<p>Northstarmom, what you describe is more like how I imagine the mafia to operate than how I would expect institutions of "higher learning". Punishing students for the "misdeeds" of previous students is simply disgusting and repulsive. This is an unfair and outrageous system designed solely to meet the needs of colleges to the disadvantage of students.</p>
<p>It's not unfair and outrageous. It's virtually the only way that the college that is offering ED can make sure that students take the commitment seriously. As a result of colleges doing what they can to enforce ED -- short of suing students who back out -- only about 3 % of students don't follow through with ED acceptances, and probably the majority of those students have legitimate reasons to back out, reasons such as family emegencies or financial hardship.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, at age 16, teens can enlist in the military with their parents' signature; at 17, they can enlist without their parents' signature. Once enlisted, they can't back out because, for instance, they suddenly realize that they'll have to go to war.</p>
<p>Many youths who enlist in the military lack the comprehension skills and intelligence of students who are getting ED admissions from top colleges. They also may come from immigrant families who aren't familiar with the American system of military service.</p>
<p>None of these, however, are considered acceptable reasons to let someone out of a commitment they made that may result in their own death or others' deaths.</p>
<p>If the word of a young person is considered binding for something as serious as military service that can involve going to war, then it certainly should be considered binding for accepting a college early decision admission.</p>
<p>You find vendetta charming and appropriate? Not just vendetta, but vendetta against complete innocents?</p>
<p>I don't find the enlistment system in military to be moral at all. It is outrageous and unethical and it is a form of enslavement. Literally.</p>
<p>A girl at my school applied ED to Tufts. She got virtually no financial aid. Guess what she's doing?</p>
<p>Taking out loans. True, she'll have to work long and hard to pay them off, but that's life.</p>
<p>Apparently, "contract" doesn't mean anything to people these days.</p>
<p>I agree with kenf1234 that ED is not made for those with great financial need and that this is unfair. That's why some of the most selective schools have gotten rid of it or replaced it with EA (which is a lot more conducive to those who need to look at other offers).
But I also think that MerryMartha made a mistake in not telling the school right away. Would it be possible for her to appeal for more FA?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Apparently, "contract" doesn't mean anything to people these days.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So "contract" meant more to people in previous times? Which previous times, exactly? </p>
<p>The ED system is fine for a world where the rich go from prep schools to private colleges. As a system to divvy up spots for those rich kids, it's perfectly reasonable.</p>
<p>Once these colleges start to pretend that they are not just bastions for the rich, but start aggressively encouraging the not-rich to apply, the ED system cannot survive. It is so obviously and outrageously unfair to people who need financial aid.</p>
<p>If you say, you shouldn't apply ED if you need financial aid, but the main advantage to applying ED is that you get an edge at admission, well then, we have a situation where you are substantially disadvantaging people who need financial aid. All these "need-blind" schools can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>ED is not a blood oath. It is not enlisting in the army. College admissions also should not be maifa-style system ruled by vendetta.</p>
<p>No, but ED is a contract just the same, and it is absurd that people are not only tolerating but encouraging the OP to break it. I'm sorry, but if you sign on the dotted line, you should've been reading the fine print. That's life. I find it difficult to believe that a college-age kid who can do calculus and analyze literature and tell you how German unification affected world politics would not be able to see the financial ramifications of applying ED.</p>
<p>In addition, the fact that ED appeals to people who don't have to worry about paying for themselves means that the school will have the assured income from these fine people's tuitions to pay for financial aid for RD applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is absurd that people are not only tolerating but encouraging the OP to break it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's nothing "absurd" about it. The OP has the option of going into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to honor this unfair "contract", mortgaging her future, or choosing not to. There is no absurdity involved.</p>
<p>It's easy to be self-righteous and tell other people what they ought to be doing. Sometimes it makes people feel good to do that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The OP has the option of going into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to honor this unfair "contract", mortgaging her future, or choosing not to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The OP made her choice when she applied ED. She made another choice when she didn't pull her apps from other colleges. She made another choice when she didn't immediately contact the school when she got her FA notice.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, she made some choices for other people, too: the students affected by her actions, who had NO input into any of this at all.</p>
<p>You want unfair? I suggest you start with the innocents who will be living with the choices this OP has been making.</p>
<p>She can attend for a semester, or for a year, and then transfer to a less expensive school.</p>
<p>Like a contract, it's her decision whether to honor it or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, she made some choices for other people, too: the students affected by her actions, who had NO input into any of this at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is what is so silly. You think it is better for her to honor the ED commitment, attend for a semester, then transfer out, than to just not attend at all? If she says no now, they can take someone off the waitlist and give them an admittance. If she attends for a semester to a school she can't afford, then transfers, it's messy and difficult for everyone. No one benefits. It's all just silliness.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's easy to be self-righteous and tell other people what they ought to be doing. Sometimes it makes people feel good to do that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Self righteous like, maybe, how you're acting?</p>
