Without saying ED in and of itself violates the laws I don’t think they are going to find anything. Plenty of kids have a first choice when it comes to a college. Those that don’t aren’t being restricted to picking one and those that want to shop around and attend the least expensive college aren’t restricted. If the outcome is that kids can apply ED to as many places as they want the colleges will simply drop ED and call it EA as ED benefits the college too but most colleges can survive without it. It benefited colleges but it also benefited kids for whom it was one and done. I am neutral on the subject.
I agree with the relative ease (and lower total application cost) of one and done. In actuality, most students apply EA to a couple of state and/or lower ranked EA schools if possible under ane ED agreement. By mid-December, all of those decisions are received. A) you are accepted ED with sufficient aid, enroll ; B) you are accepted with insufficient aid (same aid you would receive in March), break the agreement (I assume that this is the only category where colleges sharing data, especially without the offered financial aid information is a concern) ; C) you are denied or deferred, keep writing other applications or accept an EA offer.
Athletes commit early, QuestBridge students are matched, so why should thoughtful, unhooked, prepared students wait six more weeks to apply and 3 more months for a decision?
Many threads talk about reducing the frenzy and limiting the number of applications. Early applications do diminish the number of total applications. About half of all IVY students are accepted ED or SECA, just above 7000 from an application pool that is 13% of all applications. Admissions officers sort through the other 83% of applications (RD) to complete and round out the incoming classes (sounds labor-some).
At meets full need ED schools, online financial aid calculators and the department are available. Yes, you can absolutely break the agreement if the aid package is not sufficient. What you cannot do, is deny the offer and return in March to ask again. The same principals apply for a job offer not accepted by a deadline. An employer will move on to the next candidate.
I am a huge fan of ED, at least at meets-full-need colleges. It is wonderful to have to write fewer application essays and to be able to relax and chat with future classmates on a GroupMe, for months, while one’s high school classmates are nervously writing and waiting.
One has to pick just one college eventually- either in late October or late April. ED saves one so much work and stress that it is totally worth it to enter a binding agreement with a college to get that benefit… plus a slight edge in admissions!
It is not a “secret” agreement between colleges, unknown to the applicant. It is an open agreement with the applicant, signed by the applicant, the applicant’s parent, and the applicant’s guidance counselor, all to make sure that the applicant really understands that it is a binding agreement!
I hope the ED option will not disappear.
Two additional remarks:
-I would just add that every ED applicant should apply EA to one or more safety colleges, so that if one is deferred or rejected, the wait until April does not become even more stressful. That is also why I prefer to ED to SCEA; SCEA does not allow one to apply to any other private colleges EA (although most allow an EA or rolling application to public universities), but most ED plans allow one to apply to an unlimited number of schools EA.
-I know plenty of “unhooked” ED applicants (as well as applicants who did have “hooks”) who got into their college ED.
Not a fan of SCEA. If anything that IS restricting.
According to the article, the Justice Dept. is gathering information on the sharing of information among various educational institutions. Presumably this is being done to identify harmed parties as well as to analyze the effect this information sharing has on competition among colleges for students.
Again, The Sherman Act & antitrust actions are designed to protect competition & competitive environments. Antitrust is not concerned with protecting competitors. A competitor with a superior product can drive every other competitor out of business & not violate the Sherman Act or other antitrust laws.
Antitrust investigations, therefore, often start with an analysis of the purpose & effects of information sharing. (It may help if one thinks of bid-rigging where information is shared among competitors to lessen the benefits of competition.)
You could look at it as either the sharing of info to avoid multiple offers to accepted ED students which is restraining competition, or you can see it as a contract between the ED school and student, with knowledge that the other schools will be put on notice that you are under contract (thus avoiding tortious interference with a contract).
Antitrust investigations & antitrust laws are not really focused on tortious interference with a contract unless alleging that such results in an antitrust law violation. However, the ED or SCEA contract may violate antitrust laws.
P.S. Please do not regard my responses as anything other than my own opinion. I am not an antitrust expert. I have only worked on two short lived antitrust matters. So I know enough to know that antitrust law is complex & that a lot of information gathering does not necessarily mean that an antitrust action or claim will be pursued by the Justice Dept.
^I wonder if we will ever know. sometimes they never release anything. I guess we’ll see.
I would look at ED as one of those “very limited circumstances”, much like a non-compete agreement that would severely restrict the type of job you could accept from a company that is in direct competition with the company that you currently work for.
There is no “secret agreement” here. It’s pretty much out in the open that by applying ED you are committing to the college if accepted. If a student feels that another college could make “an offer they can’t refuse”, then they shouldn’t apply ED.
No secret agreement. It is closer to a contract than a secret agreement. It doesn’t limit the student to applying to other colleges…it requires that they not apply ED anywhere else, they can still apply RD and in most cases EA. I agree it feels somewhat like a non-compete clause.
