<p>There can be real consequences for a student who breaches a college’s SCEA agreement by filing simultaneous prohibited applications. In a recent thread on the Yale board, two students reported that a classmate violated Yale’s SCEA agreement by filing concurrent applications to Notre Dame (EA) and Rice (ED). She was deferred at both Rice and Yale, accepted at ND. The students blew the whistle on her to Yale, which converted her deferral to a denial. </p>
<p>Greta - no, the kids that “follow the rules” are not harmed by my applying to EA schools in the least, as far as I can see. How are they harmed by my action? They are only harmed by their lack of action. And of course there is no way a school would discover anything, unless you tell them.</p>
<p>There are priniciples of both ethics and law that when one party holds an imbalance of the power and then proceeds to direct your life and choices in an unreasonable manner when there is no cost or harm to them, they are abusing their position and thus cannot enforce such demands. I see no justification for an ED school or an SCEA school to tell a student they cannot apply EA to other schools. ED or SCEA to other schools, yes. But just wanting to know earlier rather than later if you are accepted somewhere rather than waiting for RD, in case you get denied at the ED or SCEA? That seems harmless to me and beneficial to the student that is filled with anxiety over this whole process.</p>
<p>Fallenchemist, the students who follow the rules are harmed by those that do not in that the rule followers have have limited their EA options in comparison to those that do not follow the rules. But whatever.</p>
<p>Wjb has provided one example of how the schools could discover this type of cheating. Timely find, wjb.</p>
<p>Greta - First, it is a CC anecdote, no one knows if it is true. Also, I have said that someone that applies SCEA should not also apply ED, which is what that example is about.</p>
<p>With regard to harm, I can only say again they limited their own options by following nonsensical rules. I didn’t make them not apply EA, my action had no effect on their chances of getting into any college, and so my action did them no harm at all, and you have not said how it has.</p>
<p>EA is strictly a timing issue, you find out in December instead of April. You make zero committments or promises, or even implied interest or promises. Why would a school you are applying to ED or SCEA care about that, other than keeping you ignorant of your choices?</p>
<p>The topic of how binding ED is has been discussed to death in one of CC’s longest thread. At the end of day, whether one would be caught should not be a deterrent in doing what is right. Some people have a different interpretation of the contract, but most of us know how those various options are suppose to work. I view the whole college process as a teaching opportunity to my kids. Most of the time apples do not fall too far from a tree.</p>
<p>So we are saying people shouldn’t think for themselves and should blindly follow rules, no matter how silly they seem. wjb posted this on that Yale thread, regarding Yale’s SCEA rules:</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I mean really, “you may do this but not this, and only if the moon is full on the 13th and…” All these rules for a non-binding decision! How silly. What is Yale accomplishing with these restrictions?</p>
<p>The idea of SCEA is to have an understanding between the student and the school that if the student is accepted that there is a high probability they will matriculate. How does having back-up choices and knowing about them December 31 instead of April 1 make a bit of difference to Yale? On the other hand, it makes quite a bit of difference to the student.</p>
<p>Oldfort is right. This subject has recently been argued to death on CC. As for Yale, the rules on SCEA are clear – no simultaneous applications to EA or ED schools. Students who think they’re dumb rules shouldn’t apply SCEA. Easy peasy. But to apply SCEA and ignore the restrictions is both a breach of the SCEA rules and a serious breach of ethics. It undermines the system, which presupposes that SCEA applicants will follow the rules, and it makes kids who do follow the rules feel like suckers.</p>
<p>If a student has applied SCEA as well as EA to several other schools, why would anyone think there was a high probability the student would matriculate at the SCEA school? </p>
<p>If SCEA schools gain anything through restrictive early action, it is in limiting the applications of top students to other schools in the early rounds. (Which would imply they know there are benefits in applying early to schools.)</p>
<p>Not being that interested in SCEA, I have not seen the actual language in the agreement for Stanford or Yale. But, I can’t imagine our HS GC’s would be interested in sending recommendations and transcripts to other EA schools in defiance of the SCEA application. Again, ethics.</p>
<p>rodney: I know that Yale does a bang-up job of cultivating the kids it admits SCEA. I believe there’s an 80+% matriculation rate among SCEA admittees. So one way Yale benefits from SCEA is by getting from December to April to solidify loyalty and get the jump on the competition.</p>
<p>wjb: granted, but how would schools down the food chain (not great yield schools) benefit from SCEA? I asked fallenchemist about this because of Tulane’s new policy…</p>
<p>and even though Yale can get a jump on the competition, that still doesn’t guarantee them a “win” in the cross admit contest with Harvard/Princeton etc…</p>
<p>I’m unclear. Did Tulane eliminate EA in favor of SCEA? If so, maybe they were sick of being used as a safety and wanted early applicants to exhibit a little more loyalty? If they added SCEA and still kept EA, I don’t have a clue why.</p>