<p>The simple facts of it are, signing up for ED is an agreement, and there is no point making it if you don't plan to honor the agreement. It's dishonest, it's cheating the system, and there is no justification. You can argue all you want about how ED only benefits the schools and it's completely unjust, but there is a simple solution to that, if you feel that way: Don't apply ED.</p>
<p>Naw. I mean, I had a friend who applied (and got into) some school ED without meaning to. According to his words "I just ... filled out every form ..." I heard that some schools allow you to pay a certain sum before you're officially free from any obligations.</p>
<p>Anyway, to the OP, I'd say call the University and explain the situation. There's a likelihood that the administration isn't as mean as you think (hell, they don't want a miserable student who was forced to go), and will either re-evaluate your financial aid or let you off the hook. It's not as if they're losing out on -too- much money.</p>
<p>Anyway, aside from that clear silliness, going to college is, basically, an individual decision. The OP's priorities should clearly be to herself first, rather than to a college. Although perhaps it's "wrong" in the sense of the agreement, if it's better for her not to honor the agreement, then so be it. Is she going to college for the college or for herself?</p>
<p>There's always time to change her mind. It doesn't matter what service or disservice it does for anyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Self righteous like, maybe, how you're acting?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not being self-righteous. I may be nasty and obnoxious, but that is different from being self-righteous.</p>
<p>kenf1234,</p>
<p>I fortunately don't have to deal with this until 2010. I find the ED system distasteful. Not to say I mightn't advise a person to weigh the benefit and risk and choose to go ED... would depend on the circumstances.</p>
<p>Having said that, IF a person does decide to apply ED because they feel it advantages them, and they do so willingly, and are not under coercion, and are of sound mind, they should honor their commitment. They should immediately withdraw any concurrent applications. </p>
<p>I also agree with those who have posted that ED is NOT for the person for whom $5,000 in award one way or another makes a material difference to their opportunity to enjoy the college experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is absurd that people are not only tolerating but encouraging the OP to break it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have ALWAYS heard people say that the only legitimate reasons to back out of ED are a) a huge change in your health or perhaps that of a family member and, get this, b) not having financial needs met.<br>
I hate people who try to game the system. HATE them. But the OP is NOT trying to game the system. She’s playing by the rules, and the rules say, if need is not met, the contract can be mutually nullified. In this case, the OP think need is not met, so she should talk to the school. She does NOT want to back out of her ED commitment, she NEVER intended to break the contract, but she might be forced to if a better package can’t be offered; honestly, I bet if she talks to the school and they can’t give her more money, they will let her go without resentment. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen every year.</p>
<p>She’s followed the rules of the contract in spirit, her only mistake was not understanding how close the final offer was going to be to the initial one. It was a MISTAKE, it was NOT manipulation. People who are likening this case to others we’ve seen, where people wanted to know if they could get away with breaking ED for no reason other than they wanted to, are missing a BIG difference, IMO. Ironically, in those other threads, people kept saying “the only way you can get out of ED is aid not being met,” which is exactly what the OP is dealing with here.</p>
<p>Was it a MISTAKE to not immediately withdraw all her RD apps as per the ED agreement? I don't think so.</p>
<p>As per Kenf1234:</p>
<p>"The ED system is fine for a world where the rich go from prep schools to private colleges. As a system to divvy up spots for those rich kids, it's perfectly reasonable."</p>
<p>Totally concur. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of the world agrees with your take on this issue, CCers are that group that most benefits from the absurdity of the system. If you've got the money, you've got the means, and you've got a leg up on those people, like the OP, who are just trying to make things work.</p>
<p>Look, bottom line there is no grey area here. </p>
<p>Part of her ED contract was to withdraw all RD apps when she was admitted. She knowingly, purposely did not do so.</p>
<p>She VIOLATED her ED contract with the college. On that reason alone she does not even deserve to attend that school. </p>
<p>If she knew there was a chance that she could not afford to attend the college she should have waited until RD so she could consider all of their options. </p>
<p>This was a case of another applicant attempting to be opportunistic and to manipulate the system by using ED to boost her chances, sacrificing integrity for an admission, which she in essence used false information to obtain. </p>
<p>To be blunt, in case i haven't already lol, she should notify the college that she BROKE the ED contract and have her offer rescinded and other schools contacted so they may do what they may with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You think it is better for her to honor the ED commitment, attend for a semester, then transfer out, than to just not attend at all? If she says no now, they can take someone off the waitlist and give them an admittance. If she attends for a semester to a school she can't afford, then transfers, it's messy and difficult for everyone. No one benefits. It's all just silliness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you think being honorable is silly, then we part ways. </p>
<p>I think the OP should be honorable. If she is trying to game the system, and I think the evidence indicates she is, she should stop trying to game the system. She should take the natural consequences of her actions: let the ED school know she will not be attending, that she broke the agreement. That frees up the spot for someone who wants to be there. </p>
<p>If that means she doesn't go to school next year because she loses the other acceptance, so be it. Frankly, I think she would benefit greatly from a year of work. She can apply again, honestly, next year.</p>