decline an early decision acceptance offer?

<p>Good point midmo. But, to take it a step further, how is it any different than deciding regular app’s? All they have to do is look at a zip code, address, prep school name etc…They have ways of telling where and how much money people have if you know what I mean.</p>

<p>It has nothing to do with OP’s parent’s changing their minds, dstark (#135). Look at her acknowledgement of acceptance to UPenn. She already had second doubts. There are many posts I agree with: Northstarmom, marite, oldfort, etc. She should NOT have applied ED if she wanted to shop around for the best deal. And shop around she did.</p>

<p>However much one person “dislikes” ED, it exists to prepare for the next year’s incoming class. Yes, it’s to the benefit of the schools, but the students know that IN ADVANCE. Colleges want to keep a certain profile, and ED allows for that to happen. Colleges work around the premise that the yield will be 100%.</p>

<p>If the OP needed to do some shopping, she should only be applying RD. Instead, she had her doubts (as many students do) that she might not get in, so agreed to take a risk and sign the ED agreement. With that risk came the benefit of getting early news that she got in as well as a slightly elevated acceptance rate. No one made her apply ED. No one made her sign that agreement. In fact, many schools these days absolutely warn students of the risks and benefits before sending out those agreements. That’s just business.</p>

<p>She even got ‘some’ financial package! It’s just not *as *good. Again, shopping around. I am astonished that adults here on this board think she should turn UPenn down. You may not like ED in the first place, but it exists. OP didn’t have to play with it, but she should keep her obligation. This not only will impact her viewpoints of contractual agreements in the future, it also impacts her HS and their standing with UPenn.</p>

<p>If her financial situation changed, then she’d have reason to decline UPenn. But to say she got a better offer is not a valid reason. For now, I suggest she contact UPenn and discuss this. And as for MIT: you better notify them about UPenn if you have any morals. That was in your ED agreement too.</p>

<p>Midmo, I agree that if the ED pool became weighted more toward financially needy students, the system would crash – and also that it wouldn’t be a bad thing. But keep in mind that due to the ED deadline, the financially needy ED applicant is still forced to make a commitment, one way or another, months before they could possible have financial aid awards in hand from very many other schools. The OP is fortunate that she has been offered a full ride merit award in December from a rolling admission school – the majority of students in line for such awards won’t be notified until March. </p>

<p>So, while as a financial aid applicant OP retains the ability to choose to attend a school that offers her better aid, she’s playing with fewer cards in her hand. </p>

<p>Have you noticed that the colleges with the most generous and specific financial aid offers - the ones like Harvard and Stanford that offer free tuition to everyone with family incomes under $60K – tend not to offer ED?</p>

<p>“Again, if OP’s parent(s) won’t pay then why did the parent(s) sign the contract?”</p>

<p>Because they were asking for financial aid, and they knew attendance wasn’t possible without enough of it. The OP stated that more was expected (it’s irrelevant if they were naive).</p>

<p>This is a tempest in a teapot. There is no problem; the OP declines the offer and moves on, just like ED agreement says.</p>

<p>The OP must be quite amused at us! :)</p>

<p>“Have you noticed that the colleges with the most generous and specific financial aid offers - the ones like Harvard and Stanford that offer free tuition to everyone with family incomes under $60K – tend not to offer ED?” </p>

<p>It’s all about yield, and those schools you mentioned don’t offer ED because they already have a high yield. They know students will want to take their acceptance offer. Those schools that can offer “free tuition to everyone under XX income” may be changing their offer soon if their endowments don’t pick up. It’s a business, remember.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>While there is not much that has not be said on CC about the “binding” nature of ED applications --a debate that should not exist if the ED schools were forced to FULLY disclose the rules-- it is important to point out that the definition of “most generous” schools for families with income under 60,000 might not be as clear as some might want to believe. </p>

