breaking early decision

Applying to College
101

<p><a href="Chedva:">quote</a>
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is there any basis for the applicant to expect any meaningful range of numbers before receiving the financial aid estimate that accompanies the ED acceptance? After all, no school discloses its Institutional Methodology which is (half of) the financial aid computation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The kid could tell the school upon getting the estimates that "I will enroll subject to the final award being no more than X dollars" (or X percent of family income, or other number that can be computed at the time of final aid determination). Would the school have any recourse against such a response, other than to withdraw the acceptance entirely?</p>

<p>Let's say the student does not give such an answer, but maintains upon receiving the final aid offer that he agreed to enroll based on the estimate or some number derived from it (five dollars more, 1 percent more, etc) being the absolute upper limit of what he was willing to pay. i.e., he relied on the estimate either literally or as the basis for a private but uncommunicated determination of what is "adequate" aid. Would the lack of such communication prevent the student from cancelling the contract, or would the student, even without having stipulated in advance his "adequate" range of aid, be able to walk out of the deal with impunity?</p>

<p>By impunity I mean a lack of (theoretically possible) legal consequences, not whether the university has recourse in any practical sense such as contacting other schools or finds it worthwhile to sue the student.</p>

102

<p>"THey just have a computer compare the lists, and then compare ED admit lists based on prob Social Security etc. - It takes about 2 minutes and mabye a day of leaving the comp alone after admissions, and then the comp prob just reports it all! So its VERY Likely they do do this, since w/ comps its not that much of a prob."</p>

<p>This was posted by Cellardweller in another thread:</p>

<p>"There are a number of reasons why such a shared list does not and could exist, most of them having to do with possible antitrust ramifications and also logistics.</p>

<p>First, an ED list restricted to the Ivies would be largely useless. The concern is typically not an ED kid from Brown trying to apply RD to Harvard, more likely a Tufts or Middlebury ED accept applying to Dartmouth or Cornell RD. So for an ED monitoring system to be useful at finding out potential abusers you would have to include many more schools, at least the entire so-called "568 Group" of 30 or so elite schools, so named after Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 enacted by Congress to set forth in statute the terms under which institutions may cooperate in sharing student information and awarding financial aid. IASA specifically forbids the sharing of any individual financial information on candidates and more generally any individual information on candidates that may affect admission. In general, under IASA schools may share aggregate information on candidates in order to develop a common methodology for the award of need-based financial aid. (The so-called Consensus methodology). This was to avoid each institution developing its own financial aid system and obtain some uniformity in awards. 568 Group schools would therefore compete on their respective academic merit and not on the basis of their financial aid packages. It is extremely unlikely that sharing the names, addresses and social security numbers of admitted ED candidates for the purpose of tracking multiple applications would be allowed under IASA. In addition to potential privacy issues, such a system could certainly be construed as impeding students freedom of choice and restricting competition, which the IASA was specifically enacted to prevent. This is why institutions have been very careful since 1994 about what information they share and include various notices on their web sites that they comply with the Act. Some like Harvard, Stanford and Princeton even opted out of the 568 Group altogether electing to share not even aggregate information with its peers, let alone individual information.</p>

<p>Suspending for a moment disbelief that some of leading educational institutions would risk running afoul of IASA and the consent decree they entered into with the Jutsice Department and agreed to share individual information on admitted students, how would such a system work?</p>

<p>First, such a system could never be centralized because of the potential security and administrative issues. That would require downloading and maintain names and information on an external database separate from their own admissions system. In addition, they would be given secure access in read-only mode to the lists managed by every other member institution to check for multiple applicants. The corruption of a single access code from hacking, collusion or theft would make the entire database accessible to the outside, much too great a risk for the universities. So for the supposed sharing to work, each institution would need to grant access to their system to every other member institution so they could run that list against their own applicants. They would have to manage passwords and access for dozens of people not affiliated with their own institution, praying that somehow they did not give access to everything else beyond the ED list. Again, way too much risk of corruption of the entire university computer system. With universities required to disclose any potential breaches of privacy from unauthorized access, the negative consequences could be substantial. The breach of the UCLA admissions computer system in 2006 which exposed over a million UC student files to unauthorized was a major source of embarrasment to the university.</p>

