there are adcoms people the I knew from my corp life in the college process, that I can pick up the phone now as a GC and get a detailed response on how to handle a situation with one of my students (especially in the case of a waitlist or deferral). Just this last month I had a student hanging out there and was able to pick up the phone, contact an adcom who still had openings, explain the situation about the student. The adcom told me to have the student submit an application on-line, I faxed everything else and the acceptance came the following week. Do you think it would be wise for me to mess up that kind of relationship for student who wants to get over, when it would be easier for me as the GC to pick up the phone and explain the students situation with their ED application?</p>
<p>Do things happen? All of the time. Most of the time it is not what you do, but how you do it that matters most.</p>
<p>Just for the fun of it, I did a quick Westlaw search of all states and did not find a single case where a college took legal action at law or in equity based on an alleged breach of an Early Decision "agreement". Not that I expected to find any, if for no other reasons than some practical considerations. I have some very real reservations, however, about whether such agreements are enforceable by colleges. Where is the adequate consideration to make it a binding contract on a student? Also, in terms of remedy, the college has no damages and does anyone seriously think a college could obtain injunctive relief either compelling attendance at the school or prohibiting attendance at another school? I think a student who in good faith and for adequate cause withdraws from an ED acceptance would have a much better case to sue the ass off a college that then caused the student to loose acceptances elsewhere by disclosing to other schools what had occurred (and would also have a cause of action against a public school that refused to send out transcripts). This assumes that the student is not simply being dishonest by "shopping around" ED applications and had good and compelling reasons to pull out of the ED acceptance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a student who in good faith and for adequate cause withdraws from an ED acceptance would have a much better case to sue the ass off a college that then caused the student to loose acceptances elsewhere by disclosing to other schools what had occurred (and would
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On face value, the only thing the student has is that:
s/he applied ED to a college
they withdrew from ED
They applied to another college
they were denied admission at other colleges</p>
<p>In order for the suit to be successful, the student would first have to prove pulling from ED (and that reason alone) was the reason that they did not gain admission. If a college denies admission to a student, they do not have to give a reason as to why it happened (and no college is going to say that the denied a student admission solely because they pulled out of their ED commitment). It would be speculation on the part of the student.</p>
<p>False, I most public schools (especially if you are instate) will tell you why you were rejected if you so request. However, I don't think public schools care about ED agreements. But to anyone out there, do not even think of applying ED if there's a chance you won't go if accepted. There's only one way of backing out, if the student does not find the FA to be adequate...and most school's that offer ED give 100% aid.</p>
<p>sybbie719: Even if what you say is true, then what happens with all these 'stories' of people having their admissions rescinded? Can colleges accept a person and then withdraw said acceptance without reason or cause? </p>
<p>What happens if a person sends in the deposit to the ED school, holds a place in the class, but also lets his other apps go through?</p>
<p>
[quote]
what happens with all these 'stories' of people having their admissions rescinded
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is because admissions decsions are conditional based on the successful completion of high school at pretty much the same level of performance which you had when the school accepted you. A bad case of senioritis breaks this agreement.</p>
<p>Think about it a student who gets a bad case of senioritis and finishes up with B/C's would have never made the cut if these were the mid year grades. </p>
<p>In NYC our school year extends 2 days after the last day of school and that is what we spend those 2 days doing- sending final transcripts. I have had students fail at the end of the year, make the course up in summer school, graduate and still have the admissions rescinded (because they failed a class). THey end up in a no-win situation as most GCs are off for the summer and by the time we return in the fall school as started at a large majority of colleges (off the top of my head schools on the quarter system tend to start later. I know Dartmouth and Stanford definitely does).</p>
