<p>Thanks, midmo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to agree. The question of whether the financial offer from Penn was one that made it POSSIBLE for OP to attend Penn would be answered once and for all in the affirmative. Once Penn met the financial contingency, OP would not be ethical in trying to get out of the ED agreement.</p>
<p>One poster wondered why someone would apply ED to a school when it wasn’t her clear favorite. The answer: because applicants sometimes try to game the system, believing that ED gives an applicant a substantial boost. You see kids posting on the kid threads, discussing strategy about how to best use the “ED option.” Penn is especially known for giving its ED applicants a substantial boost and I read that legacy candidates are counseled to apply ED in order for the legacy status to help.</p>
<p>As to what posters on this thread can agree on: I’ve come up with --ED sucks and OP should not have applied ED.</p>
<p>I have to smile in that this thread is the exact opposite of the situation we usually see on CC. The usual thread is: “I’ve been accepted to Ivy League School. But my State College has offered me a full-ride, all expenses paid scholarship. I really want to go to Ivy League School, but my parents are really putting pressure on me to take the full ride. How can I get my parents to let me go to Ivy League School? My life is ruined!”</p>
<p>And, depending on different factors, many of us would end up advising that she take the full ride and avoid debt.</p>
<p>If it weren’t for the ED obligation thing, I think all of us would be commending OP for her wise actions in avoiding debt for her undergraduate education. </p>
<p>But we were asked about our thoughts about the ethics involved with her ED situation.</p>
<p>Actually, we were not asked about our thoughts about the ethics involved. The OP just asked how to get out of ED. We offered them freely, gratis, and at no charge 
That’s what we do best: free advice and meandering threads.</p>
<p>"And, depending on different factors, many of us would end up advising that she take the full ride and avoid debt.</p>
<p>If it weren’t for the ED obligation thing, I think all of us would be commending OP for her wise actions in avoiding debt for her undergraduate education."</p>
<p>The ethics argument blows my mind. I’m glad to read calmom’s posts.</p>
<p>The student (or the parents) should not take on debt if the student doesn’t want to do that. ED or no ED.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that a lot of people think she is not actually interested in the full-ride, but is hoping for an EA admit to MIT. It is interesting that she did not mention the MIT thing when she started this thread. The omission is perhaps not accidental.</p>
<p>dstark, avoidance of debt is a really, really big thing in my household. But I’m afraid I don’t buy the innocent victim thing here.</p>
<p>But, as I said a couple of times already, I think binding ED is inconsistent with the PR top schools put out about expansion of opportunities, etc. so I am not advising anything at all.</p>
<p>I think situations like this are absolutely inevitable and illustrates the essential contradictions in the system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I was one of those who advised Evil Robot to take Vandy’s better finaid offer over Yale’s though many other parents advised him to go to Yale and be willing to incur debt. But, yes, the issue of honoring one’s commitment is important to me.</p>
<p>As I recall from law school over 25 years ago, one cannot sign a valid contract if one is a minor. The OP, RedBlueBeaver, is 17 years old, so UPenn cannot enforce the ED agreement in a court of law against her. However, if UPenn could enforce the agreement against OP, what would be the court’s ruling? Force OP to go to UPenn? Courts will not readily enter such an order of specific performance.</p>
<p>OP’s parents (adults) signed the ED agreement, so UPenn can enforce the ED agreement against OP’s parents. What is the remedy by UPenn against the parents? Force the parents to attend UPenn? I think not, they did not apply. Force the parents to pay for tuition for a student that never attended? Not likely. UPenn has an obligation to mitigate its “damages”. Apparently OP’s parents would not be paying too much anyway. Since OP needs money to attend, UPenn can easily find a student who would be cheaper to UPenn, especially since UPenn still has 4 months under RD and 9 months for waitlisted applicants to find a single replacement, and the applicants are lined up around the block scratching to get in.</p>
<p>Of course, it would take years in a court to get any court resolution of this issue. And why would UPenn go to court, the publicity would be horrible for UPenn. And ultimately UPenn does not want students who don’t want to be there.</p>
<p>So the final answer is that if the (fictional) OP breached her ED agreement with UPenn, legally, and as a practical matter, there would be no consequences to OP from UPenn. However, MIT or the state school could withdraw any offers of admission. Although I am not sure what MIT’s application says, the Common Application says nothing about ED decisions of other schools, so possibly MIT and StateU may have no basis for now rejecting OP simply because she broke her ED agreement.</p>
<p>However, OP’s high school, and its students would likely be blacklisted by UPenn, MIT and StateU for a number of years due to OP’s breach of her ED agreement.</p>
<p>It seems that this thread has been fascinating for lots of bored parents snowed in this weekend, but I think it’s time to realize that the BlueRed (UPenn) Beaver (MIT) OP is a ■■■■■. Don’t let this ■■■■■ cause you all to irretrievably insult one another.</p>
<p>^^^I was irretrievably insulted on <em>another</em> thread today, but not this one. This thread is well-mannered, I think.</p>
<p>I see no reason to believe this student is a ■■■■■, at least by my understanding of the term ■■■■■.</p>
<p>Wow! 29 pages on a thread only a day and half old.</p>
<p>But there is no LEGAL ED obligation!</p>
<p>To get an “obligation” you are adding a provision to the ED contract that doesn’t exist: that is, she’s got to accept Penn’s offer whether she likes it or not. Instead of the test being “did Penn fully meet her demonstrated need” – the test has been turned into “is it possible” to attend Penn, even if she has to take on an unconscionably high debt load. </p>
