<p>@ucbalumnus plan is a good one, but it’s a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Right now the amount of ED fraud is so small it’s not worth the expense schools would need to incur to deter it. Taking all those deposits in and then refunding them would incur real dollar costs, not to mention all the accounting of all the money. Not really worth the hassle given the current state of the problem. But if it got bigger, it could be a viable solution.</p>
<p>The GCs really are the gatekeepers of all of this and will remain so. Sure, an overburdened GC might let something slip through, but at our HS we’ve got two GCs who only do college apps, they have a secretary, and they each handle 175-200 kids. And we have plenty of kids apply to top level schools, but not everyone is applying ED/REA/SCEA. </p>
<p>The chokepoint is the transcript - all official transcripts have to go through them, so even if you’re applying outside the Common App, it’s going to be obvious if you need a transcript, so they simply keep track of that. If you lie to them and tell you that you’re applying RD, they’ll probably catch you by a well placed phone call. And not only that, most top level schools are going to ask for mid-term grades, so if they get two requests for an interim report on a student, someone is going to get questioned. </p>
<p>It also wouldn’t surprise me that there is a lot of back and forth between a college and HS about applicants that we civilians don’t hear about, so it would be almost impossible to slip up a rule-violating application past any decent GC.</p>
<p>Some colleges apparently do have unpublicized auto-reject lists of high schools due to previous ED violations, if reports of such are true. The problem with that is that it is an ineffective deterrent against ED cheating (either with a complicit GC or an overburdened one who does not carefully cross-check all of the early applications), since the penalty does not affect the applicant or the GC, while causing collateral damage to other applicants in the future.</p>
<p>If colleges are going to apply such penalties for ED violations, then they would be more effective if (a) they limited the penalties to specific GCs rather than entire high schools, and (b) they publicized the list of GCs that applicants should not be associated with. That will put the pressure on GCs to carefully vet early applications to conform to the rules (honest students would all seek to change to other GCs, which would pressure the school to replace the errant GC).</p>
<p>@MrMom62 You many very well be right, but what is your source for the statement that “the amount of ED fraud is so small it’s not worth the expense schools would need to deter it.” I think many people have anecdotal information on exactly this type of abuse, but I am not aware of any actual hard numbers on frequency, so I would be curious if you are aware of this data. Thanks.</p>
<p>A quick and dirty way of checking for signs of fraud is ED enrollment. If ED enrollment is in the high 90s, as Xiggi suggests, there is probably not much fraud.</p>
<p>@ColdinMinny, well, we know what percentage of ED admits eventually enroll, and in all the cases that I’ve looked at, it’s very close to 100%.</p>
<p>In any case, for a deterrent to work, it can’t be a quiet rejection of future applicants but a warning conveyed to the HS.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t remember if I mentioned it before, but the hammer that the colleges hold would be biggest against those prep schools/feeders that send kids to a particular college every year.</p>
<p>@butterfreesnd #38 and @ucbalumnus #41, first paragraph: Oh, the poor overworked GCs, wahhh. They must support (gasp!) 60 seniors and 240 students; my gosh, that’s just unbearably demanding, they clearly work so much longer and harder than physicians, attorneys, managerial executives, registered nurses, military officers, and leaders of consequence in every field (oh, and just how many days annually do teachers and GCs have off, including “work days,” workshops, and conferences, as well as vacations and other paid absences?). Further, their jobs require such extreme intelligence, education and sacrifice (we all understand that receiving those Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in education is so much more arduous than earning JDs, MBAs, MDs, etc.).</p>
<p>More than a few CC participants are adults, with advanced degrees, with decades of senior professional experiences, with very taxing responsibilities, and with distinguished performance records (in their careers and elsewhere). GCs are – or they certainly should be – PROFESSIONALS . . . and professionals work until all their tasks are completed with excellence, regardless of the difficulties and the impediments. If, during certain periods, that requires 60 or 80 hour weeks, it’s their DUTY to devote the necessary time and the talent. I wonder if we were to visit high schools at 2030 this evening or tomorrow (Saturday), how many GCs would be working? Compare that result to the the numbers of other professionals who routinely work 12+ hour days and many weekends.</p>
<p>My parents were teachers, my brother was a school superintendent in several Ohio districts, his wife was a GC; I therefore, in large part, base this summary on generations of family – and friends’ – actual experiences</p>
<p>Considering the past threads about poor/lazy GCs, overworked GCs, and recommendation rationing, your expectations (whether realistic or not), do not seem to be reality in many schools.</p>
<p>In any case, a college putting a high school on a quiet auto-reject list does not deter unethical ED behavior by either the students or a GC who is either complicit or careless.</p>
<p>I have no sympathies for the GC that is monitoring these things. Colleges should send a missive to the superintendent of schools in that area as well as the school board and the principle when a GC does not catch ED cheaters, IMO. But…the colleges have to put together some effort to do this. A GC should be held responsible to keep a list of those who apply ED, there should be a release the student signs to have the GC get the accept and ensures that the other apps are redacted. My son was accepted ED and has been asked to have the GC sign the accept form that states he has withdrawn his other apps. </p>