<p>Some schools won't rescind admissions but will have the student start their college career on academic probation (IMHO, this is worse because academic probations show up on the college transcript (which never goes away). If a student applies to grad /med or law school they will have to disclose that they were on academic probation even though it happened freshman year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What happens if a person sends in the deposit to the ED school, holds a place in the class
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The deposit to hold a spot is considered an intent to enroll (and you have now entered into a contract- the lawyers can chime in on this one). On your intent to enroll form the schools are very up-front about the fact that if you hold more than one place (unless you are on a waitlist) you risk losing your spot. In this case the student is fully aware of the ramificaitions. The rub here is not so much letting the other apps go through but accepting another offer of admissions (which then both schools can rescind admissions).</p>
<p>"This is because admissions decsions are conditional based on the successful completion of high school at pretty much the same level of performance which you had when the school accepted you. Think about it a student who gets a bad case of senioritis and finishes up with B/C's would have never made the cut if these were the mid year grades."</p>
<p>-That's fine. I'm talking about admission being rescinded over ED claims. If a student keeps the same academic level that he did for the earlier part of high school, could a college really just rescind its admission offer for no reason? Are you saying that admission offers are contingent on whatever the colleges want? That is, are you saying that colleges can rescind an offer of admission for any reason they want?</p>
<p>"The rub here is not so much letting the other apps go through but accepting another offer of admissions (which then both schools can rescind admissions)."</p>
<p>-That relies on that great conspiracy again. How would college B know that the student held a place in college A? Do colleges now inform each other about EVERY acceptance they have???</p>
<p>
[quote]
How would college B know that the student held a place in college A? Do colleges now inform each other about EVERY acceptance they have???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We send transcripts to your final decision school (and we only send out one). Again we're not going to risk our credibility and our relationships with the schools over someone gaming the college.</p>
<p>College admissions are good faith agreements in addition they look at the best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. They look at it from a perspective of a student with a bad case of senioritis after admissions may potentially do the same thing when they get to college (here the student has much more on the line). Colleges do not want to take students who they believe cannot be successful at their schools. If someone is going to be a potential problem before arriving to school, it does neither party (the school or the student) to set the student up for failure. I am sure over your past 3 years in college you know atleast one person who is either now on or has been on academic probation or has been sent home due to academics.</p>
<p>A cross posting with SES who is right as to the reason deposits are now so costly to deter this type of behavior. As a parent I know I am not taking a $2000 hit or paying 2 deposits because my kid can't (or won't make of their mind)</p>
<p>There seems to be two issues - will you get sued by the ED institution. Common sense says no, and it doesnt seem like anyone can find any evidence to contradict this. The other possible outcome is severely limiting your choice of college. This seems a definitely possibility, and not to be risked, unless you want to turn down your ED school (which is presumably one you wanted to attend) and end up at your local community college.</p>
<p>College is the beginning of your life as an adult. I see a lot of evidence on these boards of people not quite getting that. Stop trying to game the system, and work within it - with integrity. You wont go wrong.</p>
<p>First of all, you took my quote out of context. Read the preceding sentence. I was comparing the relative legal sufficiency and likelihood of an effective remedy between an action by the school based on a breach of an ED agreement versus an action by a student against a school for disclosing the ED dispute to a second school thereby resulting in a rescission of admission to the second school.</p>
<p>Second, you fail to distinguish between the legal sufficiency of a claim or cause of action and evidentiary issues associated with proving the claim and entitlement to a remedy. Obviously you must aduce the evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof. However, that is different than whether as a matter of law the school could state a claim for which relief could be granted as opposed to the student stating such a claim. If I were an attorney representing a student in this type of situation, I bet I could blow out the school's claim on a motion to dismiss and could survive a similar motion filed by the school against a claim asserted by the student.</p>
