<p>
</p>
<p>Here is the 1993 antitrust settlement
[MIT</a> press release on the Overlap Group settlement](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/ovrlp-pr.html]MIT”>http://tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/ovrlp-pr.html)</p>
<p>"Colleges may not discuss or agree upon individual family contributions, or the mix of loans, grants and self-help. "</p>
<p>This implies to me that that they cannot rely upon UPENN’s determination of financial need, but must make their own determination.</p>
<p>Northstarmom re: 258:</p>
<p>This is a bit off OT for this thread, so I’ll comment quickly and be done.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>RD apps are on file by early January. No need to wait until the middle of April to notify merit award winners. Other top-20 universities decide by early March and notify recipients.</p></li>
<li><p>Preliminary awards are based on the previous year’s tax returns. If updated returns are different, the award changes.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m not declaring any school’s method better or worse, just pointing out that there is variation, even among similarly ranked schools.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>It is binding:</p>
<p>Again, from NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practice/ Interpretations of Mandatory Practices: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds pretty binding to me. Yes, a student can be released from the ED commitment “should s/he not be offered an award that makes attendance possible,” but that’s a limited circumstance.</p>
<p>NewHope33, I’m talking about people who need financial aid. Who have financial issues. For those people ED is not binding. You get to look at your financial aid offer and then decide.</p>
<p>For those that can afford the school with no problems, I don’t care about those people. Well… if a student’s mother got sick and the student wanted to stay close to home…then the school better let that student out of ED.</p>
<p>I thought UPenn is generous with financial aid… “Far from rich” needs to be defined. Less than 100k a year? Or closer to 250k?</p>
<p>ED is absolutely binding. Do some kids find their way out of it unethically? Of course. Do some kids get out of the agreement ethically? Of course. Institutions are not going to spend their precious money in court over this, but that does not mean it’s not binding. When you, your parents and your guidance counselor sign this agreement it’s binding once you are admitted barring it’s not “possible” for you to attend. Of course that can be subjective and that is how students get out of it, but none the less it’s an agreement that should be honored if it’s “possible” for you to attend.</p>
<p>Also, I would venture to guess that the OP got a pretty good package from Penn, but because a full ride came along they are now rethinking the ED process. Bottom line is it’s unethical, not to go to Penn if it’s “possible”. Somehow though I think Penn will fill this seat.</p>
<p>I read that wjb. Thanks.</p>
<p>dstark my mother, the lawyer, disagrees. she said that it is binding regardless of whether you can afford it (except for very specific situations where it would be literally impossible to afford) and I think you’re assuming the OP’s parents make less than they do. The wording made me think that they are making more money than most (although I certainly could be wrong.)</p>
<p>“Sounds pretty binding to me. Yes, a student can be released from the ED commitment “should s/he not be offered an award that makes attendance possible,” but that’s a limited circumstance.”</p>
<p>Then it’s not binding. Thanks.</p>
<p>Well Pruneface, since your mom is a lawyer, she knows that affordability is subjective.</p>
<p>No, it isn’t. Not when there is a formula to calculate how much a family has to pay.</p>
<p>wow…18 pages??</p>
<p>anyway, about 10 pages ago (haha), ctyankee made a very viable suggestion imo…</p>
<p>early FA reads for ED would certainly clear up all of this…</p>
<p>dstark, </p>
<p>that does not change the fact that the ED agreement based on legal principles is definitely binding.</p>
<p>In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law.[1] That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy.</p>
<p>I agree with Pruneface. There is a formula that Penn used based on the OP finances and now the OP does not like that a better offer came along and all of a sudden is not “possible” to attend. Again, people should not enter into the ED agreement if they are not serious about it. It’s a binding agreement, although I doubt Penn would ever take legal action over this. The OP does risk being black balled at other schools though and the OP has set a terrible precedent for other kids from their school as well as their guidance counselor.</p>
<p>“1. RD apps are on file by early January. No need to wait until the middle of April to notify merit award winners. Other top-20 universities decide by early March and notify recipients.”</p>
<p>So… Chicago could let merit award recipients know in March (when presumably the university has gone through all applicants and can pick for merit aid the ones whom the university most wants to recruit. This also would give accepted merit aid students more time to arrange visits if they wanted to compare schools that admitted them) or in April, when it sends regular acceptances. </p>
<p>There would be no need to send merit aid offers earlier.</p>
<p>“early FA reads for ED would certainly clear up all of this…”</p>
<p>I think that most ED schools do this automatically, and those that don’t are willing to provide such info if an ED accepted student requests it. After all, all ED schools allow students to back out of ED if the financial aid offer doesn’t meet students’ demonstrated financial need.</p>
<p>d’smom: I should perhaps let dstark speak for himself but I think he is trying to say that as worded, the ED agreement is not enforceable, i.e, the college would not be able to win if it tried to enforce it.</p>
<p>Northstar you are correct. ED schools try to get the award letter out ASAP because they know that many can’t send a deposit in until they know their award. My son just got accepted ED and the award is coming only two days behind the acceptance. </p>
<p>ED schools send the award usually with the acceptance or very shortly there after.</p>
<p>dstark: I’ll ask you once more, and then I’ll stop, whether or not I get a straight answer from you.</p>
<p>What, precisely, do you think ED is meant to accomplish? I’m not asking for a statement of purpose. I’m asking what, if anything, a kid who gains admission under an ED plan is supposed to commit to. Is there no commitment at all in exchange for the ED acceptance? Kid gets the benefit of better admissions odds and an early nod, but promises nothing in return?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More practically, if a college tried to enforce the agreement by making the parents take huge loans, and word got out, it would have a very chilling effect on the number of ED applications that the school would receive in the future. This would be counterproductive to the school that tried to enforce it. Forgetting the specific words, the intention of the financial out clause is to allow students with financial need to apply without fear. You have to remember that by and large, most students who are accepted ED end up matriculating. It works very well for the colleges.</p>
<p>vicariousparent,</p>
<p>You may be correct, but from what I understand if a school wanted to go to court they could, but none would waste their precious money doing so. What I don’t like is that fact that some here seem to think that it’s okay to enter into an agreement that is technically binding and then try to bend the definition to suit their needs. For me, this is an ethical problem with our society. Hence, that is why we need so many lawyers. Of course if it was truly impossible for the OP to go to Penn than that would be different, but I don’t think that is the case at all.</p>