<p>OP, thanks for the update - - though "suck it up" usually suggests hardship or unpleasantness far beyond a free ride at Duke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
"A GC wouldn't know whether a given case of ED-breaking involves unethical behavior, because the GC isn't a party to the contract...."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To clarify, the GC is a party to the ED contract.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The GC is not a party to the ED "contract". The GC is a signatory playing the role of a witness to the agreement, one whose signature a given college might require (or not) in order to proceed with the bargain. The GC does not make any promise, give or receive consideration, is not accorded any rights and is not constrained by anything written in the agreement. </p>
<p>For instance, the GC's cooperation is not required for a student to fulfill the agreement by enrolling if accepted. Nobody owes the GC anything in ED, nor does GC undertake obligations. His signature is merely reassurance to the college that the applicant has been informed of the nature of the contract.</p>
<p>Well, siserune, it sounds like you're a lawyer. I am, too. And yeah, you are probably legally, technically correct. </p>
<p>But as we know, thankfully, legal techicalities don't make the world go 'round. If you talk to any GC, they take this stuff very seriously, as their status as "signatory" puts their ethics and credibility on the line with both colleges and their national association. Any major bump in the ED road means they face personal ramifications...and beyond that, the HS they represent and the future students they represent face ramifications. </p>
<p>I'm glad the OP has resolved his internal uncertainties.</p>
<p>I'm coming from a bent that says, too many people in today's society think it is okay to not take responsibility for their actions. This post was made to the parents' forum. Call me crazy, but I think as parents, we're obliged to encourage young people to learn the hard knocks of life, even when it means living up to something that they may have foolishly bargained for. </p>
<p>Learning how to deal with life's "unfair" lessons is an important step toward maturity. </p>
<p>Learning how to properly channel protest of a system that isn't right is important, too.</p>
<p>If the ED system isn't right, then as I said before, we should lobby for its dismantling. But until that happens, if any one of our children makes what proves to be an undesirable ED bargain, then my feeling is, dem's da breaks. </p>
<p>Thanks for participating in an interesting discussion.</p>
<p><a href=“northstarmom:”>quote</a>
</p>
<p>As long as the GC is being truthful, they aren’t making an ethical violation if they tell colleges that a student has negative characteristics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One ethical lapse in the scenario you presented is the Guidance Counselor falsely purporting to provide a recommendation (school work product ostensibly in support of a student’s application), while in fact going out of his way to sabotage the application. Notes or hints to “call [GC] for further information”, planted to evade Buckley Amendment scrutiny of the malicious transmission, that sort of thing.</p>
<p>Moreover, as you appear to concede, in the most common case of ED-breaking (financial aid), the GC has no way of knowing that the negative information he might go out of his way to provide, <em>is</em> truthful. The GC is not an inquisitor to whom an applicant is required to prove the claim that last year’s exit from an ED agreement was based on truly inadequate financial aid; it is enough for the applicant to simply assert that claim, and the GC has no business passing speculations (i.e., self-originated gossip) on that point to third parties. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It appears to be just Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to insist that there is actual damage to be controlled. The speculation that a college might irrationally lash out against unrelated applications in a specific conspiracy against the high school in question, or try to “punish” a GC who was uninvolved in a given ED violation, is a bit implausible and not necessarily the basis on which applicants can or should make their plans.</p>
<p>^^ you are mixing up the nature of recommendations. A rec is not by definition a positive thing. How many students, do you think, were foiled by less than stellar teacher/GC recs? You can rest assured quite a few. GC’s responsibility is to send in timely paperwork, but not to give glowing reports when none are warranted. A lot of colleges rely on honest reports by GC since that same College Admission Officer will be looking at a list of students the following years, it behooves the GC to be honest in all their recs. Sometimes what stands between acceptance and rejection for a marginal student is a relationship a GC has with the particular college. If a GC does not do a good job with the recs, or if a student withdraws ED for reasons other than FA, then the relationship the GC has with that particular college is strained, and by extension the positive outcome of future applications.
