<p>AL34, The counselor MUST sign the ED application (and the parent too).<br>
</p>
<p>Read bookmama’s post #32, Middkid.</p>
<p>^ Thanks jym626, I had no idea. So if DS had applied ED or SCEA via Common App a form would have popped up that he had to physically take in to counselor or something like that?
Live and learn, but this definitely changes the whole thing. Of course the counselor probably has little control after signing, but still…</p>
<p>You sound like you dont agree with the policies because you feel it should not affect the school if the counselor signs off on an ED, even out of ignorance, and the student is trying to game the system.</p>
<p>Right. If the counselor is ignorant of what the applicant’s intentions are (the applicant is being deceitful, remember?), why should anyone other than the applicant suffer negative consequences?</p>
<p>I have no problem with the ED rules and policies as outlined in ED agreements that are signed by applicants, parents and counselors. What I am disagreeing with is the idea that there is a supposed policy out there that future applicants will be automatically blacklisted from any high school that has an applicant who breaks the ED rules, regardless of what a guidance counselor may or may not have known.</p>
<p>roar</p>
<p>
Is a quote from NYU admissions and the Harvard Admissions Director acceptable, Middkidd?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/education/edlife/strategy.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/education/edlife/strategy.html</a> This was written back when some of the top schools stopped ED, which they have since reinstated. But that doesnt change the rest of the article. They do describe several situations where students may be released from the ED acceptance, but if it was done in bad faith, the consequences for being unethical are as they should be, IMO.</p>
<p>Read bookmama’s post #32, Middkid.</p>
<p>I read it. At best, it’s anecdotal evidence. We know nothing about what being “not well received” means or what happened initially to cause later applicants to be “not well received.” And it’s quite a change form the poster’s earlier description of what would happen to future applicants if an ED agreement was broken, which is what I took immediate exception to.</p>
<p>Is a quote from NYU admissions and the Harvard Admissions Director acceptable, Middkidd?</p>
<p>As I’ve stated several times in this thread, if the high school or guidance counselor is in any way complicit in breaking an ED agreement, then there may be consequences that effect more than just the applicant in question. Absent that, however, the second paragraph from the story you quoted is how things should and do operate.</p>
<p>Are we done beating this to a pulp now? Yes, bookmama’s comment about all future students having zero chance of getting into Flagler was a bit of an overstatement, the basic premise is valid.</p>
<p>It doesnt matter if the counselor KNEW that the student was acting in bad faith. The consequences can broad reaching. Ignorance is no excuse.</p>
<p>
Many GCs will NOT send out supporting documents (transcript, LORs) to RD schools until they know an applicant has been rejected/WL at the ED school. That’s their control over their students. When D1 was senior, a friend of hers wanted to back out of her ED school because she wasn’t sure after she was accepted, and the GC had a long discussion with her and parents to tell them it was not wise. I am sure the GC also said the school wouldn’t be sending out packets to other school or they would be breaking their contract.</p>
<p>As far as an example of a high school being punished as a whole over few students’ actions…D2’s high school didn’t get a student into Cornell for 6 or 7 years after 5 students were admitted one year and no one matriculated. Every year they have sent students to other higher ranked colleges. To show ultimate love, D2 applied ED and let the adcom know our strong tie to the school and number of times D2 visited the school. She was the first kid admitted to Cornell in a long time.</p>
<p>From paragraph 2 of the NYT article:
and further down:
Why is this so hard to believe??</p>
<p>A student who, on his own and against the advice of a guidance counselor, breaks an ED agreement, should be the sole person to bear the consequences of his actions. Admissions offices will not automatically blacklist all future applicants from the same high school under these circumstances.</p>
<p>If the above premise is what you are referring to, then yes, the beating can cease.</p>
<p>Well again, in the land of puppydogs and lollypops, yes, the student alone should be the sole recipient of the consequences of their bad faith. But as has been reported here from several posters and written in the NYT, there can be future consequences to students applying in subsequent years. No, not the extreme “never ever accept another student ever again”, but yes, that school may see their acceptances fall off the radar for a while, and counselor ignorance is no excuse. Are we done now?</p>
<p>
Do you have an example of this? Has someone in admission said it’s their policy? I think you are rather naive. ED often is for the benefit of school. The only way for it to work is if everyone adhere to the contract, otherwise it is pointless. All ED schools have incentive to protect it.</p>
<p>It doesnt matter if the counselor KNEW that the student was acting in bad faith. The consequences can broad reaching. Ignorance is no excuse.</p>
<p>If the counselor knew that the student was acting in bad faith, then the counselor/high school should suffer consequences as well. Did you mean to say that it doesn’t matter if the counselor didn’t know? If so, then that’s our fundamental disagreement. Requiring that college counselors be mind readers is too much.</p>
<p>How could the GC not know if a student was admitted to ED?</p>
<p>Since when has ignorance ever been a valid excuse to not deal with consequences?? “Gee judge, I didnt know my underage kid was stealing liquor from our cabinet and got his friends drunk at my house when I wasn’t home, and the kid had a wreck and killed someone”.</p>
<p>But as has been reported here from several posters and written in the NYT, there can be future consequences to students applying in subsequent years.</p>
<p>Not in a situation where a lone applicant went off the reservation and acted on his own. If there’s a pattern from a particular high school or guidance staff is found to not be doing their job properly, then yes.</p>
<p>Are we done now?</p>
<p>You can be done whenever you want.</p>
<p>Since when has ignorance ever been a valid excuse to not deal with consequences?? “Gee judge, I didnt know my underage kid was stealing liquor from our cabinet and got his friends drunk at my house when I wasn’t home, and the kid had a wreck and killed someone”.</p>
<p>Each case should be looked at on its own. Was the ignorance willful? Is there a pattern? Ignorance is very often a mitigating circumstance, and comparing the college admissions process to criminal law is the proverbial apples to oranges.</p>
<p>Yes I agree. Its probably time for me to stop banging my head against this brick wall.</p>
<p>You keep changing your argument too. Its getting tiresome. Whether or not the counselor “knew” the applicant was acting in bad faith, whether or not it was one student or more (what if the school was a small private school with a graduating class of 12?), whether or not it potentially negatively affects a future class or “never ever accept a student again” (this dance is getting dizzying) there are honor codes, signed agreements, etc, and if a school wants to “blackball” a HS because one student cheated, that is their perogative. Teach em a lesson. Honesty is the best policy and ignorance is no excuse. You dont like it- take it up with the colleges.</p>