@Much2learn said: “Penn must have had ED applicants who were admitted and failed to enroll after they got into another school EA and probably received merit money. It is always the few who spoil it for the many”
Or could it be that the petty, artificial ambitions of a school that spoil it for the many? (See Penn and Chicago’s new, petty admissions policies - policies designed to inflate numbers that are already strong.)
In the grand game of college admissions, Chicago played an interesting move by allowing EA, ED1 and ED2. I expect that this will improve their yield among some very strong students, particularly with ED2 applicants rejected/deferred from the SCEA schools.
In response, Pennsylvania played possibly the worst move it could have. It ends up looking more insecure without any benefit in terms of quality of students or a notable improvement in yield.
@cue7 “Or could it be that the petty, artificial ambitions of a school that spoil it for the many?”
I don’t think they would add the additional constraint if they were not experiencing a problem.
I don’t like it either, but there may be no other way to enforce the rules? I don’t know what really happens when an applicant subsequently declines an ED1 acceptance. I have never seen it happen.
Chicago’s approach is interesting. I like it conceptually. The drawback may be that could invite students to apply ED1 elsewhere.
@Much2learn - that depends entirely on your definition of a “problem.” Penn’s yield was 68% - it’s highest ever. It’s difficult to see a big dip in ED matriculants, especially since the number of RD accepts was about the same as past years.
Rather, it’s not a “problem,” it’s a school’s petty ambition. These moves by Chicago and Penn will only increase yield and lower accept rate - and we’re talking about two schools with sub-10% accept rates and 60%+ yields. The only reason they did this is because these numbers are not good enough.
In what world are these numbers not good enough? Well, just look to the schools’ aspirational peers (here’s looking to Cambridge or Palo Alto).
@cue7 "that depends entirely on your definition of a “problem.” "
If some ED applicants are not sticking to the rules, that is a problem because it is unfair to other applicants. If ED isn’t binding, then we are back to an EA situation, and that impacts how the admissions office considers applicants.
I don’t think that Penn’s change will significantly impact acceptance rate or yield unless many applicants were not compliant with the prior rules, which I doubt.
“it’s a school’s petty ambition.”
I understand that you are frustrated, but I do not think that is Penn’s objective. I think they just want all applicants to play by the same rules, and abide by them. It may be that this is the only way to achieve that.
I would ask what happens to applicants who apply to both Harvard, and Stanford via SCEA. I have no idea how that is enforced, if applicants do not follow the rules.
Applying to 2 school SCEA is breaking the rules. Applying ED to PENN (under the old policy) and EA to Chicago, Northeastern, etc… ) and getting out of the ED commitment because the student got merit aid, is not breaking the rules. @Much2learn
I agree with @suzyQ7 - just last year, by virtue of Penn’s “rules,” students could apply to Penn and an EA school (Chicago, MIT, etc.), and, if the financial aid packages differed, they could choose to NOT go to Penn. In fact, any ED school specifically states that, if the financial need is too great, the student can opt out of attendance.
Now, Penn CHANGED the rules. So a student can never find out if they’re up for merit aid at Chicago or, more realistically, if they could get a great merit package at Case Western or Tulane or other EA schools.
Why did Penn do this? Because it benefits the institution at a considerable expense to applicants. Yield could conceivably get to 70%, and the admit rate will drop a little more.
@suzyQ7 I am saying that I believe the only reason for Penn to make this change is if there have been some ED admits who are admitted EA somewhere, and then decide do not attend Penn.
It may be that there is not another reasonable way to enforce the ED rules.
Honestly, @cue7, your last post illustrates the problem. If a student applies ED to Penn, and EA to Case Western or Northeastern and is admitted to Penn, they are expected to attend Penn. If the student gets merit money from the competitor school, and decide they are going to take it and decline Penn that is the problem.
The ED rules never said “You are expected to attend unless you get a good merit package.” If you haven’t decided to attend, you should not apply ED. The fact that you seem to think that is what it means illustrates the issue.
That’s incorrect @Much2learn - because Penn STILL allows students to apply early to PUBLIC schools that may offer merit aid. If what you say is indeed true, why does Penn allow students to apply early to public schools?
