<p>bookmama</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for posting this - it confirms what the GCs at my school have told me and what a GC at another school has posted here. Alas, some folks just refuse to believe this and have agendas against the colleges and ED - so they continue to offer unethical and incorrect advice.</p>
<p>I applaud you for not having your daughters apply ED because you understood the ethical and future ramifications of the ED process</p>
<p>xiggi</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said. I believe that fact is missed or ignored by several folks on this thread. Some think they deserve someone else to pay. Some, like calmom, who has posted about how she was upset over the process with her first child where the college thought that perhaps she was hiding assets and resources - and gasp, asked her for more documentation, seem to have a chip on their shoulder against the colleges. Some are just plain unethical or like anneroku, have said they really don’t care about ethics.</p>
<p>So lets repeat what you have just said so hopefully everyone understands this - and the next time they see someone saying the college did not award what I believe I am entitled to, perhaps they will remember that when it comes to financial aid, it is also important to remember that the first rule is that the PRIMARY responsibility of meeting the cost of an education rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents. Perhaps then they will not automatically start slamming the college for not being even more generous with the college’s own FA funds. Perhaps instead, they will thank the colleges for what they can provide knowing it is the parent who has the primary responsibility to fund the education in all of this.</p>
<p>younghoss, in your example, if your lease had not specified the amount of rent in clear and specific terms, you would have lost. </p>
<p>In strict legal/business terms it is really more analogous to an option contract.</p>
<p>younghoss, I notice you use the word “loophole” and maybe that explains the difference in the way you see things.</p>
<p>Lawyers are often accused of finding “loopholes” but I don’t see it that way, and I don’t think most lawyers do. We see it is a matter of studying and understanding the terms of every contract as well as knowing the implicit rights granted by law or custom or any transaction. We see “playing by the rules” as including all the rules and stipulations. </p>
<p>So lets say someone enters an agreement in which payment is due on January 1, 2010. In my state, the law is that if a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the date is shifted to the next business day. So, since January 1st is New Year’s day, then clearly (at least in my state), the payment is due on January 2. But January 2, 2010 is a Saturday – so obviously payment is due on Monday, January 4th. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t consider it a “loophole” for someone to wait to pay until January 4th, I would just consider it to be following the letter of the law. If that person wants to actually hand the check over on New Year’s Day, or pay in advance on December 31 – that’s their option, but they don’t have to. </p>
<p>To me the ED contract is pretty clear. I don’t see any “loophole”. I see a student agreeing to attend a school if offered admission, subject to the student’s acceptance of the financial aid award, which the school will provide at the time of offering admission. </p>
<p>All contracts rest on the concept of a “meeting of the minds”. Since colleges choose not to disclose the specific methodology they use in determining “need”, it is clearly foreseeable that in some cases there will not be such a consensus in evaluation of financial aid – the college will feel it has put forth a good offer, the applicant will feel that the offer comes up short.</p>
<p>dstark to younghoss:“To assume that some poster who you don’t know is one of those unethical people says more about you than it does about the poster.”</p>
<p>RIIIIIIIIGHT. younghoss has only made it clear about a hundred times that he/she is talking hypotheticals and NOT making accusations of unethical behavior toward any poster on this thread.</p>
<p>Of course there are people who engage in unethical behavior. We don’t need hypotheticals to know this. Definitely not 100 times.</p>
<p>younghoss(post #1971):
"Where did u get the impression that bigname U was his first choice school, and that student was ready to commit?
“He is content to go to State U. but would be willing to go to BigName U if it was windfall.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by “willing” to go to BigNameU. He either prefers StateU and doesn’t applying to BigNameU. Or he prefers BigName U, knows he is unlikely to get enough FA, and submits an ED app on the wild chance of the “windfall.” If this student would never enroll, even with a huge FA award, why would he go to the trouble of applying to BigNameU in the first place? I can’t see anyone bothering with the scenario you propose if they have no intention of ever enrolling, even with a FA “windfall.”</p>
<p>I can, however, imagine that a student who really prefers BigName U, but can’t afford it, would apply ED just to learn the FA award. In the unlikely event that it’s a “windfall”, he would then happily enroll. If it’s not enough FA, then he’s back to StateU. I see no problem with that.</p>
<p>vossron (post #1972):
“Why isn’t it this simple:
Declining an ED FA offer from the one dream school is ethical.