<p>But as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the ED agreement is not enforceable in a court of law, precisely because courts would view it as an improper and unethical type of agreement. Colleges opt for this purely as a way of locking in students who are committed to paying a certain amount, and the colleges are large institutions who are able to very accurately predict and plan for anticipated attrition, which probably is around 1-2% for ED acceptees. </p>
<p>The agreement itself is expressly made subject to a financial aid award. So it doesn’t become effective until the student accepts the financial aid offer. </p>
<p>Penn promises to meet 100% of “demonstrated need”, but reserves the right to define and calculate “demonstrated need” however it sees fit; the applicant promises to attend if need is met, but retains the right to make that determination based on her own criteria and circumstances. Since the parents won’t be contributing anything, the APPLICANT needs a full ride or very close to it. Penn chooses, like most colleges, to look at parental income and assets (but not parental debt) in calculating need – but that doesn’t change the reality for the applicant.</p>
<p>Agree midmo, this thread has been remarkably amiable. Some nice analysis. Some clarification of legalities. Quite an engaging thread on something I think we all have pondered in our minds. CRD got bummed out somewhere in the middle but Calmom hangs in. I learned a couple finer points about what constitutes an enforceable contract. A classic thread. And BTW I highly doubt the OP is a ■■■■■, that has popped up already a couple times and pretty much been discounted. Nighty nite from the midwest.</p>
<p>OK, we have a new understanding of ED … it’s not a legal obligation, and it’s not an ethical obligation, and the term “impossible” can be interpreted any way the applicant (or applicant’s family) chooses.</p>
<p>What’s interesting about this “new understanding” is that it opens UPenn to damage lawsuits: “Hey I applied ED, UPenn accepted me, and I fulfilled my part of the contract by withdrawing all applications. Then UPenn reneged on their obligation to provide me an adequate financial package (which my family defines as being a full ride).”</p>
<p>Oh yeah, this is a BIG improvement over the simpler interpretation that “the agreement means what it says.”</p>
<p>Let’s assume that turning down Penn is completely unethical because of her ED agreement. I would <em>still</em> advise her to turn Penn down in favor of the free ride. While I agree that it’s important to honor one’s commitments, I think in this case it would be very stupid to take on an enormous debt when a free option exists. It sounds like her family would find it very difficult to repay the loans. (I don’t think it’s necessary to prove that it would be <em>impossible</em> for them to repay.) And as a practical matter, Penn will have no problem filling her place.</p>
<p>That said, this is clearly a student who should never have applied ED, and I wonder what she was told by her guidance counselor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No need for concern, ConcerndDad:</p>
<p>Op’s HS is </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting characterization coming from a member of a minority who apparently is not rich. So, don’t think we have to worry about these masses applying to UPenn and MIT in the near future.</p>
<p>Re GC: her words</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the more apt question is: what did she tell her GC?</p>
<p>I am just really impressed by her chutzpa, if I may be cross-cultural.</p>
<p>NewHope… your example makes sense only if Penn has the power to force someone to accept the financial aid agreement. Disappointed ED applicants have no claim against Penn precisely BECAUSE they have the right to refuse a financial aid offer that is inadequate.</p>
<p>Here’s a question, since we’re talking ethics and not really the OP, at this point, does anyone else find it unethical that colleges claim to “meet full need” when they do not, in fact, “meet full need.” Does anyone find it unethical that colleges who say they “meet full need” include student LOANS in that package?</p>
<p>I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be better if every single GC in the country sat down and thoroughly explained the meaning of ED to these kids, or if every single GC and visiting adcom wouldn’t more fully define “full need” to these kids and parents, however, this does not occur.</p>
<p>There are some really unethical practices colleges are engaging in in getting kids who cannot afford the school’s to apply and borrow way too much money in order to subsidize thier own outsized budgets. So, why keep lecturing kids about ethics, when the language of the “meets full need” is highly suspect, imho.</p>
<p>full disclosure: I am easily full pay and would never recieve FA, so I’m appalled for the sake of the kids I saw on these boards last spring who were justifiably heartbroken over thier unmeetable “full need” contributions as determined by the schools…</p>
<p>“Let’s assume that turning down Penn is completely unethical because of her ED agreement. I would <em>still</em> advise her to turn Penn down in favor of the free ride.”</p>
<p>I think it’s clear that the OP’s decision to apply ED was ill-advised, and I’m not an advocate of pursuing an ill-advised path. So I’m perfectly willing to give the OP a “recent immigrant mulligan” on this. Ask UPenn for a better FA package, and if that’s not forthcoming then send UPenn regrets and accept the full ride at state university.</p>
<p>I think the danger here is leaving HS students with the impression that applying ED is a good way to get an admission boost without limiting their options in any way.</p>
<p>poetgrl - Well sure, it’s at least lamentable that colleges “do what they think they have to do” to generate revenue. This goes way beyond questionable marketing claims. I would add over-use of TAs and Adjunct Faculty, failure to offer classes required for graduation, curious allocation of dormitory damage charges, etc.</p>
<p>^ The only answer I would have to this is that two or even several wrongs do not make a right.
I was taught that how I comported myself should not depend on how others comported themselves. But I’m fast realizing that “naive” should have been my middle name.</p>