Early decison acceptance

Parents Forum
61

<p>
[quote]
I think the whole structure of ED is also ethically wrong because the college makes an unfair demand of a 17 year old to secure a competitive advantage by being able to select only among students who are willing to forfeit their right to consider other colleges. The reason the demand is unfair is that all people change their minds some time, and teenagers by definition are less ready to make long-term commitments than adults.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry, with two graduate degrees in ethics from an Ivy, I simply cannot see what is unethical about this. </p>

<p>This is precisely the reason the ED document I am looking at right now requires both a guidance counselor signature AND a parent signature. It is presumed that the parent/GC will have explained the what the student is signing. </p>

<p>A month after my son signed this he was eligible to vote and be drafted for his country. He was not mentally impaired in any way. The wording of the commitment is crystal clear, not in legal jargon. Some students ARE ready to make this decision, and just it is even more *unethical to say that BY DEFINITION teenagers can't make long term commitments!That is stereotyping or "agism. " * Heck, my parents married at 16 and 17 and were married over 60 years!</p>

<p>Next, it is not a long-term, four year commitment. It is basically a one-semester commitment. I've read that somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of college students transfer each year. The student is not locked in for life.</p>

<p>Finally, I am always opposed to ideas that drag everyone down to a single common denominator. If a student is NOT committed to a school, or needs to compare aid packages, *then don't sign. No one is holding gun to your head. But don't deny other, more mature students who know precisely what they want the opportunity. Some people know at even 15 or 16 what they want; others never do. Don't penalize the people that know at 17 which college they want to go to! *</p>

<p>And in the case of several schools my daughter is looking at, there is not even an advantage in applying early. In fact, in one case, there's a 1% advantage in going RD over ED!</p>

<p>NB :) despite the bold letters, my tone is not adversarial! Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. As with, say being pro-choice, I would simply hope that because one person assumes teenagers are immature, or another assumes they can't make decisions, etc. etc. etc., that those opinions (and that is all they are) not be foisted on the many, many, MANY mature students who benefit from ED. Though EA would be better! :)</p>

62

<p>Nedad - you have degrees in ethics. I have a degree in law. </p>

<p>The ED contract wouldn't pass muster in any other context -- the day that some kid with a smart lawyer decides to sue some college over it - is the day that the whole practice will go down the drain. </p>

<p>The problem isn't the contract, it is the PRACTICE of the college to enforce it by notifying other colleges of the ED status of students who have reneged, together with the PRACTICE of the OTHER COLLEGES to honor that. (See, I can type in CAPS too).</p>

<p>The first practice is the kind of self-help remedy that courts condemn -- you don't get to take revenge on someone who welches on a contract by getting in the way of their dealings with your competitors. If you do, it's called "interference with contract" and is an actionable tort in most states. What the aggrieved party can do is collect money damages - and in cases where the damages can't be readily ascertained - to agree, in advance, to a "liquidated damage" amount. I.e., if the kid backs out, the college is owed X -- and to pass legal muster, the amount of damages must be something that is big enough to carry a bit, but not large enough to be considered unconscionable. As I posted before, the college could easily do this by requiring a $500 deposit, refundable only if the college fails to accept the student in the ED round. </p>

<p>As to the second practice, it's probably an antitrust violation ... and if the kid was backing out because of disagreement over the adequacy of a financial aid award, I could probably frame a pretty convincing equal protection/discrimination argument as well. The fact that federally-subsidized aid is part of the financial aid equation would make for some very interesting arguments in that respect.</p>

<p>In short, it is unethical because the contract is not legally enforceable. The reason the colleges engage in the practice of notifying other colleges of their ED list is precisely because there is no way for them to enforce the contract legally. When the kid doesn't mail in the deposit, there is nothing they can do to force the kid to pay up or attend in the fall. So instead, they have fashioned this extralegal remedy to circumvent the fact that they are trying to commit the kid to a legally unenforceable contract.</p>

63

<p>It is interesting to me what a large nerve the whole ED thing hits with so many (I am one of them). There are numerous threads devoted to the practices involved - most quite heated. And numerous hijacks, ditto.</p>

<p>Not sure what this means, just observing. Although I "think" it means that the system is broken and needs some form of adjustment.</p>

64

<p>*As I posted before, the college could easily do this by requiring a $500 deposit, refundable only if the college fails to accept the student in the ED round. *</p>

