An Early-Decision Student Backed Out of Tulane. Tulane Punished the High School

[ECCA2026]

Fair enough, but to be clear on my posts, I both have no issue with what Tulane has done with the prep schools at issue, and have no pity for Tulane.

[tamagotchi]

@ECCA2026

If they want to tamp down on applications, make the supplementals more work.

Since low-effort students can now just use AI for these, I am not sure if this makes any difference any more.

[twoinanddone]

@Bill_Marsh

ulane has 2 acceptance rates: 60% if you apply early when they fill up 2/3 of the spots in their freshman class and 10% if you apply regular decision when they fill the remaining third.

But at many schools, those ED numbers include all the athletes who have committed by the ED date. Some schools require legacies to apply ED if they want a boost. ED2 was first used by athletes who wanted to commit later, like in Jan after they completed their fall seasons (and football players who couldn’t sign NLI until Feb.)

I don’t think it’s fair to compare the ED rates to the RD rates. Different types of applicants. At big flagships the ED numbers may be a drop in the bucket but in a freshman class of 500 to 1000, the percentages add up.

[Mashinations]

You responded to me but quoted someone else - I’m going to assume your note was for them. I agree with your statement and started to type out similar earlier but it’s always so unclear how many athletes, hooked, etc make up the ED pool. Is it 50? 100? 500? No one but the school knows.

[fiftyfifty1]

@jym626

But to be fair, the back channel conversations also probably included the HS counselors being warned (probably more than once) that violating the ethical agreement to honor the ED commitment, except under extenuating circumstances, is going to have consequences.

As in something like –How many times have we warned you that if you don’t scratch our back we won’t scratch yours!? Do you want to lose your special pull with us or what?!

[AustenNut]

@tamagotchi

@ECCA2026

If they want to tamp down on applications, make the supplementals more work.

Since low-effort students can now just use AI for these, I am not sure if this makes any difference any more.

Perhaps doing something like incorporating prompts like those from the U. of Chicago, or some other task that is not easily done (or at least not done well) by AI could be incorporated. An acrostic on Tulane or the name of an organization/professor at the school and why they want to pursue that at the school?

[fiftyfifty1]

@ECCA2026

a dig at their professionalism and/or ethics, which I don’t think is warranted toward private school counselors as a whole.

No, not a dig at private school counselors as a whole, just at the ones who maintain back channel relationships with AOs (and the AOs who do the same.) If you have to hide it, that’s a clue it probably isn’t ethical. If it’s no problem, why not put it on your website? As in “Choose Marten & Stoat prep school, where your tuition money buys you a back channel to certain private schools that will accept your mediocre child after all.” Or maybe the college can have it on their website, something like “Accepting top students.. and also the offspring of the wealthy, using a special back channel with private prep schools.”

Ethics would dictate no contact between AOs and school counselors, or at a minimum all contact should be in writing and records kept.

@ECCA2026

I struggle to think of how one devises a system that does not without completely restructuring admissions in the US.

I am OK with major restructures to admissions in the US. There has recently been a major restructuring in the form of elimination of affirmative action, so restructuring is possible. I would argue for the elimination of ED as well as legacy and donor hooks. These are all unpopular with the public and with good reason. I would also eliminate the athlete hook.

[chardonMN]

My kids both applied ED (one was to Tulane actually) and upon acceptance, each was given 48 hours to withdraw all other applications, by the private school college counselor. It was NOT optional. The high school did NOT want this scenario happening. The ED contract had to be signed by student, parent, and GC.

[ECCA2026]

@fiftyfifty1

I am OK with major restructures to admissions in the US. There has recently been a major restructuring in the form of elimination of affirmative action, so restructuring is possible. I would argue for the elimination of ED as well as legacy and donor hooks. These are all unpopular with the public and with good reason. I would also eliminate the athlete hook.

Thank you for the thorough response. The restructuring I was thinking would be necessary is a lot bigger than eliminating all of these. While those are examples that the public can point to as unpopular, they do not get at the crux of the issue I thought you were getting at which is the system hugely advantages wealthy students. That will continue to be true even if all of those things are eliminated and college counselors were banned from talking to AOs. The optics for the public may be better with such bans but I am not sure it changes much on the core issue.

@fiftyfifty1

No, not a dig at private school counselors as a whole, just at the ones who maintain back channel relationships with AOs (and the AOs who do the same.) If you have to hide it, that’s a clue it probably isn’t ethical.

Fair enough that you want the practice banned, but I don’t think many private school counselors hide that they talk to AOs. At least here in the Bay Area I think it is pretty well known that private school counselors talk to admissions officers. At all the schools my kid looked at nobody was only talking about this in the shadows like it was a secret. To the contrary, they say things like “when we talked to AOs at highly selective, they said they don’t love when folks do x.”

Also, I don’t think many mediocre students are getting into highly selective colleges off the back of a college counselor rep/relationship with the school. On the back of their donor parents? Sure. But because the counselor knows the AO. Doubt it happens much if at all these days.

[fiftyfifty1]

@ECCA2026

they do not get at the crux of the issue I thought you were getting at which is the system hugely advantages wealthy students.

Yes, wealthy students will always have some advantages. But I am not one who argues that because they might always have an advantage, there is no reason to try to make the system more ethical.