<p>Tulane added SCEA and kept EA in an attempt to do exactly what you all are saying, get some feel for how likely the student is to matriculate should they get accepted. That’s how they might benefit (it is an experiment at this point since this is the first year for it), but I still don’t like it. But then I think the whole complicated mess smells bad.</p>
<p>Greta:
Exactly! And this seems right to people because…?? What gives Yale or Tulane the right to restrict students this way, just because they are trying to tell that school that they are far more likely to enroll there if accepted? Especially when (for the 40th time) it is just getting a quicker decision, not a binding one.</p>
<p>wjb:
Not so easy peasy. Again, students that really do have Yale as a top choice want to take advantage of the fact that it shows greater interest, that Yale knows they will most likely go if accepted. Of course with Yale the yield is astronomical anyway, even with RD. So those 80% numbers are not particularly indicative of SCEA, since they get about the same with RD (70%). Undermines the system? How exactly, assuming the student is serious about the school being their top choice. A serious breach of ethics? No one has yet demonstrated how either Yale, the student applying, or the other students are harmed in any way by someone applying EA to another school.</p>
<p>I would suggest that Yale and all others change the name from SCEA to IWYBEA (I Want You Bad Early Action). Or if we want something more conservative, FCEA or even FCED (First Choice) since that is the intent of the whole thing anyway. Just allow kids to get other (non-binding) answers from other programs in case the news is not what they hope for. Easy Peasy.</p>
<p>It’s a breach of ethics because Yale’s rule is clearly spelled out: Students who apply SCEA are not permitted to file concurrent EA applications. Whether you believe the rule ought to be changed is another matter; the reality is that, as of now, it’s in force.</p>
<p>Here’s an example of how Student B, other students, and Yale are disadvantaged if Student A applies to Yale SCEA and another school EA. I’ll use MIT as an example, (Or you could use U of Chicago or Notre Dame, the school mentioned on the Yale board, two other selective schools that use EA.) </p>
<p>Student A and Student B both love Yale and MIT. Student A decides to ignore Yale’s prohibition against filing simultaneous SCEA and EA applications, and applies early to both Yale and MIT. He hits the jackpot, scooping up early acceptances to both schools. In so doing, he’s awarded an early slot at one of those schools that might instead have gone to another early applicant, one who didn’t cheat and who now is deferred to the regular round. (Yes, I realize it’s not a given that another early applicant would have been awarded the acceptance Student A got.) Student B, who followed the rules, does not get the same opportunity to take advantage of the admissions boost that early applicants receive and to gather two early acceptances. (Again, I realize that not every school gives an admissions advantage to early applicants.) Yale is disadvantaged because it accepted a student who is willing to cheat to get what he wants. (MIT is similarly harmed.) And the whole system of SCEA – whether you agree with it or not – is compromised. When people methodically flout the basic rules of a system, it implodes.</p>
<p>As I said earlier, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that Yale gets to dictate the “law” and therefore it has no force other than what Yale chooses to do if they find out, which is unlikely. I would challenge Yale to support their dictate regarding applying EA to another school (again, SCEA and ED are another matter). Applying EA to another school disadvantages no one, I find your example flawed. My premise was always that the student is applying to one SCEA school only and truly believes they are more likely to attend if accepted. So the slot he took at Yale is legitimate. There is no “slot” at MIT. In your example, MIT is the EA school and they know that lots of EA kids are not going to accept. If that other, unknown student is qualified for MIT at all, then they might get deferred and when Student A tells MIT no, the “slot” opens up all the same. If the unknown student was not qualified, he would get rejected no matter Student A. Student A’s EA app to MIT in no way affects MIT’s action on the unknown student at the point in time of EA decisions. And as far as Student B, since he only applied to Yale SCEA, his situation is completely unchanged by whatever Student A did besides applying to Yale SCEA. IF Student A had only applied to Yale SCEA, Student B’s situation is exactly the same as it is given that Student A applied EA to MIT. The fact that student B lost opportunities to get an earlier decision from other schools, well that is just his decision not to be more aggresive.</p>
<p>What you call cheating, I call the equivalent of civil disobedience. When a power makes a rule that harms me for no good reason, I certainly feel free to challenge that rule, and flouting it is a way of challenging it, and in this case flouting it causes the power no harm either. You say they have accepted a student that cheats, I say they have accepted a reasonable, independent thinker that should cause them to rethink the arbitrariness of some of their rules and the harm they cause. Certainly the student has to be prepared to accept the consequences should there be any, that is always the risk of someone challenging authority.</p>
<p>Sometimes when people flout the basic rules of a system, the system changes for the better. Other times it actually leads to a revolution. But challenging arbitrary, self-serving rules that are a hardship on thousands of others seems pretty worthwhile to me. Laws have been overturned this way, you know. This is a lot less serious.</p>
