<p>
</p>
<p>In principle, it seems like it’s MIT that gets to make that call. If it’s only slightly better, I would think that they would honor PENN’s ED and withdraw their offer.</p>
<p>The OP does not have to switch from EA to RD at MIT. Boy, some posters like to add on rules. :)</p>
<p>Re 529 and 533: As I mentioned about a zillion posts ago, there apparently is a list of ED positive decisions that is distributed to admissions deans of member colleges, as I learned from a LAC dean of admissions in October 2009. Whether MIT or any particular admissions dean actually looks at that list amid the flood of applications that the college receives and considers at this point in time, that would depend upon the college.</p>
<p>DS, transparency is not dependent on the “number.” What is lacking a clear policy posted by EACH school about what happens after they return the acceptance. </p>
<p>How hard would it be for the schools to add two to five bullet points, including one that states that there won’t be ANY discussion regarding the financial aid package? And, another one that clearly states they won’t release anyone except to lower ranked schools? </p>
<p>Is that too much to ask from schools?</p>
<p>That’s good. The school’s should do that. Have a clear policy.</p>
<p>Agree with post 540 re: transparency. Agree, too, that, if the finaid offer is not adequate, a student should negotiate. If it is still not adequate, I am sure that the ED college would not hold it against an applicant to withdraw. Of course, “adequate” does not mean “full ride” or “absolutely no loans.” In my book, it means “without taking loans that would make it impossible to fund another child’s college education or dipping into one’s retirement funds, or foregoing needed surgery,” or something similar. If negotiations are ongoing, it is legitimate to keep MIT in play in case the outcome is adverse.</p>
<p>Cross-posted with Xiggi:
Are ED applicants required to submit a full financial report? If not, I don’t think ED schools should be unwilling to negotiate.</p>
<p>Anent “lower-ranked schools,” how lower would “lower-ranked” be? It’s a good thing that Harvard is not using ED!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but at what time does she have to withdraw ALL other applications? When that happens there are no EA and no RD.</p>
<p>“In my book, it means “without taking loans that would make it impossible to fund another child’s college education or dipping into one’s retirement funds, or foregoing needed surgery,” or something similar.”</p>
<p>And in my book, that isn’t what it means.</p>
<p>When there is an agreement with Penn, Xiggi. Then that’s it. When the student says I can pay X and the school says the student can pay X… so there is an agreement, that’s it. Time to cancel the other apps.</p>
<p>
But no one will really know the true reason she declined Penn unless they ask for her Penn FA info.
Why would MIT be interested in Penn’s ED offer to this girl? By spring, if she accepts MIT, she will have already turned down Penn. Her obligation to Penn is to accept, or turn down the acceptance right now. By spring Penn ED will be history and she will never have been in the position of comparing Penn and MIT FA at the same time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not supporting the notion they should not negotiate. I am advocating for a clear disclosure of what they will do or NOT do. </p>
<p>Considering that RD applicants are given about one month to decide their fate (among several choices) what would be a reasonable timeframe for the schools and parents to “negotiate?” Two weeks? Four weeks? Six weeks? </p>
<p>Fwiw, I believe that WAY too much is made about the ability of parents to negotiate as opposed to submit additional information that might not be clear in the FAFSA or Profile forms.</p>
<p>Dstark:</p>
<p>As I said, I was naive, I should have sent my kids to schools that would give them huge amount of money. We certainly could not afford to send either to college without taking loans. But that’s what we did.</p>
<p>Xiggi: Yes, “negotiate” is probably not the best choice of words. Certainly, applicants should be able to submit additional information that would affect the package they are offered. I do think that if the ED schools gave applicants until Jan. 31 to respond, there would still be plenty of time to withdraw other applications.</p>
<p>Xiggi, hard to disagree with your last statement several posts up. Although I don’t consider snitching and tattling in an anonymous way be a trait of integrity frankly. But that is not what you are referring too…</p>
