<p>Absolutely not in both cases, as long as it is done for financial (or other extenuating circumstances, such as Dad describes above). Colleges state up front that one can renege if the financial aid is not doable. Language to that effect is included on the ED form on the Common App.</p>
<p>The only way ethics would become involved would be if the college gave an early read on financial aid, the family found it too low, and applied anyway.</p>
<p>wrt other applicants…a few more will be admitted in the RD round. That is a Win for those ‘lucky’ applicants; they are only lucky bcos someone backed out of ED.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, THAT is unethical. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. College yield doesn’t work that way, even in ED. Colleges know that ED does not have a 100% yield. Some students may defer and go volunteer overseas. So, if they want 100 matriculants from ED, they may accept 102, recognizing that 1 or 2 will not show up.</p>
<p>It’s precisely because you can’t know the detailed financials ahead of time that students are allowed to back out of ED. Look at the specific language used in the ED agreement (or contract, if you prefer). It specifically allows students to turn down an ED acceptance if the FA offer doesn’t make the school affordable. It’s not wrong at all.</p>
<p>DadofSenior, I am so sorry to read of your worries about your son. </p>
<p>The ED acceptance is a small issue here. If you find that he will need time and/or treatment extending beyond the start of the next school year, ask the school for a gap year. That will give him time to regroup and figure out if he should consider a school closer to home. Technically, you are supposed to withdraw all other applications once you’ve accepted an ED offer and reject other offers, but if he requires other support then going to any school might need to be postponed. </p>
<p>I suggest you start a new thread on the Parents forum asking for help. If your son is already 18, you’ll face different privacy and authority issues than if he’s younger.</p>
<p>I agree with bluebayou that it is in no way “unethical” to apply ED if one is not sure of finances. The language on college websites is pretty darned clear on the terms, but nowhere have I seen any school say, “So if you need financial aid, fuhgeddaboudit.” What applicants are told is that if they think they’ll need to COMPARE financial aid packages, they should not apply ED. Do people really know beforehand what their financial aid package will be, such that they really know that accepting an ED offer will be dependent on a financial aid miracle?</p>
<p>BTW: I’m so happy to see that the dominant view here is that it is unethical, after signing an agreement, to back out for nonfinancial reasons (excepting, of course, medical hardship).</p>
<p>BTW, everyone here is assuming that ED is non-binding if the finances won’t work because that’s what the Common App says. We may be forgetting that not all colleges are Common App. My daughter’s college does not take the Common App, and their application says NOTHING about getting out of ED if the money doesn’t work. They also do not guarantee to meet 100% of need. Here’s what the ED agreement on their application says:</p>
<p>
While the university cannot compel someone to attend, I would NOT apply ED to this college unless I knew I could make the finances work.</p>
<p>DadofSenior, I hope things work out for your son and he is able to get help if he needs in. In a case like that, where a physical or mental illnesses arises after a student is admitted, I am sure the college would NOT hold the student bound to attend. That is totally different than someone who just changes their mind or gets a better “deal” somewhere else.</p>
<p>So with ED who determines what is affordable financial aid? We have high assets and low income due to current unemployment. The estimated financial aid award we got from an EA school that uses CSS/profile is 28,152 family contribution, 8,582 student summer savings, work study and loans, 17,500 merit scholarship for a COA of 54,234. We are not comfortable spending that much when we don’t know when we will be back to full employment, even though on paper we have the assets. If this were ED would it be acceptable to backout for financial reasons? I guess my point is if someone wants to back out why not just use the financial aid reason as your excuse?</p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that no contract with a minor is legally binding, and many ED applicants (myself included, way back when), are under 18 when they apply.</p>
<p>If colleges seriously thought there were any legal leg to stand on, they would be suing people who back out on ED–they don’t, though, which, when combined with our knowledge that they have very, very good legal advisers, makes clear that ED “contracts” are nothing of the sort.</p>
<p>Also, nobody to my knowledge has responded to my earlier point about the other side of the deal: colleges are perfectly free to revoke admission at any time for any reason. If I’m an applicant, I expect to retain the same prerogative. Colleges whining about losing an ED kid (when they have hundreds or even thousands more lined up for that spot) are doing so from such a remarkably privileged position that it absolutely boggles the mind that then can even remotely claim any moral high ground.</p>
<p>marvin1000 - that’s why they have the parents sign the contract as well. Because parents are legal adults.</p>
<p>No, colleges aren’t going to sue applicants who back out, because it isn’t worth the bad publicity or the expense. But does that mean ED applicants haven’t done anything morally or ethically wrong by bailing out? And does that mean a college can’t “spread the word” about you to peer institutions? Admissions isn’t that big of a world - a lot of the folks at various institutions know each other.</p>
<p>There is no “other side of the deal.” If a college is going to revoke your admission, they have to give you a reason. Usually it would be because you didn’t finish hs with the record you presented on your application - either your grades or your behavior/citizenship tanked. I’ve never heard of a college just randomly revoking an admission for no reason. “Sorry, we changed our mind,” doesn’t happen. But EA and RD applicants are free to turn down an admission at any time. It’s just the ED kids who make a binding decision. If they don’t want to be bound, they shouldn’t apply ED.</p>
<p>So now Lafalum84 has addressed it. There are no ED agreements that I know of that stipulate this reciprocal deal. And no one is holding a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to apply ED. Most college websites include plenty of language aimed at dissuading people from submitting an application under these terms.</p>