<p>For instance, do we REALLY know if Stanford is more generous than Penn? Is Harvard REALLY more generous than Columbia? Should MIT or Brown even be considered generous? </p>

<p>Of course, one should be able to rely on the assumption that the combination of no-loan, need-blind, and meeting 100% of demonstrated need equates to a very generous financial aid, the final details of the proposed financial might surprise some. For instance, for families with zero EFC, the biggest contributions might come from expected summer earnings, student contributions, and the different methods of addressing outside scholarships might end up costing students thousands of dollars. </p>

<p>Fwiw, spending time analyzing the proposed financial aid packages on the Questbridge website should help interested readers form a better opinion, especially since the advertised packages are open to public scrutiny (something that is extremely rare from financial aid offices.) </p>

<p><a href=“http://questbridge.org/cmp/schship_pkgs/stanford.html[/url]”>http://questbridge.org/cmp/schship_pkgs/stanford.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.questbridge.org/cmp/schship_pkgs/penn.html[/url]”>http://www.questbridge.org/cmp/schship_pkgs/penn.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A good start would be to compare Penn’s and Stanford’s packages and then determine if there is indeed a correlation between SCEA and … ED. Of course, that is only if facts are better than idle speculation! :)</p>

<p>If OP’s parents can contribute NOTHING because of their large debt load and OP could not attend Penn without a full ride, then there really is no problem. She should talk to the financial aid people and appeal her package by telling them that she can’t attend without a full ride financial aid package. If she doesn’t get a full ride package from Penn, then she should write a variant of the calmom letter in #21, something like:</p>

<p>–Thank you for admitting me and for your offer of financial aid. As my parents are unable to contribute any funds whatsoever to finance my education, I must regretfully decline your ED offer for financial reasons.–</p>

<p>The existence of a full ride from the state school is immaterial to whether the financial contingency has been met.</p>

<p>But OP’s has made mixed comments about her parents ability to pay. One post claims that they can contribute nothing. But other posts are definitely more squishy on the subject.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If parents can contribute NOTHING, then any package other than a full ride one would be a terrible disaster. This post makes it sound like the package is doable, but a much better deal has come along.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I take the OP to be saying–IF my parents want me to help them financially by taking the full ride from State rather than go to Penn, I would do it.</p>

<p>Why the “If”? Why would parents who couldn’t contribute anything to your college expenses have any choice about whether to ask you to help them out by taking the full ride over an option that would cost them money?</p>

<p>The ability of the parents to pay or borrow whatever it is that the Penn offer didn’t cover is at the crux of whether OP can withdraw from the ED agreement without any ethical qualms. If they can contribute nothing, withdrawal with no ethical qualms. If they could borrow or pay but now feel it doesn’t make sense when OP has a full ride offer on the table, then a unilateral withdrawal is problematic on the ethical level.</p>

<p>However, OP can explain the situation and ask for an individual exception to be made in her case–that is, she would be allowed to turn down the ED acceptance even though a financial aid package that would make attendance possible was offered. I don’t see why the college would not grant her request. They have no leverage on this applicant. They can’t force her to come to Penn. They can’t force the parents to sign loan papers. They can’t threaten her with the rescission of her acceptance by State U (as if State U would care). </p>

<p>I’d say, make up your mind as to which story is closest to the truth and run with it.</p>

<p>I think you are being unfair to the OP – when finances are tight, things aren’t that clear. There is one post where the OP made clear that the parents have a large amount of debt. Here is what happens when people are in heavy debt: They are anxious and stressed out all of the time. They feel trapped – they are wary of new purchases and increased debt, and they want to use money that comes in to pay down debt. Often, if they merely pay the minimum amount owed each month on their loans… they know that they are paying a huge amount of interest but barely making a dent on the principal. If the loans are at a variable interest rate, they may be worried about the future – even if they can keep up with current payments, they might run into problems down the line if interest rates increase.</p>