<p>While I understand where your are coming from that people need to have something on the line worth losing going into the ED process, requiring a $500 deposit will not help in a process that many people already believe caters to those with money, and will do nothing but keep the poorer/low income families on the down side of this power dynamic</p>

65

<br>


<br>

<p>Ethics and law are rather different things. Some things that are unethical can be quite legal; and some things that are legal can be unethical.</p>

66

<p>Hi Marite I understand what you meant, bu tI think you meant to say that </p>

<p>Some things are legal but unethical (backing out of your ED decision)</p>

<p>Some things are ethical but illegal</p>

<p>the worse ios doping somthing that is both illegal and unethical</p>

67

<p>Sybbie: LOL, That's what I meant, thank you. I had not had my coffee yet.</p>

68

<p>the worse ios doping somthing that is both illegal and unethical</p>

<p>I guess we are even because I meant to say </p>

<p>is doing something that is both illegal and unethical (and I don't drink coffee, so what's my excuse :))</p>

69

<p>:) In the post of yours that I was responding to, you were arguing that it was unethical to hold teenagers to decisions they were not mature enough to make:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the whole structure of ED is also ethically wrong because the college makes an unfair demand of a 17 year old to secure a competitive advantage by being able to select only among students who are willing to forfeit their right to consider other colleges. The reason the demand is unfair is that all people change their minds some time, and teenagers by definition are less ready to make long-term commitments than adults.

[/quote]

That's the "horse" I was responding to, and disagreeing with.</p>

<p>As for your other argument - the one about the practice of notifying other colleges - You raise some very interesting points. Although there is no necessary connection between the legal and ethical - something ethicists have always known, and which in recent history Martin Luther King expressed so clearly, I am at least intrigued about your idea of a (possible) antitrust violation. </p>

<p>I presume that as of today there is no antitrust violation involved, if only because it hasn't been decided by the courts (I suppose it could be seen as a potential antitrust violation. But it seems to be stretching the concept of antitrust prerry far....though, of course, that kind of extension is part of what the law does. One factor on your side is that a few years back the feds did just that in regard to the Ivies, though I've forgotten the precise details.</p>

<p>You are right - once a kid with a smart lawyer makes this into a case, then it will come under all the conditions you describe.</p>

<p>I would continue to argue that as long as the signers know in advance just what the repercussions are (no guaranteed financial aid; other colleges will be told, etc), then there is nothing unethical about it.</p>

<p>PS - I respect your level of expertise and argument, even where I disagree, and I think it is just this level of discussion that helps clarify the issues. I presume we both agree that changes are inevitable.....</p>

70

<p>I'm not sure that exchanging ED lists and the issue that brought charges of anti-trust violations are comparable. I believe that in the latter case, colleges AGREED not to compete with one another in making financial offers. There is nothing similar in merely exchanging information about which student has been accepted ED at a particular institution. What other colleges choose to do with the information is up to them. </p>

<p>Incidentally, the decision to compare financial offers was made because it had been realized that some students, especially highly coveted URMs, had been receiving offers over and beyond what it cost to attend college. I believe some colleges are ruing their caving in on the issue of financial aid because the competition to make merit offers to some is making it more difficult to meet the real financial needs of others.</p>

71

<p>Thanks, Marite. I had forgotten the details. Regarding ED, it seems to me that if the student did NOT have some unforeseen disaster, but was deliberately lying to the school, it would be in the interest of other schools to at least know what kind of person they were dealing with. Harvard rescinded Blair Hornstine's admission due to plagiarism (and no, she was not arrested for any legal crime) - ethical issues really do concern the schools. </p>

<p>Calmom, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I am wondering if you would argue back that it's the pot calling the kettle black if the school sets up a hue and cry about ethics, when, in your opinion, they themselves are behaving unethically? If so, I would argue that two wrongs do not make a right. (I am NOT saying you ARE saying that). </p>

<p>I think it should remain outside of the legal realm. It is not, as Calmom said, a legally binding contract, but there used to be a time when one's word was one's pledge, when a promise or vow made by a person of integrity was one to be trusted. I don't think everything has to fall under the aegis of the law. It's a simple promise: I understand the conditions and if accepted I will attend. You can't make me attend, for this is not a legally contract, but I can't have it both ways. If I decide to renege, I can't stop you from telling other colleges that I am not a man or woman of my word.</p>

