<p>Did any speaker say that if they didn’t offer you enough FA in their ED offer to make attendance possible that they would “they would make a point of blackballing you at the other school?” This is explicitly forbidden by the common app rules, and such a school should be removed from the common app consortium. See post #8. If you’ll name the 10 schools I’ll ask them myself and report back here. Thanks.</p>
<p>[cross-posted]</p>
<p>I believe you are missing my point: they’ll all meet your need, but their definition of your need and yours may be quite different. If you go for ED you’re taking your chances because you bind yourself. in RD, you have a better chance that a school will enhance its package or at least know that one of its competitors may so that they may, too. That’s all I’m saying. Therefore, any suggestion that a school is violating the rules of the common app was not intended.</p>
<p>Has anyone heard of a school truly being vindictive and mean-sprited? They’re trying to attract top students, not repel them with bad publicity. I’ve found that schools want top students to apply ED to their dream school, needy and well-to-do. Did any speaker say anything to discourage the needy from applying ED? I think they’re trying to get the audience to take ED seriously. It’s bad enough for a student to have her dreams crushed by being admitted but not being able to afford it; why would a school want to enforce their unaffordable offer? Don’t assume that every offer meeting an estimator’s “demonstrated need” actually meets practical need.</p>
<p>I’m actually trying to separate what you were told from your opinion. 
You can tell I have mine. ;)</p>
<p>[Another cross post ]</p>
<p>“If you go for ED you’re taking your chances because you bind yourself.”</p>
<p>Well, that’s it, there’s bind and then there’s bind, and so this is where we disagree, I think.</p>
<p>From what I’ve learned, schools don’t want needy students to feel like they’re taking a chance (they’ve tried hard to combat this belief, some even going as far as eliminating ED because of this engrained belief), and that’s why it is explicitly stated that there is a simple out. They really want top needy students to apply ED to their dream schools.</p>
<p>Vossron-</p>
<p>You missed the huge debate several years ago about ED/EA and needy students. Some schools can afford to do EA because they’re pretty attractive to a lot of students, or they need to adjust its students demographics, or whatever that it’s important for them to allow students compare financial aid packages. Stanford and Yale did this along with Georgetown (I think) and few other schools since. Harvard did away with ED as to give ALL students equal opportunity to apply (but to compensate, they offer full ride for families making less than $40,000/year).</p>
<p>Schools with smaller endowments cannot afford to compete and need students who can pay nearly full price. Colgate does say that it meets students’ 100% need but it’s nota need-blind school. So when it comes down to the last 100 applicants, the admissions will usually pick wealthier students over needy students. They’ve run out of financial aid budget by then. It costs much more than the sticker price to actually support a student- usually anywhere from $10,000-$30,000 over the sticker price (I think for Smith College when it was $40,000 in 2005 when I went, it actually cost the school $60,000, the $20,000 coming from the endowment.)</p>
<p>If ED rules worked the way YOU’d like them to work, they’d be a LOT more of people like you applying for ED. Would you want more competition?</p>
<p>It is not a mean thing for schools to share information. Admissions officers know each other- they go to fairs and conferences together. They travel together to other countries. It’s just UNETHICAL thing to do to back out on a ED- it’s a BINDING agreement. But if your parent suddenly loses a job in January, that’s understandable but to back out just because the financial aid package isn’t what you wanted, that’s not a good reason. </p>
<p>When schools calculate EFC and they ook at their budget and decided that if they can’t give you enough grants but want to help you to keep your EFC low, they will generally just give you more money n loans. So it’ll just take longer to pay off your undergraduate education. That’s the risk you’ll take if your apply ED- more loans than grants while maintaining your EFC.</p>
<p>Financial aid packages are much more competitive and flexible for RD because of multiple offers and schools need to compete for you. When you apply for ED, with who does the school need to compete with for a better financial aid package (i.e. more grants, no work study, etc)? Nobody. There’s no incentive.</p>
<p>Colleges are like business as well.</p>
<p>tickle, I’m a parent, and I sent you a long PM. :)</p>
<p>Since my last post I came across a book that was well-researched, analytical and informative. If you’re thinking of applying ED, I highly recommend it. It is “The Early Admissions Game” by Avery, Fairbanks and Zeckhauser. Written in '02-'03 I believe the data, analysis and conclusions remain relevant.</p>
<p>My 23 yo daughter graduated from Colgate last year.</p>
<p>The FA package she was offered made it the least expensive option - and it was her dream school! Even SUNY would have been more expensive for her.</p>
<p>Go for it, and good luck!</p>