<p>Finally, the downside of such a shared system would far outweigh its potential policing benefits. All the burden would be on the institutions with the ED programs. Schools such as MIT, Harvard, Princeton or Yale would not need to provide anything as they only have EA programs not ED programs. On the other hand, they would be given free access to all the lower ranked schools ED applicants, presumably some of their best applicants. Directly competing schools such as Amherst and Williams would have access to each others top applicants. What an extraordinary data-mining source! While they would not use the lists to have the ED applicants switch, the data could be used or rather misused in many ways such as analyzing the demographic profiles of their competitors' applicants. This is a real risk as was shown a few years ago, when a Princeton admissions officer was caught red-handed trying to access the Yale admissions system. Some schools with full need based financial aid may feel perfectly in their right to contact ED candidates from other schools wih smaller endowments and less likely to meet the full financial need of its applicants. The IASA would make any attempt at enforcing the ED agreement illegal in that circumstance.</p>

<p>In summary, all the bogeyman stories about collusion between universities to enforce any ED agreements are just that: bogeyman stories. The entire application process is largely based on trust as is the Federal Tax system. If you cheat, whether by inventing positions and awards or applying to multiple schools ED, you most likely won't be found out. But if you do, you may pay a heavy price. Universities simply do not have the resources to verify that everything applicants put down is correct and thruthful. They can check SAT scores and transcripts, but that is pretty much it. The entire system depends on a high level of compliance or it would fall apart. For this reason mostly, a university may feel obligated to reject a candidate accepted ED elsewhere if the issue is brought to its attention unless there is a compelling reason for the double application such as serious financial need. An applicant who cheats on his application, may also be cheating on his term papers after being admitted. Universities will never prosecute an ED applicant who defaults on his commitment to enroll because of the bad publicity as well as possible legal risks. They are just betting the applicants will be dissuaded from cheating in the first place."</p>

103

<p>
[quote]
What if come April, some students who were accepted ED and were planning to go to their ED colleges got letters from those colleges saying that due to an unexpectedly stellar RD group or due to some prospective students' enormously generous donor parents, the college was withdrawing their ED admissions, and was accepting those other students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One asymmetry that invalidates this comparison is that the ED agreement allows the student but not the college to exit under some (possibly fatally vague) conditions. Another, which goes more to the "fairness" issue that you raise, is that the college and the student are in totally different bargaining positions in forming the ED contract. The college can easily replace any applicant with somebody from the waitlist, and the effect on the college of doing so is marginal, whereas the effect on the student of attending college A rather than B (or a school with different levels of aid) can be rather large. The only case where the effect on the college might be large is the enormously generous donor, and in that case the college can literally pay off some non-donor students to decline or postpone their enrollment. </p>

<p>If, for whatever reason, the college has to choose between ED and RD matriculants, the EDs have priority, as the college decided on the RDs having already made some commitment to the EDs, possibly even collecting deposits from some of them (e.g. the ones who don't apply for financial aid).</p>

104

<p>Early Action ftw</p>

105

<p>any advantages of EA over ED?</p>

106

<p>" Universities simply do not have the resources to verify that everything applicants put down is correct and thruthful. They can check SAT scores and transcripts, but that is pretty much it."</p>

<p>This depends on the universities. With its huge endowment, H has a lot of money to put into admissions. That's why the admissions officers can do things like call and talk to GCs for 45 minutes about applicants that H is considering admitting.</p>

<p>This also is why H can get most U.S. applicants alumni interviews, the reports of which the admissions officers do read. I have been called and e-mailed by admissions officers with follow-up questions about my reports.</p>

<p>Admissions officers at places like H have no reason to check on the types of things that many students lie about -- whether the student really was a minor officer at some school club or really did 600 hours of community service. Those activities are minor when such students are compared to other applicants.</p>

<p>For one's ECs o stand out in a Harvard pool would take major achievements -- such as being governor of Girl's State, being an Intel finalist, having a scientific paper published in a professional publication. All such things are very easy to verify, and I'm sure that when things don't add up (such as if teacher or GC recommenations indicate the student hasn't demonstrated much leadership yet the student says they were governor of Boy's State) I would bet money that the admissions officers would check to verify if the student really was governor of Boy's State.</p>

107

<p>"Finally, I've yet to hear one cogent argument as to what real benefit ED presents to students which is not available through non binding EA. ED, in reality, benefits schools, not students."</p>

<p>It also benefits students who have clear first choices that they know they can afford. If they get an ED decision , they don't have to apply to more schools, interview at more schools, take any more SATs, and stress out worrying about where they'll be going to college. The second half of their senior year can be much less stressful than it is for many students who are college bound. For some colleges, ED also increases students' chances of getting admitted. If ED didnt' offer advantages to students, they wouldn't bother to apply.</p>

108

<p>Yes... But how is that any better than EA, which gives students choice and forces colleges to give the most fair financial aid possible?</p>

109

<p>I didn't say ED is better than EA. I did say ED offers some advantages to students. It is, of course, up to the students themselves whether or not to apply EA, ED or regular admission.</p>