<p>And as Marite says, it is up to the other colleges what they wish to do with that information.</p>

72

<p>Marite, if the college agrees to abide by each other's ED lists, then they are agreeing not to compete for students. </p>

<p>Think about the field of employment. If I am hired by one company and at the last minute get a better offer, there is not much that the first company can do about it ... and the second company that gave me the better offer is just going to laugh if company #1 calls them and asks them not to hire me. If I have signed some sort of covenant not to compete, the company may be able to go to court to enforce the terms of the agreement --but that, of course, is a legal remedy. </p>

<p>If I put a deposit down to buy a house, then decided I wanted to buy a different house instead -- again, the seller could take legal action against me, but they couldn't call up every other real estate agent in town and have them agree not to deal with me.</p>

<p>Antitrust laws are all about preserving competition, so while the issue might not be absolutely clear (as Nedad says, if it hasn't yet been decided by a court, we don't know what the result would be) -- there certain is a case that can be argued. These are colleges charging huge sums of money for students to attend, and using their agreement about the ED process as a way to make sure that they are not competing for the same students. Without the ED process, their yields would fall, they would have to admit more students to make up for it, their higher admit rates would affect public perception of the prestige value of their school, they might have to lower tuition or offer more financial aid in order to increase enrollment, or seriously compete for students with a wider range of less-selective college -- in short, a competitive market would exist.</p>

73

<p>Nedad, in the world of human affairs, people change their minds and back out of contracts. I got married and made a promise to spend the rest of my life with the man I married. I got divorced. </p>

<p>I don't think is unethical to want to change the terms of a contract or to back out. I think that it is a case for renegotiation, that can often be decided between parties, sometimes need to be decided in courts, and can generally be anticipated by writing a contract with clearly enforceable terms. (Such as, in the example above, a prenup)</p>

<p>This view probably stems from my legal training. The way I was taught contract law, it is all about setting forth clearly the terms of the agreement and the consequences for the very foreseeable and ordinary case that someone might need to or want to get out of the contract. There is no such thing as a contract that can not be broken. </p>

<p>If someone enters a contract that they know in advance they do not intend to abide by, then that is fraud -- the law definitely considers that to be unethical. The difference between fraud and an ordinary breach of contract is that a court can award punitive damages in the case of fraud; in many case fraud is also a crime.</p>

<p>Ordinary breach of contract because of changed circumstances or a change of heart is not a crime -- and I personally think that the law has it right. I don't believe in indentured servitude. I don't believe that if a person realizes that a contract was a mistake, that ethics somehow mandates that the situation be made worse by continuing the same mistake. I think ethics and honesty requires that the person should immediately notify the other side of a change of heart -- and the OP in this thread did CLAIM that the "son" had in fact notified the college of a desire to change the ED app to RD. Whether that is true or not is beside the point - that is the set of facts that was posited.</p>

74

<p>To calmom's points, which don't exactly square with gut sense as a lawyer, I would say that there has been an answer already in the thread: what a person contracts away by an ED application is a shot at admission somewhere else THAT ADMISSION SEASON. That seems like a reasonable exchange (in some circumstances) to obtain what can be a HUGE admission advantage at some schools. It has already been pointed out that kids are still free to drop out of college, or to apply for transfer admission after the first college, so we are hardly talking about indentured servitude here. </p>

<p>But I guess I know who I would call to be my lawyer if I wanted to breach a contract and needed lots of creative arguments.</p>

75

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>As I said in an earlier post, I do not think that the colleges have agreed to enforce ED rules. In the wake of the antitrust suit brought on by their agreement to abide by one another's financial offers, they would have to be singularly stupid to do so. But from what I''ve heard, some do circulate lists of the students they have admitted ED. What other colleges choose to do with this information is up to those colleges. Does that amount to an antitrust practice?</p>

<p>ED rules are pretty well set out. What is striking to me is that they are not enforced more often than they are. Obviously, colleges do not really want students who will be unhappy. By and large, colleges also do not want to waste their energies trying to enforce ED rules. I am actually surprised that the college is trying to hold the OP (or his child) to the ED rules. </p>

<p>As for breach of contract because of a changed of heart, wasn't there a law about breach of promise of marriage? Did that get abolished?</p>