Applying ED to a non-dream-school, just to see the FA offer, is unethical, as is declining such offer.”</p>
<p>Well, I don’t believe in dream schools and I don’t think it’s that simple. Some students have schools they definitely <em>prefer</em> and would definitely attend if they receive enough FA. And I think those students should absolutely apply RD. But if it happens that a student does apply ED to this preferred school in the unrealistic hope of receiving enough FA, I don’t judge it unethical. There are too many scenarios that can result in this honest, though stupid mistake, starting with poor guidance from the high school. If it works, great. But it is unlikely to work and now the student will face the consequences: if admitted with insufficient FA, he is now unable to attend the preferred school and is potentially banned from submitting applications to peer schools. It’s just not a very beneficial strategy and I don’t think it’s worth worrying about.</p>
<p>berryberry61 (post #1981),</p>
<p>The way ED is handled in bookmama’s high school is exactly the same way it is handled in ours. But this is not how it is handled at all schools, and it is not the law. Smart GC’s know it is in the family’s best interest to apply RD and weigh all FA offers at one time. It’s also smart advice if they want to remain on good professional terms with the colleges, which want their ED students to end up enrolling.</p>
<p>Telling students not to apply ED “unless finances are not an issue” is absolutely the smartest advice to give. However, it is technically incorrect. Colleges, through their websites and marketing materials, are encouraging exactly the opposite by telling kids who need FA to apply ED. So there is a contradiction here. I think it would be best if the colleges themselves stated very clearly that ED is not appropriate for FA applicants. But they won’t do that because they want to appear to be “need-blind.” Instead of saying it themselves, the colleges are relying on high school GC’s to get the message across, but not all high schools operate in the same manner and not all families get the message.</p>
<p>If these purported people who work in financial aid think Calmom is wrong, why don’t they post on the thread? I’m not interested in secondhand claims that they have pm’d some posters.</p>
<p>Sometimes people want anonymity here on these boards, and choose not to make public their role, for fear of constant questions. You know, like when you are at a party and there is a doctor/lawyer in the room, and people start hammering them with questions for free advice? ;)</p>
<p>Plus, with holiday travel plans, you may not see as many people posting around this time of year. </p>
<p>Or, you may simply have those same FA people who have posted - countless times over the years - a rebuttal, only to be told off by 17 year old kids who haven’t been to college, yet. Or their parents who haven’t filled out a FAFSA, yet. </p>
<p>Most of the folks I know who work in these offices simply don’t want to spend more time on a college discussion board or spending their free time banging their head against the wall trying to correct the myths that are abundant with the college admissions and financial aid process.</p>
<p>^Apparently they had time to PM. They can make up anonymous screennames just like the rest of us - and apparently have since they sent PMs. This is the parent section of CC, which is not dominated by 17 yo’s.</p>
<p>“I’m not interested in secondhand claims that they have pm’d some posters.”</p>
<p>Just in case my post is meant, for the record, my PM was with a fellow poster in this thread, not with an official of any school.</p>
<p>So what do you want them to do, tell posters what college they work for? Or have multiple screen names or alter egos for different parts of CC? ;)</p>
<p>Come on, lighten up. Whether we are parents or students or work in the field of college admissions, there is a ton of information here and it isn’t always completely accurate. If you don’t see that, sorry. </p>
<p>For the record, I am in the college admissions field, and no I prefer not to tell you who I am affiliated with. </p>
<p>I have seen wrong information dispensed over the years at CC for a variety of subjects and I am always astounded at how often a kid pops up on here and gets questionable advice. I am also equally amazed at how gracious people are to come in and give of their time and knowledge to help those they don’t know. Your mileage may vary, though. </p>
<p>The best solution for any student pondering ED or EA or SCEA or RD or whatever kind of admissions they are applying under is to read the rules that govern the application procedure. Then, after understanding these implications, proceed with caution.</p>
<p>Same with the EFC Calculators. They only give an estimate - hence “Estimated Family Contribution”.</p>
<p>I would prefer to see most students apply with EA or RD, because I think they are generally more advantageous for the student so that they can compare ALL financial aid options, including merit scholarships. It’s hard to see what kind of EA package you might get if you apply and are accepted ED. It seems like the potential for selling a student short is much more likely with this option of ED.</p>
<p>Unless they have the financial resources to do so and are absolutely convinced that this school is the perfect school for them. Then ED is fine. </p>