With the CURRENT rules in place, Penn does indeed say “You are expected to attend unless you get a good merit package [at a public school].”
You can read the language right here: http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/freshman-admission/early-and-regular-decision
If Penn really wanted to send the message: “If you haven’t decided to attend, you should not apply ED,” why do they still allow for these exceptions? Why not say, if you apply ED to Penn, you can’t apply ANYWHERE else - public, private, it doesn’t matter - you can only apply early to UPenn? Why don’t they say that?
I believe the ED rule allows you out of the commitment for financial reasons. Its quite possible that some ED students assume they will qualify for FA from Penn, then it turns out they don’t… And end up getting merit elsewhere.
Or some students who are athletes assume an athletic scholarship is coming with their ED to PENN and it doesn’t.
@Muchtolearn I hear what you are saying, but how many students can we possibly be talking about here? They are now trailblazers in the admissions game as the first school to have restrictive ED… Yeah for being a trailblazer to capture a handflul more students. Talk about inferiority complex.
@Cue7 Your understanding of the rules is not correct.
The critical passage from the link is, "The only instance in which a student can request to be released from our Early Decision binding contract is if the applicant’s financial need cannot be met, which would be determined only after consulting with Penn’s Student Financial Services. "
That does not mean “Unless you get a good package.” It also does not mean that Penn will match offers. Virtually every Penn student could attend elsewhere for free. I just means that they will release you if they you financial Need cannot be met, which almost never happens.
The benefit of other EA applications is only if you are rejected by Penn.
The language you state supports my point - accepted ED students can go elsewhere IF their financial need isn’t meet.
Guess who determines what an applicant’s financial need is? UPENN. A college’s idea of what an applicant’s fin need is could be very different from an applicant’s view. The very term financial need is fuzzy.
This then gives an applicant some necessary wiggle room. A merit aid package at another school could in fact better meet the fin need of a family. This family would then be entirely reasonable in asserting this point with Penn, and then being released from the ED agreement.
Please note as well, in practice, in financial arguments, schools cannot “force” students to attend. Doing so would lead to tremendous bad publicity, and there’s merited nebulous areas in determining what financial need actually is. A student from, say, Cleveland, might indeed have a much better option with merit aid at Case, as room and board costs could be lower, than going to upenn.
UPenn’s own admission allows ED students to be released for financial reasons. By restricting ED, however, Penn is actually restricting an applicant’s ability to determine a wider range of schools that could best meet their own definition of financial need. How absurd!
@Cue7 You are trying to make a reasoned argument, but it is not correct. You have a lot to learn about the process.
Penn always meets need because they have a $10 billion endowment. You can run the NPC to get a contribution estimate. When you apply ED, you are expected to enroll, if admitted, barring some significant turn of events.
Merit awards have nothing to do with meeting need. If you want to compare several schools, just apply regular.
Top students need to decide whether they are committed to attending Penn, if admitted, and paying the parental contribution. If a student is not clear on that, they should not apply ED.
Alternatively, they could probably attend many other schools for free, or a greatly reduced price. Students looking for a deal usually apply to a large number of schools to compare. That rules out the ED option.
It is clear that you don’t understand how early decision works. You are telling me how you would like it to work, not how it actually works. Try contacting some admissions offices and they can explain it to you. Perhaps your confusion is shared by others and that has led to the rule change.
P.S. Penn is not an acronym, so don’t write it in all caps. That shows people affiliated with Penn that you don’t know much about the school.
Just want to add two cents here in what we were told by Penn re last years ED re opting out due to financial need…
They told us that
So you determine your financial need and Penn separately determines your financial need…
it is very fuzzy and there is lots of wiggle room… say you are a millionaire yet your money is tied up- you may state that you are only able to pay 25K per year and have 40K need. Penn will state you have no need and must pay 65K. As long as you met above 3 criteria you would be allowed to back out. With the new restricted ED your only option would be to back out and go to a Public University…
So in a sense Penn doesn’t always meet need. I do think they meet most “real” need though. I have heard there were some who successfully re-assesed and received more aid.
I think there were some cases of gaming the system and this restriction does not allow for an applicant to have a wider range of schools to determine best package but I don’t think that is what ED is really for.