76

<p>Marite, I know that in all the professional groups that I participate in, any discussion whatsoever of fees is absolutely prohibited, lest we be charged with price-fixing. Apparently - at least in the specific area of price-fixing -- even sharing information as to what we happen to charge for a specific service in our own practices can be enough to make out a case.<br>
Otherwise, the laws would be impossible to enforce -- we'd all just share the info, and wink-wink, no one would actually "agree" to abide by it. </p>

<p>There did used to be laws about breach of promise to marriage - which are now antiquated and off the books -- but like any other breach they were enforced by awards of money damages -- you couldn't force the person who reneged to go through with the marriage, and you certainly couldn't prevent them from marrying anyone else.</p>

<p>I never said I had a problem with the ED contract being enforced -- just that it needs to be enforced by legal standards. It would be perfectly legal for the college to sue for money damages -- if they had written an enforceable contract in the first place -- but they would be bound to lose, because of the law that they are required to mitigate damages.
That is, if I sign a lease then change my mind and don't move in, the landlord can sue me for the rent for the time that the apartment is vacant, but not the whole lease term - because the landlord has a legally imposed duty to try to rent to someone else. So legally a college could sue an ED applicant for the breach and consequent loss of tuition money, but the college would be also required to try to find another student to fill the space ... which of course would not be hard to do. The bottom line is that these colleges always fill their classes and have no shortage of quaified applicants ready to fill every space -- so they aren't really hurt or damaged in any way -- no damages=no suit. </p>

<p>I have a great idea to make ED work (but the colleges would hate it). Going back to the lease analogy -- I DID once sign a lease and then have 2nd thoughts, and what I did was advertise and find another credit-worthy tenant to take my place - so it wasn't an issue -- no harm at all to the landlord, no lawsuit. In California the law is that landlords cannot "unreasonably" prohibit assignment of a lease, so I was within my rights to follow that procedure.</p>

<p>So how about -- if you want out of the ED obligation, then you simply find another reasonably qualified student to take your place? That would work great, because all of the high-achieving kids already know a bunch of other kids who have top grades and are probably dying to get into the same schools -- so it wouldn't hurt the college any. If there was any difficulty, all the kid would have to do would be to come to a board like this, post their stats, and offer to give their space to anyone with equal or higher stats. In the long run, what different does it make if the college loses one kid with a 1560 SAT and a 4.2 weighted GPA to another? College gets its yield and the tuition ....</p>

77

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>I still don't understand your attempt to use the price-fixing analogy. As I said, there's no financial issue involved in sharing information about ED admissions.</p>

78

<p>Calmom, I bet you are a really fine lawyer in real life. :)</p>

79

<p>Marite - I don't want to belabor the point --but there IS a financial issue. It is all about tuition dollars. College A. has an understanding with Colleges B, C, & D that if it admits a student ED, then Colleges B, C, & D will rescind their admission of the same student if notified, turning away the students $$. </p>

<p>I think sort of practice among competitors that undermines the competition is a potential antitrust violation - it doesn't have to be direct sharing of financial information. </p>

<p>It's all a business - and one of the most cutthroat and expensive businesses around. Colleges keep their prices high by creating a false sense of scarcity, and the ED game is part of it -- it is a way of divvying up their prime customers rather than competing for them on an open market.</p>

80

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>I don't see it the same way.
Several years ago, Harvard admitted a young woman. It was later found out that she had killed her mother. The student had pleaded self-defense and had been acquitted though there was some doubt about the self-defense plea (the mother had been asleep when she was killed). Harvard rescinded her admission on the grounds not that she had killed her mother but that she had lied on her application by not disclosing that fact. She was admitted into Tufts. Blair Hornstine, whose admission was also rescinded by Harvard, was admitted to Northwestern. These were highly publicized cases. The fact that Harvard rescinded the admissions did not lead other schools, both highly regarded, to follow suit. In both cases, the grounds were not legal ones, but ethical ones. Now it seems to me that if a college learns that a student has been admitted ED elsewhere but is still pursuing other offers, that college might consider the student's behavior unethical and that student not someone it would like to admit. But another college might have no such qualms, just as Tufts and Northwestern did not. </p>

<p>You keep presuming an "understanding" or even an agreement that colleges will rescind admission. I do not make the same presumption, for the good reason that I do not know when the lists are being circulated, how widely, in what circumstances and conditions, and with what results.</p>