<p>There is a list of accepted ED students circulating to those colleges that subscribe to it. You get accepted ED to Brown, Dartmouth will know. But not enough schools care enough to join the list and most schools ignore it. My state schools could not give a hoot if a student applied ED or not or broke the ED agreement. Not on their radar. When you inform them of an ED accept, the chances are good the admissions process continues. So the colleges have to get together on this for it to work. If a universal ED accept list were used and enforced, it would end this problem quickly.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus: I fully agree with your second paragraph in #46. Regarding your first paragraph, however, I know that my expectations are not the current actuality. However, reality certainly isn’t what we should strive to attain, is it? Moreover, given a large segment of the population’s growing disenchantment with public employee (especially teachers) unions – and the results they have spawned during the last, perhaps 50, years – I’m not sure the “gravy-train” for teachers and GCs isn’t beginning to end.</p>
<p>They could do that, and list the errant GCs on their ED admission web page, with a note to students that ED applicants with GC reports from those GCs will not be admitted ED (can only be rejected or deferred to RD), since those GCs have had a history of ED cheating. No GC should want to be on that list, so that may be a more effective deterrent against allowing ED cheating.</p>
<p>@cptofthehouse, I’m not sure why state schools <em>should</em> give a hoot.</p>
<p>The ED/SCEA system is a cartel put in place by privates to manage their admission rate (that is, keep it low). It also has the side benefit of (generally) making it easier for ED applicants to get in to their first choice school (at the expense of making it harder for those in the RD round), but if you’re a state school who’s mission is to provide opportunities for education and advancement to a broad swath of your state’s population (instead of keeping admit rates low), why should you play the ED game?</p>
<p>By the same token, ED schools generally are okay with you deciding to break an ED agreement, for any reason, if you decide you want to attend a public school in your state. What they really don’t want is you fishing among many elites with multiple ED applications. If you suddenly get cold feet and decide you’d rather be close to home at Flagship U or Directional State, they aren’t going to blacklist anyone. That sort of thing happens to 18 year-olds (and their parents) and is understandable. ED schools aren’t that cold-hearted.</p>
<p>This is just anecdotal and may signify nothing, but since DD was accepted ED, we have not gotten one piece of college mail and the emails have dropped off significantly, particularly from the more competitive schools. Coincidence? Perhaps. (A very welcome one, if so.)</p>
<p>I would think ANY selective school, any school that wants those who keep their word, keep to contract, would give more than a hoot about someone deliberately breaking a contract that was voluntarily entered. I would care. The student, the parent, the GC all signed off on the ED provisions understanding them. Then the student decides to disregard the terms to which s/he signed. That is a big miss in terms of integrity and character IMO, There are public schools that do have honor codes and give at least a lot of lip service to this sort of thing. </p>
<p>Though there are not many public schools that do have ED programs, there are a number of them in my state. Yes, some of the SUNYs offer ED but they don’t enforce it . </p>
<p>Sakacar, it’s too early for the shared list to be released as there will be students who will not be able to take up ED offers due to financial aid packages not being sufficient. Most all ED offers do give a couple of weeks or more to get the enrollment forms to them. </p>
<p>TopTier I don’t disagree with the concept that oh-boo-hoo-60-80 hours a week, man up and deal with it like every working professional, but you do have to realize that in many schools the GCs have hundreds of students and / or they are also serving the role of truant officers, dealing with dropouts, students with home life crises, etc. Not just college apps. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl: Of course, I absolutely realize this – LOTS of family experiences, in this realm – however, GCs SERVE kids . . . and the students’ welfare come first (even if that means 120 hours of ceaseless work weekly). Can you imagine a priest who claims he is too busy (but actually may simply be too lazy) to hear a confession, or a military officer who refuses to deploy to a combat zone, or a physician who won’t treat a patient in extremes? Neither can I. There are some occupations that must be viewed as “callings,” not as “jobs.” In that context, exceptional sacrifices are often both normal and mandatory. I deeply understand this from two decades of service as a naval officer. If one does not want these sorts of expectations/requirements, I believe he simply should not enter that profession.</p>
<p>Taxpayers in these school districts will have to pony up more money for this, then. 120 hours a week is first year IB/Wall St attorney/MC-type hours, or possible medical resident hours…occupations where a ridiculous amount of time is put in for a payoff later on…not public school GC hours. </p>
<p>Heck that only leaves 48 hours a week for sleeping and commuting, nevermind any kind of life.</p>
<p>TopTier’s point is well taken. Professionals - and not just Wall St types but every single working professional I know - work long hours because you do what it takes to get the job done and if that means you come in early, stay late, work on weekends, and / or work from home you just do it. </p>
<p>My family will require significant amounts of financial aid in the form of grants.</p>
<p>I am applying early decision (Round II) because the institution in which I am applying early decision (Round II) to has produced an fabulously generous estimate that will render the school definately affordable.</p>
<p>The necessity to compare financial aid packages is not a necessity that my family has, due to the fact that the institution I am applying early decision (Round II) to is simply so ridiculously generous in the amount of financial aid in the form of grants they are giving me.</p>
<p>However, the imminent, likely outcome of this early decision (Round II) fiasco is rejection by the institution in which I am applying early decision (Round II) to. Therefore, I will then consider the admissions results and financial aid packages of the institutions in which I am applying regular decision to.</p>