<p>Add to this mix a kid who needs to attend college. The parent have limited income, but perhaps they have flexibility within an already bad situation – they could borrow more, adding to their overall debt, and extending out their payments on everything. This helps the kid go to college – but it is not good for their overall economic health.</p>

<p>Parents in this situation may also give mixed messages to their own kids. They may not want to burden their daughter with the details of their financial mess-- so sometimes they gripe about how tough things are, and at different times they may try to reassure their kid that things we’ll be o.k. and “will manage somehow”. As a financial-aid dependent parent, my biggest source of anxiety never was whether my kids would get into any particular college, but whether I would be able to afford whatever colleges they did get into. It didn’t really work out that well - quite frankly, my d. is now attending a college I can’t really afford. I’ll manage --this is something I want very much to do for her – but I can’t tell you what a relief it is that she is graduating this year and that I can start focusing on paying down the college debt rather than continuing to take on more. </p>

<p>That’s just how it works. I made it clear to my own kids that they would need financial aid to attend college, but I was fuzzy on the details. One the one hand I felt that I owed them an education – but I really had no clue how much we would get in aid. I knew I was willing to borrow, but obviously I preferred to borrow less rather than more.</p>

<p>I recently commented to my daughter about how much I would owe when she graduated college. She is 21 years old, a college senior – and she was horrified. I had mentioned that I was borrowing before, but I never told her the exact amount – and when the bill would come from the college, I’d just pay my end of it and not bother my daughter with the detailed. </p>

<p>So for people at the lower end of the income spectrum who are already carrying a lot of debt and who likely have little or nothing put away for retirement, “possible” is kind of a loaded word. What is “possible” is often quite inadvisable. </p>

<p>That’s why I posted above that necessity was part of the equation. If my water heater exploded, I’d find the money to replace the water heater, even if I had to put it on a credit card – I need hot water in my home. But if I don’t have a water heater emergency, I wouldn’t go spend the same amount of money on a flat screen t.v. I am willing to go into debt for necessary expenditures, not for discretionary expenditures. Is it “possible” for me to buy that t.v.? If I can spend $1,000 on one thing, then obviously I have the ability to spend the same amount of money on something else. But I think I would be crazy to do that. </p>

<p>I think what is probably happening is that OP’s family is making the transition from “we’ll see what we can do” and “we’ll manage somehow” – to looking at the options before them. I think it is admirable that OP wants to take that free ride scholarship – its a refreshing change from some kids who post on CC griping because their parents are “making” the attend a local college and they think that their parents “owe” it to them to pay for their dream college. In my view, OP is demonstrating a level of personal responsibility that is rarely expressed by young people on this board.</p>

<p>I believe there are two points of contract in the ED process.</p>

<p>1) You may only apply ED to one school. The application is the contract to only apply ED to one school. The OP did this.</p>

<p>2) IF AND ONLY IF you accept the ED package by SUBMITTING YOUR CHECK FOR ENROLLMENT (this being the second contract) are you then bound to attend the ED school. The OP did not agree to this contract. </p>

<p>The second contract makes it possible for folks needing finaid to play the ED game. </p>

<p>We each have a world of information that informs our college decisions. In OP’s world there is a legitimate offer of full ride from her state school. This offer was placed into her world before she received the ED offer. She can no longer accept the ED offer due to info currently in her world. I see no ethical problem in turning down the ED offer for the state offer. She does not sign the contract to accept the ED offer. She is free to attend another school. </p>

<p>Now, as to an MIT offer from the EA app?</p>

<p>If she turns down the ED offer, especially if she does so after fully informing the ED school of her situation (thus freeing up that spot for another student, as she said at the very beginning) then I think she is no longer in the ED game and can continue to apply to other schools to see if they match the full ride offer. She has, I believe, played the ED game fairly. She has considered their package and found it unworkable based on her current financial situation and turns it down. As soon as she turns down the ED offer she is free to continue, I think, to play the college game outside of the ED game.</p>