<p>What colleges are “whining”? It is not whining to expect families to honor agreements that they SIGN.</p>
<p>“I’ve never heard of a college just randomly revoking an admission for no reason. “Sorry, we changed our mind,” doesn’t happen.”</p>
<p>Neither does backing out on ED–there’s always a reason. Kids usually claim finances, but sometimes there are other reasons. Either way, the contract, even when signed by the parents, isn’t binding–parents can’t legally sign their kids away for four years of anything. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s worth arguing a principle. The moral/ethical element is going to rely on individuals’ personal beliefs. The only relevant ground is legal, and it’s well established that ED is NOT a legally binding agreement. </p>
<p>I personally applied ED and attended the ED school that accepted me. </p>
<p>But I’ve had students who have backed out of Cornell, Brown, and Columbia all to go to MIT–in one case it was financial, in one case it was because the student didn’t get in to the special program that drew him to Brown, and in another case it was because the student had serious second thoughts about his major and the Core Curriculum. I consider all of these valid, and each ED school released the student after a few emails. I’ve <em>never</em> heard of a college saying “no, we won’t release you,” which I take as evidence that there is no legal ground to do so. There’s certainly nothing wrong with asking, and if the college says “yes,” as they always do, then no harm no foul.</p>
<p>This is not evidence that there is no “legal ground” to hold someone to an agreement. It is evidence that it would be too costly to hold them to it. Think this through, marvin100. Why would a college take the steps necessary to force someone to fulfill the terms of the ED contract? What is the value proposition for them? What do they gain from bringing onto their campus someone who a) doesn’t want to be there and b) who has already demonstrated that his or her word is not sterling? Do a cost-benefit analysis and it is quite clear why this is not in any school’s interest. If you sign a document saying you will give me $500 if I do a job and then don’t pay me, am I going to spend $5,000 to sue you? Unlikely, unless I really wanted to prove a point. I will move on. That doesn’t mean you haven’t reneged on a legal agreement.</p>
<p>Okay, that may not be airtight evidence that the contract isn’t legally binding, but where’s the evidence that it is? In absence of proof, it makes sense to look at application and practice, which is what I’m doing: the practice is that when students request release, colleges give it to them. Even if they don’t sue, they can still say “no”–but they don’t. If the college says “okay, you’re released,” how could it be wrong to accept the release and go somewhere else? I mean, if you invite me over, then call later and say “hey, you mind if I don’t have you over?” and I say “sure, fine,” what have you done wrong?</p>
<p>Dude! They can still say no, but there’s nothing in it for them to do so. Forget the cost to pursue the matter; that person is just not worth bothering over because he or she is a big liar! Look, there’s a lot of stuff you can get away with that’s still wrong. Getting away with it doesn’t make it right, even if the “wronged” party waves you off and says, “Whatever. Forget about it.”</p>
<p>BTW, no one is saying this a crisis of global proportions. The harm is minimal. It’s still not cool to sign your name to something unless you are prepared to fulfill the terms of the agreement. </p>
<p>You may be surprised to learn that I do not sign agreements with my house guests. And I always have an out, even with my verbal agreements. (“You may come over to dinner, provided I manage to get the dishes done.”)</p>
<p>Sure. What I’m saying (and history backs me up on this) is that colleges make people sign stuff but they don’t treat it like a big deal. So why should students consider it one? If the only argument is “it’s not cool,” well, not everyone’s interested in being “cool.” If there’s another good argument, I’m still waiting to hear it.</p>
<p>Because my word means something to me. If I sign a statement that I will do something, I will do it. I don’t randomly make promises that I don’t intend to keep. Occasionally something totally unexpected may require me to break a promise, but “I got a better offer” or “I didn’t really look into it before I promised and it turns out it’s not what I wanted after all” isn’t something totally unexpected or out of my control.</p>
<p>If it wasn’t a big deal, they wouldn’t make parents sign the statement. </p>
<p>It’s a big deal to keep your word. It’s “cool” to be someone honest who lives up to their commitments. If that’s not a big deal to you, then you have bigger problems than choosing which college to attend. Making an ethical decision, meaning what you say and saying what you mean - that’s not a matter of being “cool.” Its a matter of being a mature, trustworthy person. It doesn’t matter if it’s a big deal to the other party or not - if you make a promise, it should be a big deal to YOU.</p>
<p>This shall be the last time I “dude” you, marvin100. Dude, look at the copious language on college websites covering the whys and wherefores of applying ED. They clearly do think it’s a big enough deal to include all kinds of language attempting to dissuade people from applying ED unless they really mean it. It is possible to think the agreement is a big deal and still not pursue people who do not abide by the terms. Maybe I’m a dweeb, but my signature on something means, “I agree to these terms.” I don’t mutter “jinx” under my breath as I sign. You don’t seem to think there’s any intrinsic value in being honest. I do.</p>
<p>This is great, but the disagreement isn’t about your personal choices and values, it’s about you applying those to other people. People all lie, people all back out on various agreements, and people have varying levels of comfort with doing so in different situations. I’m 100% fine with where you stand on this, but I’m also fine with where other people do, and I’ve explained that as well as I can. If your main argument is “because I disagree with it,” then I’m afraid you won’t convince me or others who don’t already start out in agreement with you.</p>
Look, there’s a lot of stuff you can get away with that’s still wrong. Getting away with it doesn’t make it right, even if the “wronged” party waves you off and says, “Whatever. Forget about it.”</p>