<p>Yes, we clearly see the situation very differently. To me, if you don’t like the rule, lobby Yale. Or contact NACAC for suggestions on developing strategies or starting a grassroots movement to oppose it. But don’t just say, “I don’t like this rule, so I’m going to violate it.” Even if you think violating it is a valid act of civil disobedience rather than a breach of ethics, the stakes are too high. If you do it and get caught, your Yale acceptance gets revoked (and your EA acceptance might, too, if the other college honors Yale’s policy.)</p>
<p>fallenchemist,
Even if you think the logic behind the SCEA policy is unsound, your position is silly. You want to violate the terms of the SCEA contract to make a political statement? Why not just boycott SCEA and apply RD instead? The consequences of getting caught are that you are out the $70 (or whatever) app. fee and you are rejected! How does that help bring about change? I hardly think Yale will be disappointed that an applicant who intentionally violated a signed contract by either lying or breaking a promise won’t be attending. They’ve got about 30,000 applicants lined up behind you, after all.</p>
<p>btw, Yale’s (and Stanford’s) SCEA policy made more sense when Harvard and Princeton also had EA. Now your SCEA app. just tells those two college whether they have an advantage over each other. They probably do snare quite a few admittees who are ready to chuck the rest of the application process and be done in December, too.</p>
<p>Bay - Under the theory that applying SCEA to Yale, because I really want Yale as my first choice, gives me some edge over other applicants (whether or not that is true is hard to say, but it is widely believed) I would not want to boycott. FYI, I never said it was a political statement, clearly it isn’t. I said it was the equivalent of civil disobedience in that unjust rules (or laws) have often been ignored and violated to help bring change or to right an injustice. In this case it wouldn’t bring change unless I chose to make it public and/or fight it. The former would actually be silly, the latter can be tackled once I was at Yale. But it does right the injustice for me.</p>
<p>The logic behind Yale’s SCEA isn’t just unsound, it is an overly restrictive policy that provides no real benefit to Yale (the parts about not applying EA other palces) and does potentially harm the student, and certainly at least restricts their freedom to participate in the process for absolutely no discernable reason. In all these posts, no one has been able to refute that statement.</p>
<p>wjb said (and you are apparently agreeing) that the stakes are too high for anyone to rationally want to undertake this act. Well, that of course is an individual decision. Personally, I think the stakes are very low because unless I am stupid enough to tell everyone, there is virtually no way my actions could become known to Yale. Lest you think I am saying that everything is OK as long as you don’t get caught, I am not saying that at all. I am saying in this case, where there is no harm to anyone, and the policy seems on its face to unfairly restrict my choices and ability to participate fully in the process, I feel very comfortable with the choice. If I thought everyone else was as rational I wouldn’t keep it secret either, but then if everyone were that rational there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place, would there?</p>
<p>Look, I realize that all sounds very dramatic for something that most people would be fine with just going along with either the SCEA rules as they stand or not doing SCEA. I guess some of us are just less pragmatic. It’s an interesting debate about civics, society, and ethics at any rate.</p>
<p>1) when there was a seller’s market in real estate, buyers were required to put 10% down and had to be able to close within X days. If buyers were not able to get financing within X days, then the deposit was forfeited. If seller (developer) were not able to deliver the unit on time, no penalty.</p>
<p>2) rental lease at various college towns - roommates are jointly and severally responsible for each other’s rent. If anyone should withdraw, other roommates are responsible for his/her rent.</p>
<p>3) employers to require employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment at many firm. Employees are signing away their rights to sue their employer.</p>
<p>There are so many more unfair contracts. You could negotiate the terms if you have any leverage, if not, then you could live with it or walk. You do not have the option of signing the contract and then violate the agreement. If you should do so, then the other party has the right to impose penalty. In the case of SCEA or ED, schools have the right to revoke the admittance. I won’t even sugar coat it as it’s for the benefit of other students. It is pure and simple to protect themselves, they are a business just like any corporation.</p>
Well, it isn’t quite that simple, but this is hardly the forum to debate the intricacies of the legal system. Besides, I acknowledged that a person had to be prepared to accept the consequence of violating the policy, no matter how “right” they might be. They could sue, they could do all sorts of things. No doubt that wouldn’t happen in this case, so it is all theoretical anyway. Just like it is largely theoretical that Yale would even find out if the student were not too stupid. Well, maybe not theoretical, but certainly unlikely. I would also take issue with the statement that universities are a business like any corporation. In so many ways, that is not true. But again, too off topic.</p>