decline an early decision acceptance offer?

<p>Sorry, but I think the OP was doing something technically wrong when she posted on the MIT board AFTER receiving her Penn decision and financial aid package about how excited she was about her upcoming MIT decision. The NACAC rules are clear: Once the OP received her Penn decision and financial aid package, she was required to promptly withdraw her MIT application. As sybbie clearly explained, the OP should have thought more carefully before applying to Penn ED if she needed to compare aid packages. That’s what RD is for. I don’t have a big problem with her turning Penn down to attend State U if the family cannot manage the financial aid package Penn offered. But holding on to the ED acceptance, hoping for a nod from MIT, and then playing the system to walk away from the Penn ED acceptance in order to attend a peer school she prefers? No.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s one thing for us to counsel the OP that what she is doing is potentially unethical. It is quite another thing to leap from words on a bulletin board to actually notifying someone in real life. It’s childish tattling and I’d be disgusted if anyone on here actually went and notified whoever at Penn or MIT about the situation.</p>

<p>If the OP is still in discussions with Penn about her financial aid, she would not yet have to withdraw other applications. If she is thinking that if she’s EA accepted at MIT, she can somehow con MIT into giving her financial aid info early so she can weigh Penn’s offer with its, she will risk losing both admissions. This will occur because Penn shares its ED admit list with other top colleges. Neither MIT nor Penn needs CC informants for this to happen.</p>

<p>You all need to look up the word “unconscionable” in your dictionaries.</p>

<p>The ED system is outrageous. If you do not wish to attend, do not attend.</p>

<p>Can we please dial down the rhetoric? This is obviously a divisive topic, but I don’t think it’s necessary or useful to call another poster “disgusting.”</p>

<p>Maybe the colleges should follow the NACAC rules first…</p>

<p>Mhttp://<a href=“Ties That Bind | Brown Alumni Magazine”>www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/view/1113/40/</a></p>

<p>“Ever since last year, when Brown changed its fall admission program from “early action” to “early decision,” high school students who apply early have had to pledge to enroll at Brown if accepted - and to refrain from applying early to any other school.
The policy, however, is now out of line with practices accepted by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), an organization of high school counselors and college admission officers. Nonetheless Brown - along with Princeton - does not intend to change its rules, even if the group revokes its membership.” </p>

<p>[The</a> Early Admissions Game: Joining … - Google Books](<a href=“The Early Admissions Game - Christopher. Avery, Andrew. Fairbanks, Richard J. Zeckhauser - Google Books”>The Early Admissions Game - Christopher. Avery, Andrew. Fairbanks, Richard J. Zeckhauser - Google Books)</p>

<p>Scroll down to the section where the NACAC is like the United Nations.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-280953.html[/url]”>http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-280953.html&lt;/a&gt;
"The national organization that oversees college application practices has decided not to sanction Harvard, Yale and Stanford universities for violating early admission rules and will instead launch a two-year study of the increasingly controversial and confusing higher education application process. </p>

<p>Joyce E. Smith, executive director of the Alexandria-based National Association for College Admission Counseling, said that the organization has circulated a memo to its college and high school members declaring a moratorium on enforcing rules that govern early admissions to colleges and …"</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the issue of what is ethical has become harder to define. If, in the past, a school such as Columbia clearly posted what the procedure of OBTAINING a release from an ED acceptance was, the poorly written statement in the Common Application has given ammunition to more than a few to consider that the ED application contains a whimsical opt-out clause. </p>

<p>The culpability should be ENTIRELY ascribed to the … colleges. This is not different from the blatant misdirection on the use of APs by the office of Marilee Jones at MIT --during her past reign. Inasmuch as she claimed in speech after speech to want to reduce the impact of the “race” she NEVER did what would have been easy, namely OPENLY and CLEARLY limit the number of tests scores that could be submitted when applying. </p>

<p>At it stands now, many schools are DELIBERATELY using unclear and “gray” areas to ensure the maximum number of applications. And, this includes a desire to maximize the number of ED applications as the early applications generate a LOT of publicity for the schools. If allowing unclear statements on the Common Application helps increase the ED pool, that is a bonus. </p>

<p>With the army of available attorneys at the disposal of the schools, it is amazing that this unclear situation still exists today. Obviously, the role of organizations such as NACAC and others that push the Common Application cannot be seen as positive. </p>