Another thought: We’re all focused on the Sherman Antitrust Act, but might the key here actually be FERPA? Two issues: (a) FERPA retroactively covers students who are accepted and enroll at a particular college, but not those who don’t enroll there—but this data sharing occurs before one can know whether a student is covered, which given the retroactive nature of the law could present a problem; and (b) under some circumstances that mightn’t be a problem anyway, since student data can be shared with other institutions under FERPA, but doing so legally has to clear a very high bar, and this doesn’t actually seem to me to do so.
That was my first thought.
My impression is that it is the information sharing aspect that is being scrutinized by the Justice Dept. Any “secret agreement” would be among the institutions about the reasons for sharing the information. Clearly, ED & SCEA & EA agreements are not secret, but the effects of the information sharing about these applicants may have an understanding whether expressed in writing or exhibited in certain practices.
@Tperry1982 , SCEA is actually not that great of a deal. Many schools are setting EA as a condition for getting their merit scholarships, essentially saying “if you are applying early to Harvard, Princeton or Yale, don’t bother”. Selecting as his first choice a school that offers true EA, no strings attached, allowed my son to lock in a very generous merit offer at his second choice.
EA is good enough for the top 10, maybe even 20. I doubt too many folks turn them down outside of the multiple “i got into all the Ivies” kids, and they don’t seem to use ED or SCEA anyway.
So the probe is of Amherst, Grinnell, Middlebury, Pomona, Wellesley, Wesleyan and Williams (as per Wall Street Journal) and seeks information about their practice of sharing students’ names, application identification numbers, and home states with one another.
All of these colleges MEET FULL DEMONSTRATED NEED of all admitted applicants, and give need-based aid, and are among the most generous colleges in the nation, so the argument by some posters that some applicants cannot afford ED because that would mean they cannot shop for higher merit aid makes no sense. If the student has financial need, his/her needs will be met by the same package whether ED or RD. If the student does not have financial need but the family wants the student to try for big “merit” aid, then that would not be an option at these need-based aid schools anyway; the student would not apply early decision to one of these, but rather would apply regular decision or early action or rolling decision to less selective colleges that might offer them merit-based aid.
So who would be protected if schools did not enforce ED agreements? Only the cheats and the liars. So a student might be accepted to Middlebury ED and accept his spot. But then maybe the student decides to try for Williams anyway, because he is hung up on US News rankings or something, and Williams is up by a couple of lines, so he decides now to treat Middlebury like a safety since his spot is now guaranteed. So Middlebury adheres to its agreement and holds the kid’s spot, denying admission to thousands who want that spot. Then the kid gets into Williams… and should be able to attend Williams because he lied to both schools!!! That makes no sense whatsoever.
Early decision is a fair deal. The agreement you sign clearly states that the college will share your name with other colleges if you are accepted. Both you and the college get a good deal— both get increased certainty about your attending the college in the fall— in exchange for both of you adhering to the agreement that you will attend. They will not accept another student instead of you, and you will not accept another school instead of them.
Nothing is secret or hidden. This is an open and fair agreement, and applicants sign their agreement that their names will be shared with other colleges after acceptance (and only if they are accepted ED).
“So a student might be accepted to Middlebury ED and accept his spot. But then maybe the student decides to try for Williams anyway”
I don’t doubt things like this happen sometimes but I always wonder, where is the role of the high school as gatekeeper in all this? My kids’ school would definitely not be releasing transcripts and recommendations after an ED acceptance.
Personally I don’t think high schools should play any role. Maybe it’s the fact that my kids attended public high schools, but the GCs were not involved in the picking and choosing and they certainly had zero idea of our financial situation. I always thought it a tad “odd” that the common app and ED colleges relied so heavily on GCs as gatekeepers. The parents and the students are the ones entering into the agreement. Send a transcript with the app and send a final transcript to the chosen college is all that GC office really needs to do at any high school. They should need to keep track of who applied ED, ED or RD and to expect that they are keeping track of that seems alittle pie in the sky. Most of them have hundreds and hundreds of “kids” that they are available for if needed and historically are primarily tied up with the problem students and this goes back generations. I said hi to my high school GC for the first time I think just before graduation when the office called me in to see which college I had chosen.
People that aren’t cheating probably could care less that DOJ is looking at ED. Cheaters and liars probably hope that the colleges will never share info…but then again as said earlier, they could publish a “congratulations” list to everyone who accepted an offer in a local paper and it would then be public information much like when athletes sign a letter of intent and it is published.
“People that aren’t cheating probably could care less that DOJ is looking at ED.”
I care. It’s wasting my tax dollars!
As far as high schools involvement, they should care and many do. It could affect the school’s student’s relationships with a particular college and results.
I realize many public schools are stretched thin in terms of GCs. Ideally, that shouldn’t be the case and guidance duties related to problem students should be separated from college counseling duties. I know, wishful thinking.