<p>I think I am agreeing with CRD and Calmom with this logic.</p>

<p>Now extend this to other students generally.</p>

<p>You apply to one ED school. You apply to 10 other schools. Three rolling app schools respond before the ED offer with full rides. The ED school responds with a half ride. Are you obligated to accept the ED package? Heck no, that’s why they have the clause in the rules about the ED offer being financially acceptable. YOU WITHDRAW FROM THE ED SCHOOL by turning down their offer. You are now free to consider all the other offers in the RD round. Seems straightforward and well within the rules. But, you say, you were given an advantage in the ED round. Yes, but, I say, that was explicitly contingent upon the finaid offer being acceptable. That is what makes the ED game available to folks who need finaid.</p>

<p>I don’t agree with any logic that says you should not play the ED game if you can’t afford to go to the school full ride. That would be the most unfair of all.</p>

<p>FWIW we are on our second full pay round as parents, so this is not colored by our situation.</p>

<p>We can all relate to financial difficulties and we can all relate to trying to do what’s best for our children, but there is still such a thing about teaching our kids integrity and be financially responsible without a sense of entitlement. OP and her parents went ahead with ED because they felt they were “entitled” to the benefit of ED, but felt it wasn’t their responsibility to live up to its obligation. To be financially responsible, the parents should have “prevented” OP from applying ED.</p>

<p>Hugcheck,</p>

<p>You are mistaken about your point of contract #2; that’s not what the ED agreement says. Rather, the ED agreement says she can decline admission and be released from the agreement only if the financial aid offer makes attendance “not possible.” See Post #93 for the actual language. Nowhere does the ED agreement suggest the language that you state in your point of contract #2. Nor does the ED agreement say you can withdraw from it “if the financial aid offer is not acceptable.” The phrase used is “makes attendance not possible.” There’s a big difference. </p>

<p>This language lets people needing financial aid apply ED, but only lets them out if attendance is not possible; it does not let them shop around for better deals after they receive an ED offer. So, in my opinion, ED is often not a very good option for families on a tight budget.</p>

<p>A young lady I have known for 10 years asked me to write a recommendation for her to my alma mater as she was applying ED. It is not something I normally would like to do because I don’t think it really matters, but I thought the young lady was quite special and she’s also been through a lot of adversity (I asked adcom to view my letter as an alumni interview writeup). I knew she would probably need FA and didn’t think ED was good for her especially at that particular school, it didn’t meet full need. </p>

<p>I met with her mother, as the father died unexpectedly a few years back, to explain to her ins and outs of ED. I asked her if she was prepared to pay if the package was not as attractive as she expected. She assured me that she was prepared to do what it would take since it was her daughter’s dream, and her father would have wanted it for her. I recommended for her to consider similar schools with more generous aid (like Williams). My meeting with the mother was over 2 hours.</p>

<p>I wrote a heartfelt letter to the adcom. They replied back to me to let me know it was one of the nicest letter they have read of an applicant and they were going to keep it in her file. The school is a small LAC where the admission process is very personal, the dean writes a personal note to every accepted student.</p>

<p>I saw the mother last night. She told me that they may have to turn down the ED if she should get admitted this Tue because they have changed their mind, they may want to consider other better financial options. Has their financial situation changed in 2 months? No. She was just more committed a month ago than she’s now. Is this any different than a full pay student wanting to get out of Columbia Engineering ED because he has changed his mind about being an engineer?</p>

<p>I am holding my breath that everything will work out (getting enough aids) for this young lady. If not, I hope they’ll be sensitive enough to handle it with grace, I hope my alma mater won’t associate me with this applicant if it should get ugly (in my letter I said this young lady had great integrity). I have a younger daughter who will apply to this school in 2 years later. It probably will have no effect on D2, but in this competitive process we just can’t be sure (how often have we heard a college refused to admit any students from a high school because someone rescinded on ED?).</p>