<p>There is no doubt in my mind that EVERY school that offers ED should offer more transparency and fully disclose how they treat(ed) all applications that were rescinded or released. Of course, based on the past history, it is doubtful that schools will be forthcoming and offer clear policies, as they prefer to operate in quasi secrecy behind conveniently thick curtains. One only has to look at the disclosure of a group such as COFHE to understand the obvious differences in interpreting terms such as clarity and transparency. </p>

<p>The onus is on the schools!</p>

<p>I completely agree with post number 19. When you elect to apply ED status, you are making a moral promise, if not legally enforceable, that you will attend this school UNLESS it is financially impossible to do so because of their insufficient financial aid offer</p>

<p>Although I certainly understand taking a full ride from a state school, which is what I have almost always recommended, I have serious problems telling a kid to walk away and ignore their promises if they get a better deal! </p>

<p>With all that said, I always recommended against apply ED just for this reason.</p>

<p>wjb, what the poster said was disgusting.</p>

<p>Perhaps the OP read the heated discussion here and actually took it in and contacted the moderators to remove her MIT posts in order to be in compliance in a more thorough fashion than she was before she read the heated discussion on this board.</p>

<p>The fact that so much “evil” intent is being attributed to the OP, who is a young girl, or the idea that any adult would maliciously “report” a few posts on a message board is absolutely beyond my comprehension. The whole idea the she is trying “game the system” a favorite derogatory turn of phrase on CC, is just speculation and hearsay and I for one would applaud the decision of the moderator’s to remove any incriminating posts from the MIT boards, given the nature of attack implicit in some of the comments on this thread.</p>

<p>She is a kid. It is really important not to lose sight of this fact.</p>

<p>Ditto…:)</p>

<p>Amen…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Whaaat? There’s lots of bashing going on here but hardly any energy has been expended on the state school in this conversation at all! The only thing said is that it is very likely that the state school wouldn’t care if OP backed out of her ED school. </p>

<p>State school made an outstanding offer to a student they would really like to get and the student is serious (we think) about taking it. We haven’t said anything like–Penn at any price is better than State School for free.</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, if there weren’t an ED issue involved, I suspect that many would applaud OP for taking the free ride over debt for Penn.</p>

<p>Re NSM’s post 503: NSM, here’s the scenario that’s bugging me. (And I’m posing this hypothetically; it may or may not apply to the OP.) I’m interested in your thoughts. </p>

<p>What if an applicant’s real purpose in applying ED to Penn along with EA to MIT is to try to increase the chances of being accepted by Penn, which is actually the student’s second choice, and then follow it up with an acceptance to MIT, the student’s first choice. If the student is denied acceptance to MIT, no problem: S/he has an elite acceptance in his/her pocket. If s/he gets into MIT, s/he just walks away from the Penn decision, claiming the financial aid package was insufficient. (As I understand it, she will not have a financial aid package from MIT, as they’re not issued until spring.) Will Penn and MIT exchange information in that situation in order to prevent the student from breaching the ED agreement?</p>

<p>Wow, poetgrl, that was really rude. Honestly, I would never address another poster in that way.</p>

<p>I see you are relatively new to CC. If you don’t think there are families who are trying to work the system in dishonest ways, stick around.</p>

<p>wjb, cut the rude crap. You speculated negatively about somebody, posted it and then complained that somebody else was rude. Lol</p>

<p>"She is a kid. It is really important not to lose sight of this fact. "</p>

<p>this has been my biggest pet peeve on CC for a long time. adults berating and generally acting harshly towards posters who are obviously teens. </p>

<p>on this thread, post #480 took it to a new level for me: </p>

<p>“As of yesterday, OP had 15 posts on CC…”</p>

<p>“OP has been on this site as recently as 8:12 a.m. today…” </p>

<p>From post #493, “She lives in the Midwest, …”</p>

<p>at best, it reminds me of a 60-minutes “gotcha” interview. at worst, its kinda creepy. </p>

<p>one of the posts on this thread said facetiously “They really need to remove the search capability”. if this is how its gonna be used, maybe they really should.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, standard operating procedure.</p>

<p>Let’s take the high road, people.</p>

<p>That was the answer to my question. Thanks, CRD.</p>

<p>there wjb-- I deleted the “rude” message.</p>

<p>It doesn’t change what I think about what you said, though, at all. And if there are kids trying to “game the system” perhaps it is because the system is rigged…as we all know.</p>