<p>That then would put the parties in the pretrial discovery phase of the litigation and if I've learned nothing else over the last 29 years it's that you never know what the evidence is really going to be until you go through the process. Often times you will be amazed at what comes out during discovery. And if the evidence supported the student's claim that school "A" torpedoed the student's acceptance to school "B", I think there is a likelihood that a case for liability could be made and perhaps even for compensatory and punitive damages. Even if not, as the case received publicity, can you imagine the PR hit school "A" would take if the facts, for example, were that the student pulled out of the ED acceptance because he couldn't afford the school with the level of financial aid that was offered and school "A", by shooting off its mouth, screwed the student out of attending a school he could afford?</p>
<p>And if you think that in terms of developing the "evidence" this is unrealistic, consider this. An employee terminates his employment with Employer "A" under unfavorable circumstances. He then applies for a job with Employer "B" (or better yet gets a job offer from Employer "B"). He then looses the job opportunity with Employer "B" (either his application is not acted on or the job offer is rescinded) and believes with good reason that Employers "A" and "B" were in communication and Employer "A" disclosed adverse information about the employee. Guess what happens. That's right, Employer "A" gets sued, has to spend a ton of time and money defending itself and with the right facts, under the law of many states, ends up with very real liability exposure. So how does the employee in this situation "prove" the existence of these private communications or get past the hurdle that there could be a dozen reasons that Employer "B" didn't hire the employee - you got it, effective pretrial discovery. Happens all the time. What makes you think it couldn't happen in the world of education?</p>
<p>Now, before anyone jumps all over this, keep in mind that I'm not talking about a situation where a student is being a "player" and acting unethically. If a student makes a commitment to ED, there should be a compelling and necessitous reason for backing out. By the same token, a school - including a h.s guidance counselor - better think twice before taking action, simply because the student has backed out of an ED acceptance, that will cause a student to loose an admissions opportunity from another school.</p>
<p>Michael, I agree that you've done a great legal analysis of your scenario. And I doubt that a school would try to hold a kid to an agreement if the financial aid were inadequate. Most schools say so, and very few of them below the Ivy level meet 100% of the college's definition of need. However, I don't think that a kid can just state, "Oh, the FA isn't adequate" when the FA is what the kid could reasonably have expected when he or she applied.</p>
<p>But the kid knows the financial offer before the transcripts to the RD schools need to be sent. So the kid can have these discussions with the ED school, get out of the contract and continue the process.</p>
<p>What most of this thread has been about, though, is not the kid who legitimately has a problem getting out of the contract, but in fact the kid that is gaming the system. GCs will help the former, but not the latter.</p>
<p>Schools are fine with letting kids out of financial situations that they deem to be unsatisfactory. But this is probably 1 to 2 kids out of every ED class. The average middle class family thinks they deserve more financial aid then they can reasonably get under most institution's calculation methods. In reality, institutions really only award significant financial aid (all grants) to single parent households and kids below the poverty line, so while some individuals may be tempted to pull out, realistically they don't have a great shot at getting better aid anywhere else but State U.</p>
<p>And colleges are very up front about their financial aid practices. And they DISCOURAGE applying early if financial aid is a big factor in your college decision.</p>
<p>Chedva,
There're really 2 levels to this discussion. One is the ethical aspect of backing out of an ED acceptance. On that level, I agree whole heartedly that a student should honor the commitment unless there is a really compelling reason not to. "Gaming" the system is unethical. However, financial aid is only one of many reasons that I could think of that would justify backing out of ED. Let's not loose sight of the fact that we are talking about 17 - 18 year old kids who in a variety of ways can make all sorts of mistakes in judgment. What about the kid who really thought the school was the perfect school for him but after the ED acceptance arrives comes to the realization that he made a horrible mistake and the next 4 years of his life will be absolutely miserable for him if he goes to that school. Should the kid be forced to go? Should the kid be forced to waste even 1 year of tuition money before attempting to transfer? I don't think so. Honest mistakes happen and it seems to me more than a bit draconian for a school to take the position that it will then engage in affirmative acts which by design or foreseeable effect will interfere with the student attending another college. If the school has the deposit, it can zing the kid or the parents, by just keeping it.</p>
