<p>I'm a newbie, and am sorry if this subject has been rehashed here numerous times. I have just seen, however, a NYT Choice Blog according to which a number of prestigious colleges are now filling almost half their seats with candidates who have promised not to apply anywhere else. The number of ED (and EA) apps have gone up at nearly every school on their list and have gone up dramatically at many institutions. This seems to me to put 17-year olds into the position of having to decide where they absolutely want to spend the next four years without giving them time to try out a bunch of possibilities, and puts parents in the position of giving the go-ahead on a huge expected expenditure prior to receiving a financial aid package. </p>
<p>The fact that, based on acceptance percentages, my daughter would have gotten into a number of schools ED that she will likely be rejected from through the regular process seems unfair to me. What other product is sold in this fashion? I get that colleges (a) want to know who will actually come if they accept them, and (b) don't like the idea of anybody rejecting THEM, but the whole business seems wrong to me. Maybe the government should deny financial assistance to universities that have ED or try some other way to stop this practice before we have a system in which 95% of students are accepted in this fashion?</p>
<p>Anyhow, I'm curious to hear what others think about this--and if there are already threads on it, I'd appreciate a link or two. Many thanks.</p>
<p>That’s why they recommend students who need to compare FinAid not to apply during ED. But even if Fin Aid becomes and issue, ED schools try to accommodate. This does create a burden on middle and lower income families.</p>
<p>But to say it’s immoral is a stretch IMHO. Those schools aren’t bound to meet any societal goals. They can do what they want.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is immoral, but I do think it skews the balance of power, which I would rather see remain in the consumer’s hands. As far as forcing the 17 year old to make a decision, s/he would have to do that anyway about 5 months later, so it is just a timing change. I do like EA and even SCEA. They really take the pressure off, but I don’t like ED. I understand why colleges use it, especially in this economic environment. It could be a matter of financial survival for them, which ultimately benefits all of their students.</p>
<p>I don’t think ED is immoral, but not the smartest move for most people. There are a variety of schools with a wide range of price tags that can educate people. For some who are swayed by “prestige” or will only be happy at a certain school with a certain program, maybe it is fine for them. I didn’t like the idea of ED and did not think it advantageous for my D. We did however, send in every application by Nov 1, so that we would have time to consider all of the merit aid offered, be invited to scholarship competitions, have time for accepted student visits/overnights at more than one school and generally have more options. (In case there is a life changing event) Some people are just more narrowly focused on what is right for them and for that reason, I guess they see ED as being the way to go, be settled sooner, and maybe finances are not an issue for them. I do not see ED schools fighting to give more aid to attract a certain student, because they already have them, so I see no advantage if money is an issue.
I hope everything works out for your student. There is more than one right school for everyone and with a little research, you can choose a variety of schools to meet your needs. I left an Ivy, so I know they are not for everyone.</p>
<p>The best candidates for ED are students from affluent families and students that have done a lot of homework on colleges, including visits, during junior year. In that sense it is a little unfair to some applicants, but I think labeling it “immoral” is a stretch.</p>
<p>Tougis, you overlook the valuable aspects of ED for those applicants who don’t apply ED. The applicants who got in ED aren’t applying anywhere else. Someone who was accepted to Harvard ED might well have been accepted to 20 other colleges, were ED not available. The thousands of applicants who were accepted ED are no longer competing in the pool.</p>
<p>I have read that recruited athletes must apply early decision. Those spots were not available for other applicants. The percentages can mislead.</p>
<p>I think immoral is a bit strong. But it does seem unnecessary considering the overflow that each school has in applicants. Anyway, I think a school like Yale is trying to do it the right way. I believe it ill allow an early application in addition to public university applications.</p>
<p>My issue is that say I was a Financial aid guy who was strapped on funds for the year. ED would leave me an execellent way to skimp on FA because the applicatiants are commited to the college and the applicant cannot compare or bargain with offers</p>
<p>If previously, it was required of a student to seek a RELEASE from the school in case of “unworkable” financial terms, the Common Application has intimated that the decision can be taken UNILATERALLY by the student as opposed to have to be released by the school. The decision that was once the school only is now in the hands of the parents and students.</p>
<p>“Should a student who applies for financial aid not be offered an award that makes attendance possible, the student may decline the offer of admission and be released from the Early Decision commitment.”</p>
<p>Fwiw, while consensus has been that the above text is clear and not nebulous, it has unfortunately also opened the doors to the erroneous belief that this means the start of protracted “negotiations” that could be stretched until the unveiling of the RD round. Obviously, it’s a given that more than a few DO play games and have tried to play around the rules.</p>
<p>As an additional fwiw, the possibilities to compare financial packages has been massively overrated as the offer for financial aid is most typically for ONE year only and subject to revisions. Financial aid is a year to year process. There is not more “magic” in the financial aid package received in April and May, except for merit aid which is an entirely different animal.</p>
<p>PS There have been many discussions on this subject. It would be wise to use the search function. All that is needed to be said and debated has … been done more than a few times.</p>
<p>Can not being given enough merit aid ( or any merit aid) compared to other offers of admission with generous merit aid be used as a point of negotiation with an ED school? And if none offered a reason to ask to be let out of and ED agreement ?</p>
<p>“Tougis, you overlook the valuable aspects of ED for those applicants who don’t apply ED. The applicants who got in ED aren’t applying anywhere else. Someone who was accepted to Harvard ED might well have been accepted to 20 other colleges, were ED not available. The thousands of applicants who were accepted ED are no longer competing in the pool.”</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s quite right, though. It’s significantly easier to get in to a good school by applying ED, and the grades and scores of ED applicants who are admitted are significantly lower on average than those who apply to those schools via regular admission. The top applicants don’t have to apply anywhere ED and the Ivies don’t have ED anyhow. My D’s situation is definitely not made better off by the filling of half of the school seats she’s applying to before she even gets a crack.</p>
<p>Xiggi, thanks for that link. I didn’t realize that change. If I did, I certainly would have encouraged my daughter to pick someplace and apply early. There’s not much of a downside anymore. If the exclusivity is weakened, colleges will be less interested in ED and it may wither and die (I certainly hope so).</p>
<p>It is not “significantly” easier to get into a school ED, in fact at a lot of schools the ED acceptance rate is lower than the RD acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Also there are Ivy League schools with ED (Example: UPenn)</p>