Also in this particular case the student got a full ride – what financial aid reason could there be?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. However, there is quite a difference between an impartial but factually negative evaluation, and deliberate sabotage.</p>
<p>If a student backs out of Early Decision for reasons that a college considers a violation of the agreement, that college is presumably capable of understanding (and GC is capable of clarifying) that the decision to do so was undertaken without the involvement of the GC, or against his advice, and out of his control in either case. Consider that a high school usually has multiple counselors (one per 200-300 or so students enrolled is typical), the college has multiple admissions officers even for a given region, the regional assignments rotate, and so on. The amount of effort needed to keep track of these things for years on end as in the anecdote given earlier, is on the level of a small conspiracy or a computerized blacklist straight from the urban legends.</p>
<p>I have serious questions about the ethics of a college attempting to enter into a binding contract with a high school student. Even if the student in question isn’t a minor (as they often still are), the difference in power and sophistication is vast. And, most colleges claim that there is no advantage to the student in early decision (I don’t think it is true in most cases, but that is the common claim), so what consideration is the student really receiving?</p>
<p>the college enters into an agreement with the students and the parents. If you look at admit rates, %wise they are generally more favorable for ED. These rates are published by the college, so how can you say the colleges claim no advantage for the student?</p>
<p>Well, because that is what I have heard the college reps say during info sessions. During our college visits this question came up a several information sessions. Each time, the rep claimed that there was no real advantage in early application, that the difference in admission rate (when there was one, Georgetown’s admission rate is about the same ea/rd) was because stronger students applied ea. I don’t think they were completely truthful, but that was they said.</p>
<p>DeirdreTours, I have had the same experience. Several colleges, including Claremont McKenna, have said that there is no advantage, which begs the question – why do it?</p>
<p>I think along with other topics this is another case where the colleges are not being completely candid.</p>
<p>We had just the opposite information. D was told that if she really wanted to attend Bates that ED was probably the way to do. She did and couldn’t be happier that she was accepted. She’s looking forward to the fall. </p>
<p>S also did ED 3 years ago to American University. Again it has worked out great.</p>
<p>That being said we were very specific with out kids that this was a commitment and if they didn’t think that they could make that commitment then that shouldn’t. Both were sure that was the best school for them. It’s worked out for S. We’ll see with D but right now she is still excited.</p>
<p>We made sure that they were well aware what they were getting into.</p>
<p>broetchen…Did you mean “begs the question” in its customary usage of “avoids the question” or did you mean “raises the question”?</p>
<p>First off, you should go to the school you applied ED to.</p>
<p>If there is absolutely no way you can will yourself into going, and I can’t imagine a situation, then call the school and tell them how you feel. It sounds cliche, but no school will make a student attend that doesn’t want to.</p>
<p>But why should he go? I don’t think these ed contracts are fundamentally fair. ED wholly benefits the school. Now, because I feel that way (and well, frankly, my son didn’t really have a clue where he wanted to go), we never seriously considered son applying ed.</p>
<p>@krm guilty as charged</p>
<p>The ED “contract” is clearly understood and explained to students who wish to do it. Now whether this student should go or not is a different point. At the same part is there another student who wanted ED and was denied because this person took the spot. After all there are only so many ED spots. That doesn’t seem fair to other students who wanted the spot and were intending to attend. If someone doesn’t have a clue where they want to go then ED is not for them. No one makes you do ED and you need to be sure that is where you will want to get if you are accepted.</p>
<p>The parents are not part of the ED agreement, either. Like the guidance counselor, the parent is just a signatory. The contract linked in posting #12 does not mention the parents or the GC at all, only the applicant and the college. As with the GC, no rights or obligations are created for the parent and no consideration is exchanged.</p>
<p>The ED contract does not obligate a parent to make the “parent contribution” calculated in an ED financial aid package, even if that effectively prevents the applicant from fulfilling the bargain. The parent and the applicant may reach different conclusions as to whether the financial aid package is acceptable, and this is another circumstance where the college has no legal or moral grounds to enforce the agreement. </p>
<p>As to “taking another applicant’s spot” by violating ED, that doesn’t happen for the same reason that a regular-decision acceptee who declines an offer of admission hasn’t taken anyone’s place. The college has a good idea of the ED yield, which is never quite 100 percent, so they can (and presumably do) adjust the number of ED admits upward slightly to meet any targets they may have.</p>
<p>Is anyone aware of case in which a college has attempted to legally enforce an ED contract? Either by sueing to compell attendance or collect "damages’?</p>
<p>No, I don’t think any colleges have legally tried to force a student to attend them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, perhaps little to no advantage for most EA colleges (alto the Yale EA numbers are striking). But, it can be a huge advantage for binding, early decision apps. Our local Duke rep mentioned that the admission rate was “ten percent” higher for ED.</p>