<p>I will not say anything to this young lady’s mother, but I would never get involved again.</p>

<p>I wanted to reiterate what I said at the start of this thread when I was not aware there was an MIT EA acceptance potential.</p>

<p>I believe if you call UPenn and tell them their finaid offer is not high enough and that you have been offered a full ride to a STATE school, because it is a state school and not a peer institution, they will release you from ED with very little mess…leaving all of your grad school options wide open. ;)</p>

<p>Also, MIT needs to be called Monday morning and withdrawn from, even at this late date…UPenn and MIT and the other initial schools DO share early admission information. But, to go to a state school on a full ride is not something any of the ivies will disagree with, where there is financial need.</p>

<p>Also, there is the possibility that Penn will raise its offer considerably…You might be suprised. Good luck. Don’t play games. Just call and be honest. The admissions people are not evil villians who want you to take on life-altering amounts of debt, and I’m sure it will all go just fine.</p>

<p>

Well put, and what I have been thinking. </p>

<p>I’m wondering what it is about this whole issue that makes some students think the rules don’t apply to them? Is it the general acceptance of cheating in many schools? Is there less integrity and honesty than in the past? </p>

<p>I resent posters like the OP who think they can apply ED for the obvious advantage for admissions, then cry that her parents can’t afford it. Did her parents not read the ED agreement that they signed? </p>

<p>We would not allow our S to apply ED anywhere, because we would not sign something without knowing the financial aid particulars. Why could OP’s parents not have done the same thing? But no, they signed and now OP thinks she is so special that the rules don’t apply to her. </p>

<p>That’s a lack of integrity and going against the rules.</p>

<p>Poetgrl’s advice is well said and spot on.</p>

<p>“We would not allow…”</p>

<p>But you are the parents. I hold the parents and the GC’s much more responsible for this than the 17 year old, contracts are not something I yet understand, senior. The adults need to explain all this. </p>

<p>OTOH, I think ED is so heavily lopsided in favor of the schools, and they are dealing with such a young population, I really think it’s an unethical practice. It reminds me of those early rock and roll contracts, where the artist got nothing but a living and the managment got rich. FWIW.</p>

<p>Ditto on poetgrl’s advice.</p>

<p>I feel for you oldfort. You extended yourself for someone else and they did not honor their verbal agreement with you. You acted with integrity and full disclosure. They did not. Sadly, this is why in our current society we need all the lawyers that people rant against. We can no longer trust verbal or loose written agreements. We now need detailed contracts for every breath we take and must pay the steep legal fees for it. This is the cost to society of the steady disintegration of integrity.</p>

<p>Edited to remove.</p>

<p>Seems like it’s been a busy night, I hope some of you got some sleep!</p>

<p>Oldfort, I’m sorry about the situation that you describe. That sounds hard, I hope it works out and there is no hard feelings. </p>

<p>I think the crux of the place that we all disagree on is whether the existence of a full ride offer should be considered part of your current financial situation in determining whether attendance at the ED school is possible with regards to the ED agreement. Calmom, Dstark, Hugcheck and myself think that the financial situation does change because it moves the megaloans that the parents of the OP would have to take out from the necessary column to the unnecessary column, in which case it is beyond prudence. In this case, they may feel that it is unethical for them to borrow money for something that is not a necessity when they may not be able to pay back the loan to the lending party. We’d all be better off if more people took this responsibility as seriously. </p>

<p>The rest of you folks think that the free ride doesn’t change the current financial situation because the numbers put on the financial aid form do not change. In this case it may seem unethical to break the agreement, when it is technically possible to still attend, though perhaps irresponsible. </p>

<p>We all have to find a place in the world that we are comfortable with, I don’t think this is an easy question and I can see both points of view. Whoever said that morality and ethics were easy. I am still very much sympathetic to the OP, who I am sure would love to go to UPENN and it must break her heart to have to turn them down.</p>