110

<p>I know, but I think that MichaelNKat was saying that EA is... better... than ED, not saying that ED doesn't offer any benefits to students. That is, EA offers all the benefits of ED and more.</p>

<p>EA is almost certainly always better for students than ED. At best, ED is a mechanism used by schools to inflate their yields.</p>

111

<p>Oh, I agree. EA is better for students than is ED. Both, however, can offer advantages to students who know where they want to go.</p>

112

<p>Let me be more succinct. EA offers all of the benefits of ED. It is also fair to the student and gives the student power as a consumer to get the best deal possible. ED is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is designed to skew the process in favor of colleges, eliminate competition based on financial aid packages, inflate yield statistics, create manufactured exclusivity to enhance a school's image and is cleverly marketed by many schools to prey upon student insecurity in the admission process. If this occurred in the world of "consumer protection" and not "education", it would be viewed as unethical marketing and sales practices; ED schools would be required to post warnings:"Caution, the use of ED is likely to cause college to be more expensive for you, use at your own risk."</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
Suspending for a moment disbelief that some of leading educational institutions would risk running afoul of IASA and the consent decree they entered into with the Jutsice Department and agreed to share individual information on admitted students, how would such a system work?

[/quote]
I do not know the specifics of the decree but I seriously doubt sharing names of accepted ED students would run counter to the decree (BTW - I would guess that sharing the names of EA accepted students would be in violation of the decree ... and I know they can not share RD names). The decree addressed maintaining open competition for individual applicants in regard to their application for admission and their application for financial aid. Some schools used to share names and projected admission outcomes and projected financial packages. They can no longer do this.</p>

<p>Now my interpetation of that ... this maintains the options and competitiveness for current eligible applicants. A student who signed an ED agreement and has been accepted ED is no longer an eligible applicant at any other school because of the agreement they signed. The ED school sharing names of ED accepted schools is in no way imposing a limitation on the students ability to get accepted to other schools ... as they are no longer an eligible applicant to be accepted at other schools.</p>

<p>To me it seems pretty easy to implement. I would guess the concern for the elite schools are kids that apply ED and then shop acceptances to other elite schools ... these are the kids who are abusing ED. If a kid tries to back out of ED to go to their local CC or something some other life situation probably came up that the school will understand and release the student from their ED commitment. If I'm right then sharing info with 30-50 schools would cover the vast majority of the ED scenarios of concern. </p>

<p>My final thought is I would think from a school's perspective maintaining relationships with other schools and practicing mutual respect would be of a bigger benefit to the school than going behind the back of other schools to get one student. There are tons of ethical ways to compete for students I can't see the schools resorting to stabbing each other in the back to get 3togo's kid #1 however great s/he is. (and this reason is why the elite non-ED schools would help the ED schools ... that along with wanting to accept honest students)</p>

114

<p>"My final thought is I would think from a school's perspective maintaining relationships with other schools and practicing mutual respect would be of a bigger benefit to the school than going behind the back of other schools to get one student. "</p>

<p>True. Also most colleges aren't in a hurry to add liars and other unethical students to their student bodies. If a student shafts one college, they'll shaft another.</p>

115

<p>While there's little doubt that EA is better than ED from the student's standpoint, it's less clear what the advantage to the institution is. ED lets colleges lock in a bunch of top candidates in a more or less non-competitive mode, and ensures that they are getting a bunch of kids for whom the school is their first choice. This is good for the school, and good for the incoming class, too. If a non-HYP elite accepts 40% of its class early, they are assured that at least 40% of their class won't be showing up in the fall because they got rejected by Harvard. The benefit to the students is (if accepted) a slight edge on admission to their first choice school and an end to admissions stress before Christmas. The downside is the inability to compare financial aid packages.</p>

<p>The only other downside I can think of is student-created; if the student is interested more in boosting admissions chances and harbors a desire to go someplace else, the acceptance may seem more like a burden than a reason to rejoice. I would never recommend a student apply early for strategic reasons unless that school was their clear-cut first choice or was at least so well liked that canning other applications would pose no problem.</p>

<p>Back to the original topic, financial considerations are an out, but would be acceptable to all parties only in clear-cut cases. If a student's EFC is $35K per year, and the only way to fund that would be student or parent debt, it would be hard to argue that the student should be forced to assume, say, $150K in loans. Then again, it's easy enough to run an EFC calculation before applying - that number won't likely be the same number the school comes up with, but it shouldn't be a different order of magnitude, either. If your EFC looks unaffordable in your early calculation, don't apply ED to any school - instead, apply to a range of schools, including those that offer generous merit aid.</p>