<p>In this age of Common App and electronic systems, it should not be very hard to constitute a clearer and more transparent process. One way I can think of is for the schools not to release any admission decision until any outstanding offer of an ED on the book is completed. Most schools already use Common App and everyone already indicated on the Common App that he/she is doing ED. The only information that needs to be passed around is whether the person has an outstanding ED or not. As soon as, the ED offer is declined or recinded, he/she is free to pursue other offers. Applications can be filed but no decision will be issued until that one ED is completed to it’s conclusion. Maybe there’s something wrong with this proposal but something much more clear and fair ought to be in place of this ad hoc way of doing things.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with being naive, Marite.</p>
<p>It has to do with the idea that one size fits all. That there is a correct answer for everybody. </p>
<p>There isn’t.</p>
<p>If somebody is comfortable with some debt that doesn’t mean that everybody should be comfortable with some debt. And the amount of debt a family can hold varies too.</p>
<p>That’s great Marite, that you found a debt level that you are comfortable with. The odds are pretty good that I wouldn’t be comfortable with that debt load.</p>
<p>So you said yes. That’s fine. I reserve the right to say no to the exact same debt level you took on.</p>
<p>And yes, you should be able to negotiate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>DS, that is not the way the system does work and that is not the way it should work as it makes a mockery of the entire ED system. If the recent (flawed) language of the Common Application has introduced a notion that the student has the right to reject an offer and be released on a binding commitment, it would be mistake to extend the “negotiations” beyond an EXTREMELY short amount of time, and most definitely not until an “agreement” can be reached. </p>
<p>Fwiw, you should consider what is happening to the students who decided NOT to play the ED game. Is it fair to them to allow people to have an extended decision time and …, game the system? </p>
<p>How would the school proceed in evaluating the RD pool if everyone who was accepted ED at Penn would defer a decision until an “agreement” can be reached?</p>
<p>Xiggi, I never mentioned a time. The school can decide the time of negotiations.</p>
<p>The time frame of negotiations can be very short.</p>
<p>Penn already has a date early next month when they want an answer from the accepted ed students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve been working under the impression that MIT’s default position is to withdraw offers to those who have been admitted under another school’s Early Decision program. I still think that’s correct, but I can’t cite chapter and verse. It’s pretty clear to me that MIT intends to honor those other commitments. Therefore, the only way I can see MIT not withdrawing the offer is for MIT to agree that their own independently derived FA offer was so significantly better than PENN’s that it would have been reasonable for the OP to decline PENN’s on financial grounds but still accept MIT’s. If the difference is $500 per year, I don’t think that will fly.</p>
<p>Under this scenario, since the default is withdrawal of the offer, I would think that the burden of proof would be on the student to show that she is being honorable.</p>
<p>One size does not fit all - - that’s why the schools should have a stardard definition of “adequate,” making it crystal clear that ED admittees will not be released with impunity just because the college or uni’s package is not as good an offer as the family had hoped it would be. But I thought the rules were sufficiently clear already.</p>
<p>When D1 applied ED, we knew that we would not be able to compare finaid packages. But her ED school promised to meet 100% of need and we decided that, if necessary, we were willing to cough up a few thou more than we wanted/hoped, in order for D to attend her dream school. We also understood that she would likely be passing up merit money at other, lower-ranked schools. It woked out fine for us, the college calculated our EFC to be just a bit higher than the FAFSA EFC and the package was primarily grants with standard (and completely reasonable) work-study and fed loans.</p>
<p>We would not have permitted D to apply ED if:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>we had wanted big merit money at a lesser ranked school or </p></li>
<li><p>a few thou more in grant money one of the ED school’s peer institutions would have been enough to urge D to forego her dream school (but we had no reason to believe that, among the schools that meet 100% of need, the different institutional methods would result in a significant lower EFC).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Colleges do not offer packages that are meant to make you life “comfortable” but to make education “affordable.” Yup, it’s more comfortable flying first class, but the couple of times I did, I was paid to do so. At all other times, I fly economy (even if I’m still paid to do so). It gets me where I want to go, albeit less comfortably.</p>