Donor, legacy, ED, and back-channel phone calls are all unpopular with the public because these advantages are completely unearned by the students.

[fiftyfifty1]

@ECCA2026

At all the schools my kid looked at nobody was only talking about this in the shadows like it was a secret. To the contrary, they say things like “when we talked to AOs at highly selective, they said they don’t love when folks do x.”

That sort of general advice is not what people object to, so it doesn’t have to be hidden. What people object to is things like back channel boosts in admission, and calls to get Ava off the wait list. This secrecy is why revealing Tulane’s actions is a scandal that ended up in the news.

[jym626]

Sounds like a lottery system is the solution

TBH, as has been mentioned, many former college admissions officers become private school counselors and maybe even some public school counselors as well, and where I live, it’s not uncommon for the public HS counselors to know adcomms at the state flagship, the highly regarded public tech, etc. And surely this is true in many parts of the country. It is not uncommon with WL students for a counselor to pick up the phone and call the college adcomm and say “I know this kid. They are a gem. And if offered a spot off the WL they will accept”. Some make it sound like its rare. It isn’t. Maybe it’s not “right”, its privilege or what have you, but it’s no surprise. And I’ll bet my socks some reading this thread have likely had, or maybe asked a counselor to do it for their kid.

[jym626]

@fiftyfifty1

because these advantages are completely unearned by the students.

Maybe they are considered “completely unearned by the student” b/c either the parent’s situation afforded them the opportunity to attend a select secondary school, or perhaps they were fortunate enough to be a scholarship recipient at one of these schools, or attend a special charter school, etc. So they “lucked out” by however they got into the secondary education spot they are in. But any counselor worth their salt won’t typically stick their neck out for a kid who is a dud. That could backfire just like this ED withdrawl.

[sfogooner]

In the article the university claimed hardship if one ED student backs out!. I believe the expert is saying the university should be better equipped to handle this (like there is EA, RD and a waitlist). I am writing from memory so I could be wrong.

[jym626]

Tulane was quoted to say this:

“A last-minute withdrawal without explanation unfairly impacts other applicants who may have missed opportunities due to the limited number of early-decision offers a university can make,” the university said.

[SJ2727]

I think tbh all the debate about ED in principle and how Tulane uses it is secondary to the particular issue here, which is that the student (and student’s parent, and school) signed an undertaking to say they understood the rules of the game they voluntarily took part in, and then broke them.

I do idly wonder if more such letters from other colleges will come to light now that this one has made the news.

[Alqbamine32]

@ECCA2026

hat said, I’m curious what specific change you think should be made to address your concern? The entire college admissions process advantages wealthy kids. None of it is fair. I struggle to think of how one devises a system that does not without completely restructuring admissions in the US. Can you help me understand what you would have done differently on the counselor relationship issue?

I believe that some colleges has stopped taking calls about individual students from college counselors. For example, Swarthmore comes to mind. I can’t remember the others (maybe Amherst?). I am not sure whether those colleges have just stopped talking to counselors at private schools or if it also includes public school guidance counselors and college offices. In my observation, at my kids’ schools, the conversations that do happen are on the level of “if you take X off the waitlist, I am sure that he will enroll” or “this family’s financial circumstances are more complicated than they appear” or “the non-custodial parent has been banned from the school and we support the request for a CSS waiver.” I suppose these are all examples of if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours that fiftyfifty1 mentions. So yes it is unfair, but I suppose in the ideal world, I wish all students had that sort of adult advocate at their high schools –that is someone who has enough time, expertise, and small caseload that they can get to know the individual child really well and advocate for their admissions.

[ucbalumnus]

@jym626

As for yield, its typically considered by schools that a yield below 20% makes it hard to finalize financial plans, and in the past that had been a challenge for Tulane.

It would not be the level of yield, but the predictability of yield (which is likely estimated for each admit and then aggregated) that matters in how well the college can plan. Of course, ED admits should have a high level of predictability in yield.

[jym626]

Well, sorta. Yes, as long as the predicted yield is higher than about 20% than they are OK and as long as the yield is equal to or higher than expected/predicted, they should be OK. And certainly the more early decision applicants they accept the higher the predicted and percent yield they can expect.

[blossom]

@Alqbamine32

So yes it is unfair, but I suppose in the ideal world, I wish all students had that sort of adult advocate at their high schools –that is someone who has enough time, expertise, and small caseload that they can get to know the individual child really well and advocate for their admissions.

But I don’t think the solution to the unfairness is for the colleges to stop taking calls from GC’s. You’ve got “Disadvantaged Kid A” whose Dad has been AWOL for 15 years and needs every penny of financial aid if college is going to happen. You’ve got “Disadvantaged Kid B” who has somehow- against all odds- recovered from a devastating neurological event and despite a terrible freshman year, has managed to perform at an incredibly high level academically even though the GPA won’t show that given the terrible freshman year. AND the GPA does not reflect the kids struggles to regain speech, handwriting, etc. Just a medical miracle.

Does it make it “fair” for Kid B that his first choice college will no longer take calls from GC’s even though Kid A’s first choice will? Or even if Kid A’s first choice decides “no more calls”- is it fair to either of them? Sure, a level playing field (nobody’s special circumstances get a special phone call). But is that the solution?

The problem AND solution- as always, sits in the way we fund and operate K-12 education. It’s not the colleges problem to solve. It’s our problem.