<p>I see no ethical dilemma at all. She was in no position to judge the affordability of Penn at application time – you never know the FA until it’s in writing, regardless of what FA calculators predict. From personal experience I know that FA offers from schools that “meet 100% of financial need” can differ by over 10k/year. At the time she signed the ED agreement, the full ride was not on the table; it arrived at the same time as her ED acceptance from Penn. Frankly, I feel that taking any offer at a lower cost is legitimate. The ethical problem only kicks in now, if you consider the issue of the MIT app.</p>
<p>The Penn ED agreement should say in big red letters “Don’t apply ED if you need financial aid.” Unless they do that, the amount of the financial aid offer will always be a legitimate reason to turn down the acceptance.</p>
<p>Yes calmom, re: post 379 she is not obligated in the terms you mention to attend, but she did know what she was signing and you have to admit the reason she wants out is not so much because of what Penn is offering, but that she now has a full supposed ride to state school. And, to throw a twist in she is also waiting to see what MIT may or may not do for her even though she, her parents and her guidance counselor signed an ED agreement. </p>
<p>I don’t think that using the word unethical is a bad word to use based on the definition of the word when someone does not honor an agreement they entered into. Especially since we have also learned that the OP is shopping at MIT as well. The wording used in the ED agreement is if it is “Impossible” for you to attend, which is very different then we will meet your full need. Of course colleges like Penn and others claim to try to meet the full need. But that “meeting the full need” is based on formulas and calculators they use, not what you and I think are the full need that one may have. I am a middle class mom and I am a full pay mom. Does the school think I should pay a huge chunk? Heck yes. Do I like paying a huge chunk? Heck no, but college is a business and they have formulas and use calculators for deciding how much of an offer a student should get. If the OP truly needs to take out 100k, than my guess is that they are not poor or needy in the way that many here on CC define as needy. My guess is that it’s possible for the OP to go there or why would they be applying to MIT as well? The OP surely does not think they are getting a full ride there too, do they? </p>
<p>This whole thread started over should the OP decline an ED offer letter because a better offer came along. </p>
<p>Bottom line is if the OP never got the state offer and or does not get the MIT offer, would the OP be accepting the offer from Penn??? My guess is yes, in this scenario it changes the status of whether the OP is being ethical or not.</p>
<p>The ED agreement is not predicated on her being able to shop around for a better deal. Each party in the ED process gives up something. The applicant gives up the ability to shop around but gains a better chance of admittance. The college gives up the ability to compare the applicant to the entire applicant pool but gains more certainty over its incoming class. The OP herself said Penn’s package is not horribel nor did her financial situation change - its just that she found out she could get a better deal elsewhere</p>
<p>Furthermore - the OP just yesterday posted with respect to her MIT EA app - </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes what she is doing very unethical</p>
<p>The issue boils down if the financial aide offered by Penn truly doesn’t meet OP’s need. It would seem to me than that the OP wouldn’t have even posted her question, because if an ED offer doesn’t meet financial need then the applicant can easily decline.</p>
<p>The OP posted because she recieved a full ride from her state univ, and wondered if she could decline because of that. I object to stating that because another school offered a full-ride that means somehow that Penn didn’t offer a financial package that met OP’s need. These are two separate issues. She can legally and ethically decline an ED offer if the school’s aide package doesn’t meet need. She can’t decline it simply because she has been offered a free ride.</p>
<p>And of course, none of this deals with when/if she should withdraw the MIT EA app…</p>
<p>This is how the OP described herself in the Penn ED acceptance thread. Doesn’t sound like she was born in the U.S.</p>
<p>"I’ve been here for about 2 1/2 years, but I would say (not bragging) my accomplishments can parallel those of native kids… 1st gen, dealt with all the difficulties of culture transformation independently, help my mom to adjust… "</p>
<p>I have seen instances when the ED finaid offer was very low and definitely did not take into account the actual financial needs of the applicant, especially when housing was considered as an asset. The loophole “impossible” exists for such scenarios.<br>
But maybe I am being cynical in thinking that “not too horrible” means “it’s not what we would really like, but we can make it with a little effort” and that the OP is shopping for a better deal. State U is giving full ride and the OP is still waiting on MIT (all things being equal, I do not think that MIT would be more generous than Penn).</p>
<p>I am thinking we are going in circles here, and will simply wait to hear what OP does (assuming she will post again; either when she hears from MIT, or when she writes/contacts Penn during the week ahead to negotiate/explain the state school’s offer).</p>
She was signing an agreement to attend Penn if she was satisfied with the offer of financial aid made at the time of acceptance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which means that Penn’s offer is not acceptable. She has every right to weigh Penn’s offer in the context of the information available to her at the time the offer is made. If Penn or other ED schools don’t like that, then they should give applicants an estimated financial aid award at the beginning of the process, with the application. Penn didn’t make any representations to her about the money, but did make a very vague promise that they would meet her full need. Since that wasn’t defined in dollar terms at the outset, there could not possibly have been what we lawyers call “a meeting of the minds” – hence, no agreement.</p>