I agree that “Top students need to decide whether they are committed to attending Penn, if admitted, and paying the parental contribution. If a student is not clear on that, they should not apply ED.”
@Much2learn I think you were a bit harsh on @Cue7. S/he only capitalized Penn once in that entry, for emphasis. The rest of the times it was “Penn”.
@runswimyoga, you say the only alternative if a student declines Penn for financial reasons is to go to a public university. They can actually apply anywhere they want, public or private, in the RD round.
@mjrube94 Your right, I didn’t think of that. You could then back out and apply anywhere during RD round.
Use “agreement” instead of “contract” for ED, UPenn notwithstanding. No school can or will force anyone to attend who doesn’t want to be there. However, many college admission deans know each other, especially at peer schools; breaking the ED agreement when you don’t apply for financial aid might be detrimental.
I believe we’ve responded to each others posts in the past, so I’m surprised by the insinuations present in your last missive. Just to be clear, I’m an alum of both Chicago and Penn - it’s why I post in both these forums. Further, I’m aware that the officially endorsed shorthands for both these schools are UChicago and Penn. Nevertheless, for variety in my posts (and to thumb my nose a little at each school’s insistence on their chosen monikers), I occassionally refer to UChicago as Chicago, or U of C. At times, I refer to Penn as UPenn.
Initial commentary aside, I’m disappointed by the themes present in your post. Penn changed their ED policy THIS year, in a way that restricts student latitude, and my argument is this raises the level of inequity present in early decision at Penn. Further, I’m fairly sure I describe the situation that spurred Penn to change their policy (namely, students opting out of their ED agreement).
Here’s your thesis: “Top students need to decide whether they are committed to attending Penn, if admitted, and paying the parental contribution. If a student is not clear on that, they should not apply ED.”
You state this matter of factly, but it presents the unfairness present in ED - it entirely favors the school. I believe that, in past years, some students rightfully tested the limits of the policy, and dove into the grey areas of what wasn’t expressly prohibited.
As seen in @runswimyoga post, UPenn asks the family to present what they believe they can afford to pay. Penn might not actually cover the difference. This is for institutional protection, of course - many families (no matter how wealthy) probably underestimate how much they’re willing to pay. At the same time, this is exactly why students like to compare options from different colleges - they can compare which package best matches THEIR own idea of what they’re willing to pay. (With the presumption that any family would prefer to pay close to $0 for the best education possible.)
Any student should have the latitude to compare packages and make a decision that’s the most financially advantageous (note - I didn’t say financially feasible) decision for them. ED takes away from that ability. Restrictive ED takes away from that ability even more. Even other Penn posters (like @Penn95) believe this policy change to be petty. Your posts, however, seem to defend a policy that’s heightening inequities.
You state that any applicant who opts out of the ED agreement “breaks the rules” - but these are rules Penn created (and tightened this year) purely for its own benefit! There is inherent unfairness in these rules. Outside of the administration, who would state this so matter of factly? All parents and applicants should lament ED, and restrictive ED specifically.
For a discussion of how Penn pioneered this unfortunate system, see this article on the “Early Decision Racket”: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/the-early-decision-racket/302280/.
Finally, I think I’m quite clear on how ED works in practice. My assertions (that a tiny fraction of ED admits tried to leverage other options), in fact, likely provided Penn with the reasoning it needed to change its rules this year. How you describe ED is most likely how it will work in the future, as Penn has tightened their rules because of students (justly, in my view) adroitly managing their options.
But, all rules for the benefit of the school, and all glory to UPenn!
To be sure, advantages for the applicant are the increased chance of acceptance to the number one choice, the need to prepare only one application if accepted, and a more relaxed senior year. Disadvantages have been well covered.
The advantages you describe are tepid at best - senior year may be more relaxed, but the first three years of high school can be even more intense for those focusing on ED. Moreover, admissions preference because of when a student chooses to apply - and because a student indicates that s/he really likes a school - is a perversion of the process where merit (in many forms) should be the primary factor in an admissions decision.
Further, for 80% of the applicant pool applying to a competitive ED school (like UPenn, Duke, etc.), none of the above advantages apply. The vast majority of ED applicants don’t get in ED.
When balancing the costs and benefits, its pretty clear what the opinion of ED for the vast majority of applicants and parents should be.