<p>At the various colleges I've visited, the dean of admissions hinted that applying ED would give applicants a boost in being admitted. Of course, showing that you are fully committed to a specific school should give you an advantage--but I was just wondering whether these admissions committees realize what they are actually doing. A person that has no concern over tuition can easily apply ED without worry, but those of us with financial concerns cannot apply ED even if we know exactly where we want to attend. Harvard realized this, and so the ED program was eliminated there. But most schools still use ED to compose upwards of 35% of their freshman class. Is there an unspoken policy that allows fin.aid applicants to back out from ED acceptance if the fin.aid package is not enough? What do you think? What will it take for this unfair system to change? Can I apply Regular Decision and somehow tell the school that I would have applied ED if not for financial concerns?</p>
<p>well life isn't fair. Usually though, colleges do claim to meet your "full" need, so if they fail to do so through financial aid, you can technically back out. However, keep in mind that for many colleges meeting your "need" could also include giving u loans.</p>
<p>Sure, it's not fair, but so are advantages like having educated parents, living in a high income, excellent school district, taking expensive prep classes, attending expensive sports camps and academic programs, etc. </p>
<p>Yes, one can back out of ED if one doesn't get sufficient financial aid. However, it's still unwise to apply ED if finances are a consideration (as they probably are for the majority of college applicants). Even if a college meets 100% of your demonstrated financial need, the college, not your family, determines whether they have met your financial need, and the college could choose to meet that need with a very loan-heavy package. None of those would be reasons that colleges would accept for backing out of ED.</p>
<p>um, slight correction: Harvard recently eliminated its Early Action program, not Early Decision.</p>
<p>(continuing for above poster) And early action isn't binding, so except for a lack of notification about such programs, the financially disadvantaged weren't set back too much by it. Now, Princeton's getting rid of early decision, so that does matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, Princeton's getting rid of early decision, so that does matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The PR spin machine notwithstanding, I don't buy it. There is another thread on cc regarding test scores and income -- as long as colleges use test scores, they'll immediately be looking at higher income apps. Moreover, participation in ECs requires a certain middle- , upper-class lifestyle. I'm betting that H & P at 100% RD won't look significantly different than earlier classes.</p>
<p>bluebayou: "Moreover, participation in ECs requires a certain middle- , upper-class lifestyle"</p>
<p>Good point. It may not "require it", but it certainly makes it a lot easier. Adcoms may try to tease out income advantage in evaluating applicants, but the playing field is still very far from level. I guess that is why it usually takes a couple of generations to achieve the American dream.</p>
<p>Life's not fair. EA isn't much worse. Get over it.</p>
<p>Oh, so basically my example of Harvard doesn't apply at all--they actually eliminated the only opportunity for finaid applicants to apply "early." I think EA is better though, because you can demonstrate your interest while still considering the finaid packages of other schools.</p>
<p>I guess it's not really worth complaining about, though, because economic injustice has and will always be there.</p>