<p>marite re: post #386, I agree about MIT not being more generous. It will probably be about the same as Penn if I had to guess. So if that is the case, than why is the OP waiting on the decision from MIT??? That is where it becomes very unethical to me. Obviously the OP is going to do what the OP is going to do. This very scenario makes for a very interesting case study in ethics though. I think that is what I find most fascinating about this whole thread. It amazes me how many people do not see an ethical problem here. When my son entered into his ED agreement, his guidance counselor sat him and us down and told us that when you do ED and get accepted all other offers are off the table “Period”. She explained that the one down side to doing ED is that you don’t get to see your other offers and if they cross in the mail than you need to remove those applications. She did say that if the aid package is such that you absolutely can’t say for example get the loan you need or borrow against your house etc…than that would constitute grounds for getting out of you agreement. Basically she instilled in us the serious nature of entering into an ED agreement. Whether people like it or not does not change the fact that there was an agreement here.</p>
<p>calmom, the wording says nothing about being satisfied. It states if it’s “impossible to attend”. They are very different things. Again, the fact that the OP claims they would need 100k in loans shows they obviously make good money and or have assets. UPenn would not expect someone to have to cough up 100k if they had serious need.</p>
<p>I sent my kids to private colleges that charged me more than I could comfortably pay. But they happened to be the colleges that also offered the best financial aid packages. Because I could take out a spreadsheet and compare awards, I could see that the packages that were offered to me were fair and reasonable as far as the system goes - that is, using the numbers that they use, things were not going to get any better. </p>
<p>In my case, my problem happens to be home equity and a non-contributing, noncustodial parent. I don’t know what OP’s situation may be, but I do know that here on CC we often see young students whose parents aren’t helping them but who hoping that they will be able to borrow huge sums of money for their education. For some, that’s the only option they have. But just because they DO borrow when they don’t have a better option, doesn’t mean that their needs are being met. It just means that they are finding a way to bridge the gap.</p>
<p>In dealing with this problem logically and correctly, and in dealing with Penn to bring this to resolution, OP has to assess what the TRUE facts of her situation are. What she has written about the true ability or willingness of her parents to pay for her education is inconsistent. She needs to figure out what the truth really is and then use those facts in her dialog with Penn. </p>
<p>Nowhere did I intimate that OP is a liar and that she should use whatever version of the truth that gets her to the results that she wants. That would have made what I wrote “shameful” and “cynical.”</p>
<p>“She did know what she was signing. She was signing an agreement to attend Penn if she was satisfied with the offer of financial aid made at the time of acceptance.”</p>
<p>Wow. If I’d known this I’d have DEMANDED that each of my kids apply ED. “Hey, your application gets favored consideration, and what’s the worst that can happen? You say you don’t like the financial offer.”</p>
<p>calmom wrote: “Because I could take out a spreadsheet and compare awards, I could see that the packages that were offered to me were fair and reasonable as far as the system goes - that is, using the numbers that they use, things were not going to get any better.”</p>
<p>This is what all who apply RD or simply EA can do. If you apply ED though you need to understand that you can’t take out a spreadsheet and compare awards.</p>
<p>You can decline if need isn’t met; you can’t decline based on other awards. It is too simplistic to say that since a full-ride was offered her need wasn’t met. </p>
<p>Applying ED means you agree to accept if financial need is met by the ED university. It doesn’t mean if financial need is met in a better way at another university you can decline.</p>
<p>But again, going in circles and I did say I would wait till OP posted again…</p>
<p>Calmom, is this your position: a “smug rich person” who applied ED has no option but to stay. Someone who needs <em>any</em> assistance, can decide he is “not satisfied” and bail out even if he has to pay $10.</p>
<p>calmom, exactly! But you did not enter into an ED agreement. The OP did! That is the difference and I might add that Penn uses calculators that are fair and just. They have some of the best FA out there and offer incredible packages based on the industry standards. The OP’s parents entered into an agreement. hypothetically if the OP is now waiting(probably knowing they also won’t get near a good offer from MIT as the state school) and still has not removed that application isn’t that unethical???</p>
<p>My gut feeling is that this is not about money. She wants out of UPenn ED if she gets admitted to MIT, and wants to use FA and State U full ride as the reason. She posted here fishing for reasons she could use with/against UPenn to get out if she needs it. She got her info and is gone. This is not a poor recent Asian immigrant girl being taken advantage of by the system.</p>
<p>ihs76. I agree with you. She would never have brought up the state school full-ride component if it were simply about money. If it was simply that Penn didn’t meet financial need she had her answer, an easy decline. No reason to post unless she was fishing for an out…</p>