<p>Most kids I know don’t get this. They see applying ED as a hedge against their other bets and feel like they can pull the “get out of jail free card” of telling a college “no thanks, the money isn’t good enough”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two quick points:</p>
<ol>
<li>When it comes to “advice” or “opinions” about financial aid, the issue is not so much about being wrong as it is about being irrelevant to an individual case. Again, every case is different … because of different facts and different interpretations by different financial aid officers at different schools. Pfft! That is a lot of difference. As we know, the Profile addresses a number of questions that go deeper than the FAFSA form and does indeed permit the school to scrutinize the finances of families to a deeper level. Simple things such as “real” equity in a house or a business are subject to VERY different interpretations. Accordingly, it is a FACT that the candidates for (upward) revisions of their (federal) EFC are mostly middle class families and that self-employed people might not expect to have non-cash expenses such as depreciation reversed and added to their taxable income. </li>
</ol>
<p>Again, nobody is WRONG in stating personal experiences. It is however wrong to believe or pretend that the schools are devious or are taking advantage of the ignorance of applicants. </p>
<ol>
<li>As far as people with known experience in FA matters, I believe that some have posted in this thread, especially to describe the SPIRIT of ED applications. I believe that they posted their position and moved on after seeing the relentless effort to dismiss their … professional opinion. Who could blame them since after 2000 posts (just as it was after 1000 posts) this thread still debates the exact same points that should have been elucidated after a couple of posts. </li>
</ol>
<p>At the end of the day, people who are determined to support the notion that ED should be a free-for-all and not enforceable agreement that could (when abused) allow some student to compare financial offers will NEVER change their mind. Others who believe that the ED can and should allow students to obtain a CONDITIONAL release will equally stand by their principles.</p>
<p>
I agree. And the rules of ED say that an applicant may decline for financial reasons. This is the heart of the problem because it’s confusing and certainly runs counter to everything I was told – that an ED contract could not be broken for any reason if you are accepted. I think it’s great that this clause is in the contract, but it’s also the source of potential problems.
Not according to colleges – they openly encourage ED applications from those who need FA.</p>
<p>Therein, lies the problem, annerouku. </p>
<p>But you have to think about it from the college’s perspective. ED helps them guarantee numbers of attendees. A captive audience. They don’t get that guidance counselors all across the land are telling a student that you may be better off applying EA or RD in terms of a potential merit scholarship, or that it is not binding. </p>
<p>If the college wants you, great. If they don’t, students will not have a chance to fill out Early Action applications. </p>
<p>ED shifts the power to the college side, not the applicant side. This is why they want people to apply this way. It also allows colleges to review some apps earlier and say yes or no or maybe, making their decisionmaking a longer timeline process. Which also helps the college adcoms in shaping their freshman class. </p>
<p>It may benefit the student who can afford to go or gets in with a marvelous aid package. But it is still a big gamble, isn’t it?</p>
<p>lgm, concerning a student needing FA who does have the one dream school above all others, in your experience are the FA offers at ED vs. RD time mostly the same, or mostly different (and then which way)? Thanks, and thank you for your posts!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aah 2,000 posts later and an finally an admission counselor who actually between the lines says ED is primarily for the wealthy (“who have the financial resources to do so”) and the athletes. ROTFL but in an exasperated way.</p>
<p>
Like that isn’t what most of us have been saying for 2,000 posts.</p>
<p>
Well duh, that is why those students and families who are willing to gamble can fold if the financial package doesn’t work for them. </p>
<p>Frankly, I’m more curious where the colleges perceive the ethical obligation comes into play since our most boiterious poster claims to now have “inside information”- at the point of application or at the point of acceptance and finaid. If people want to gamble they I believe they can and that colleges encourage it through their marketing (I 've never been to Vegas or to a casino and they aren’t high on my list of places to visit) but I don’t begrudge people the right to gamble and I don’t have an ethical issue with people who do gamble or play poker or Monopoly. Off to make gingerbread.</p>
<p>Oh in terms of anonymity it depends on the individual. There is a wonderful person with a screen name Kelsmom on the Finaid forums who is so gracious with her time and quite upfront about the fact that she is in finaid at a public institution. I’m sure her PM is constantly full. I also don’t begrudge anyone their anonymity so I’m not poking at you specifically (thinking about my previous post and my comment about ROTFL). I’ve deleted at least several dozen posts because of TMI. I discount posts that begin so and so is a friend of such and such and so and so told me that such and such told here or there who told such and such who told me…</p>