<p>Which leads to the second level. Much of the discussion was about whether an ED acceptance is a legally binding agreement for the student. I don't think it is as a matter of contract law. It was that discussion that led to my "analysis" in which I used a particular fact pattern that was appealing. I bet, however, that even with less appealing facts a school would not have a claim for a "breach" of an ED acceptance while a student would have a claim against a school that interfered with the student's acceptance elsewhere.</p>
<p>"The deposit to hold a spot is considered an intent to enroll (and you have now entered into a contract- the lawyers can chime in on this one). On your intent to enroll form the schools are very up-front about the fact that if you hold more than one place (unless you are on a waitlist) you risk losing your spot. In this case the student is fully aware of the ramificaitions. The rub here is not so much letting the other apps go through but accepting another offer of admissions (which then both schools can rescind admissions)."</p>
<p>Nope, no contract. Lots of case law on that one. School "A" can rescind an admission, so can school "B". The student can withdraw the acceptance of an admission without risking anything more than loosing a deposit (although most deposits are refundable if acted on before May 1). </p>
<p>The real issue involves the conduct of school"A" that notifies other school that student has withdrawn from an ED acceptance. Does that conduct create an actionable claim and with the right fact pattern I think it does. Or take the guidance counselor who becomes aware that the student withdrew from an ED acceptance and based on that, through an act of commission or ommision, sabotages or causes a student to loose an acceptance at another school. Actionable? I think so.</p>
<p>But let's say that School A doesn't notify other schools that the student withdrew from ED, but that student was accepted ED. Or GC acts on the basis of the acceptance, not the withdrawal. I'm not sure that there would be a cause of action in that situation. (But I will admit that I have not done the kind of analysis that Michael has.)</p>
<p>Ok, now you are causing my brain to hurt! The GC is the easier question. All that a GC should be doing upon notification of an ED acceptance is making sure the school gets the final transcript or whatever other academic reports the school requires. The GC has no business contacting any other school and advising of the ED outcome without the student's permission. I think there are all sorts of confidentiality issues because the GC is in an existing educational relationship with the student, particularly in the context of public schools. </p>
<p>As to school "A", as you have described it, probably not actionable. In practical terms, a devious mind could probably avoid school "A" knowing what schools to notify of the acceptance but that's a whole different discussion which I intend to avoid because it smacks of "gaming" which we all agree is wrong.</p>
<p>As I was thinking about less obvious but nonetheless compelling reasons a student could want to back out of an ED acceptance, consider the following. A student applies to 2 Musical Theatre programs (A and B), one of which she went to a summer program at (B). She loved the program at B and therefore applies ED and is accepted. She then starts having email discussions with current MT students at school B and discovers, much to her dismay, that MT students get their individual voice lessons through the music department which gives priority of scheduling and teacher selection to music voice majors and MT students get only what is left over afterwards. She then also discovers from these students that most of the voice teachers are viewed by MT students as mediocre when it comes to musical theatre style and repertoire. Basically the voice program is weak for MT. None of this could be gleaned from the website and catalogue (which glossed over the voice components by just describing that individual voice lessons were part of the program) or even from the summer program which did not offer individual voice lessons, just group classes in musical theatre performance. School A, however, has none of these issues. Is the student then justified in pulling out of the ED acceptance? I think so. And this type of hypothetical could occur with any program at any school.</p>
<p>In the final analysis, I think ED is unfair to students. Many schools offer Early Action which by definition is non-binding on the student. The student finds out at the same time as ED comes out, sends in a deposit and reserves a spot but can pull out and get the deposit back up until May 1. Students not accepted EA are either deferred to RD or are rejected, just like ED. I think it's a fairer system for students who are being asked to make major life decisions under ED without complete information about their options elsewhere. In reality, ED only benefits schools who are then in the position to themselves "game " the students when it comes to financial aid such as grants and scholarships. There is no reason all schools couldn't use EA instead of ED. All the same benefits for the student and for the school except that the school would be forced to really be competitive with financial aid. ED is really a marketing scam for schools.</p>