<p>It's odd that some people seem to consider a moral or ethical obligation less important than a legal one. While one hopes they won't conflict, it seems to me that morals and ethics should trump the letter of the law.</p>

<p>Do people get away with breaking an ED agreement? Sure. The collaboration system isn't perfect or comprehensive, and the less the institutions have in common, the lower the probability of the second school finding out and withdrawing its acceptance. Nevertheless, the ED school will certainly be quizzing the guidance counselor, who will have to answer honestly - no GC with half a brain is going to protect one student with dubious ethics and risk hurting the chances of many future students, or harming his/her own credibility and reputation for integrity.</p>

<p>The best advice I've got is don't apply ED at all if you aren't certain the school is your first choice or if your calculations show that your EFC isn't likely to be affordable from family resources. If you really want to go to Princeton, don't apply to Penn ED because you think you've got a better chance of getting in. The advantage is probably less than you think, and if you do get accepted you'll always wonder if you would have gotten into your first choice school had you applied there. Don't fall into the trap of building a college list from rankings or perceived prestige - focus on the college environments. The four years of undergrad school are a transformative experience, and making that choice requires more thought than "hey, it's an Ivy!"</p>

116

<p>Thanks, Roger, that lays out the competing considerations in a common-sense way. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's odd that some people seem to consider a moral or ethical obligation less important than a legal one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That sounds odd to me, too. Anyway, if a student doesn't like the early decision package of trade-offs, the student is always welcome to submit only rolling, early action, or regular decision applications.</p>

117

<p>Absent some dramatic change in family financial circumstance - death of parent, loss of job, etc. - the adequacy of an ED financial will not change with time. "Opting out of" or "requesting release from" an ED acceptance for this reason should therefore happen in the week or two between receiving the acceptance (and financial aid package) and the due date for the school's deposit. At this point, there would be no other acceptances to consider.</p>

<p>Pure speculation here, but my guess would be if there is any wiggle room in the aid offer, it would addressed by the school at this point to try to keep the student.</p>

<p>Someone taking more than 4 months and until after decisions from other schools are in to determine that a package is not "adequate" would be difficult to view as anything but dishonest. Schools maintain the right to expell students, rescind admissions and even degrees to those who are found to have lied on their applications. I do not believe it is possible to maintain one's ED status while continuing with the RD process through completion at other schools without lying at least to the to the ED school.</p>

<p>I can not fathom why a school would ever consider suing such a student to compel attendance - by definition, it would seem they would not want such a student.</p>

<p>As far as the sharing of lists, the lists are of those admitted early - not those who were admitted and then backed out - and other schools can do with those lists as they see fit if they find a RD applicant to their school on one of the lists. ...Of course if they find an ED admittance for their school on another school's ED list, one can guess what they will do ...</p>

118

<p>"The benefit to the students is (if accepted) a slight edge on admission to their first choice school and an end to admissions stress before Christmas. The downside is the inability to compare financial aid packages.
The only other downside I can think of is student-created; if the student is interested more in boosting admissions chances and harbors a desire to go someplace else, the acceptance may seem more like a burden than a reason to rejoice."</p>

<p>There is another downside that I have experienced first hand as I observe the college admissions process through the experiences of 17 and 18 year old students at our local high school--you can get deferred, or even worse, rejected from the school you really, really want to attend. The news comes towards the end of your first semester, senior year. Some of your closest friends may be celebrating an acceptance to their favorite school while you are mourning the loss of a cherished dream. Over winter break, there is no relaxing because now your first semester grades have significant impact on your college outcome. Of course, anything that doesn't kill you makes you stronger; and the rejects do learn something, but it is tough, and based on my observations, the hurt doesn't easily melt away, even when students are finally accepted (usually not until April) to colleges they will attend. </p>

<p>As an educator and parent, this is not the system I would choose for our students; and in my opinion, the system is driven by the needs and agendas of the colleges, not by concern for the well-being of individual, student applicants.</p>

119

<p>^^^ good points, but also some possible benefit to being rejected ED:</p>

<p>"reality check," allows you to re-evaluate your chances, your strengths, provides a "second chance" at compiling your application, realizing possible weaknesses you had that if you hadn't gotten a second chance at applications you might not have considered in time and could have been rejected at all schools across the board.</p>

120

<p>elsijfdl--</p>

<p>"Reality check" is an excellent point, and as I said, I think most of these students are "ultimately stronger." Still, I don't think enough is mentioned about the emotional consequences of deferral or rejection in the life of a high school senior. It's hard to even find stats on this, i.e., how many deferrals are ultimately rejected from their first choice school.</p>