Even though some schools were breaking the rules before anyway?
Cost of college attendance crossed over average income around the millennium. As the gap between these two widen, colleges feel the need to offer scholarships to those who can’t afford full pay.
Schools need to make up the “short fall” of scholarships. Some schools have enormous endowments and can use investment income. Other schools don’t have this luxury and need to focus on full pay students.
It’s not surprising that schools are courting these students. In fact, I’d argue that schools have on principle avoided doing this in the past to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. As the need for money gets great, I expect this reluctance will melt away and that full pay students will be given an increasing amount of “extras”.
This will become more and more common, unfortunately. The colleges are doing this to attract more full pay students. Apart from the selective T20 colleges, most are struggling to make ends meet. By offering these perks, it can incentive more full pay students.
I hate this and also think it is icky on so many levels.
I think that NECAC should have gone exactly the opposite direction. Instead of allowing colleges to offer incentives to people who are willing to commit early (thus discriminating against those who need to compare financial aid offers), why not get rid of Early Decision altogether?
The whole system really would and could continue to function without early decision.
And I say this as a full pay family.
The reason is actually that the Justice Department is coming after them for what they see as anti-competitive behavior. NACAC didn’t want to change the policy.
@OHMomof2 Oh, I’m well aware. (I work in higher education.) My argument is that rather than allowing the free market capitalism of incentives for those willing to commit early, NACAC could have responded by arguing that early decision–which locks customers in–is itself anti-competitive, and that free market capitalism would operate better without it.
Student A gets locked in to attending College X, his ED school, WITHOUT seeing a financial aid package.
Student B who applies RD may have less of a chance of getting in to College X, but will have MORE ability to compare prices because Student B is not locked in.
Used car salesman tactics.
Don’t most schools that offer ED have a “non-affordability clause” so you can get out of the ED commitment if financial aid doesn’t come through to make it “affordable”?
ED means less competition for the student, who does not get to compare FA with other colleges, unless an EA or early rolling school happened to give FA in time.
Student A knew that going in and chose to apply ED anyway. If they wanted to see the aid package before committing, then they could’ve applied RD.
Why shouldn’t schools offer incentives to people who are willing to commit early?
From a marketing perspective it makes sense. If the student is willing to guarantee they will spend XYZ amount of money at their school no matter what, then the seller is willing to guarantee certain perks for that early commitment. I see it as a sign on bonus.
To the extent that we see committing to a particular college as identical to committing to going on a particular cruise, schools absolutely should offer incentives to people who are willing to commit early. That’s a smart sales tactic.
To the extent that we see higher education industry as being a little different than the cruise industry and perhaps caring about things like equity and inclusion, then worrying about whether a certain practice hurts socioeconomic diversity makes sense.
If the DOJ was seriously concerned that current college admissions practices like requiring students to commit to a school by May 1st of their senior year and forbidding other schools from poaching those students was anti-competitive, then ED contracts seem even more anti-competitive. If Student A signs an ED contract, then no other school can try to poach her, not in the fall or in the spring or ever. Student B, by contrast, can commit to one school on May 1st, but can still entertain any offer all late spring and summer, and colleges theoretically can now offer almost anything in order to poach: “We’ll beat any financial aid offer!” “We’ll guarantee your pre-med student an opportunity to work in the lab of one of our top research professors!” The higher education industry is worried that we are now in the wild, wild west, where things which were previously seen as unethical will now become normalized. We’ll see how it plays out.
Not necessarily. ED does not preclude other colleges from continuing to poach as they are not party to that particular student’s ED contract.
For example, my S applied ED, was accepted and then withdrew his apps like he was supposed to. Nevertheless, in early April, he received a letter from a top 50 school (one of his safeties) that said something to the effect, ‘we know that you may have already committed to another college, but I’m the Dean of [xx college] and we were impressed with your application (blah, blah, blah) and wanted to reach out with a full tuition+summer research travel stipend, and…’
Now, could poaching college be sued for torturous interference? Perhaps, but not worth the hassle.
*Tortious interference. Maybe it is torturous, as well, lol!
^^I just assume that spell check on College confidential is 100% correct at all times!
The schools are in a tough spot. I think the anti-competitiveness angle is nonsense, akin to Black Friday sales with unique SKUs and harsh return policies: Do you want the cheap TV or not? If you want to make a fully informed choice then wait until the normal models go on sale next week, pay a higher price, but know what it is.
That said, if schools would do more time-boxed, guaranteed financial aid pre-reads, both as part of ED and for EA applicants, the Justice Dept would likely not be as tempted to come after them. “I told you what it would cost and you took the soft benefits in exchange for the rest of the package.” Similarly it would be harder for other schools to be sweetening their poaching offers if they already had a bunch of pre-reads out there that would have to be honored through May 1. It’s still all gentlemen’s agreements, but at least it gives the kids a little more info.
Perhaps students should feel free to ignore that commitment if they get a better offer.
Agree. Will be interesting to watch.
Perhaps college admissions will become like applying for jobs, effectively like rolling ED admission (offer may come at any time, with only a week or less to decide whether to matriculate, reducing the ability to compare offers).
And now the state of California and the NCAA are going to allow boosters to show up with suitcases of cash to get athletes to go to that school. Free parking spaces and getting to register early for classes are nothing compared to cash.
All the things the schools are promising like parking spaces and early move it don’t cost the school anything, even less than the marketing postcards and swag like sunglasses and t-shirts. Why not offer them as incentives?
Here’re a few reasons:
-
ED disadvantages applicants and their families who couldn’t apply early for financial and/or other reasons.
-
By locking up often more than 50% of the available spots, ED negatively and dramatically impacts the RD acceptance rates, which mean applicants have to apply to many more colleges with much higher anxiety and uncertainty.
-
ED is anti-competitive, both financially and academically.
-
ED college may not be a good fit for the student if s/he applies early in order to beat the early deadline and to have a better chance of admission without fully vetting the college.