No, they don’t. That is why they provide an escape clause.
You’re so right. That’s why colleges can differ so grossly in what they consider “100%” and “need” and still claim to meet 100% of need and urge financially needy students to apply ED!
You seem to equate ignorance and gullibility with lack of ethics. Even so, it has been stated time and again that even families that did their homework were taken aback by the financial aid they were offered. You seem to want blood. You also seem extremely angry.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call it angry, marite. I might call it frustrated. You and some otheres here seem to be in some sort of imaginary competition for “heart.” Oh, those poor, poor applicants who got taken in by those big mean ol’ colleges proclaiming 100% of need! You and others here are not helping the situation, imo. What you are doing is taking a tiny segment of the college applicant population who MAY not understand that 100% of need is not of their family’s need and putting it forth as a reason why ANYONE can renege on their ED binding commitment (along with that other ever popular excuse–differing aid packages). I personally find it kind of repugnant.</p>
<p>Mummom, with all due respect, I do not understand what you’re trying to say. Since this is easily one of the most circular threads on CC ever, I have no clue about what your position is or was a few days ago. </p>
<p>It should not be that hard to state your position clearly and concisely.</p>
<p>I don’t agree that anyone is characterizing the applicants as needing sympathy against big mean colleges. Some of us believe the schools could market themselves more honestly, and I personally consider the term “100% of need” to be deliberately misleading. It’s not descriptive and it’s not necessary. At the very least, it leads to some ill-advised ED applications.</p>
<p>Furthermore, schools actively encourage FA applicants to apply ED. I understand why they do this – they want to be able to claim that they are “need-blind.” But ED is really not in the best interest of most FA applicants. The schools recognize that they must provide a financial out or no FA student would apply ED – that’s just how the system works. We have the recent example of the Brown applicant who could not afford the FA he received and is very disappointed to have to decline. Given how easily Brown permitted his withdrawal, I believe the schools are much less conflicted about the issue than most of the posters here.</p>
<p>But what specifically are you objecting to? The truth is, with the current system, anyone can decline for financial reasons. It is officially permitted under the agreement – it is not “reneging.” Now there may be good or bad reasons for declining, but no one, including the schools, can look into the heart of the applicant and discover the true reason for withdrawal. Some may decline because they didn’t understand the meaning of “100% need”, some may have done their research and simply received an unworkable package, others may have simply changed their minds – I’m not saying that all reasons are equally good, but how would you really know in any case? In the end, all these students will potentially be punished with no further chance to apply to peer schools and most will have lost out on their dream school. The only way to truly police this is to eliminate the escape clause, and clearly it happens so rarely that the schools themselves have decided they would rather permit the release than to choose the alternative, which would be to make ED only for full-payers.</p>
<p>Well, you will have to ask them to be 100% certain but I believe:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>anonymity is a big reason. When I first started posting, in my profile I had info about what I do and I quickly learned that was a mistake to include that</p></li>
<li><p>many professionals have weighed in on this thread regarding the ethics and spirit of the ED agreement and stopped posting long ago because their is an obstinate group of 6 or so hellbent on dismissing their professional opinion because they have no ethics and believe Ed should be a free for all system to be gamed. </p></li>
<li><p>Perhaps some folks don’t want to put up with the aggravation and ridiculous comments of some posters like these to examples posted to littlegreenmom - who has said she is a college admissions professional:</p></li>
</ol>
<p>from dstark
</p>
<p>from bluebayou
</p>
<p>How would you feel as a professional posting here to be outright insulted by obtuse posters like this?</p>
<p>AMEN. It appears the inmates have taken over the asylum here. Reading some of the posts that the cadre of 6 have made over the last several days (including Christmas) just boggles the mind. How they can still advocate unethical gaming of the system is beyond pale. How they can continue to criticize colleges for the amount of the colleges OWN money they are being awarded for aid is incomprehensible.</p>
<p>Parent’s and their student bear the PRIMARY responsibility for funding their education - not the colleges. All those whining because the aid they were given isn’t what they wanted should be ashamed of themselves. If you don’t like the GIFT of aid a college is giving you, find another college</p>
<p>This is precisely what the supposedly ethics-challenged posters on this thread have been saying over the last 141 pages! </p>
<p>Some posters have given their experiences as examples of the gap between what colleges are willing to give and what families can afford. They have not been arguing about ethics in the abstract, nor have they been “whining.”</p>
<p>I started out by upholding the need of applicants to honor their ED commitment if the offer is adequate (or even barely adequate) and refrain from gaming the system, as the OP appeared to be doing. I stand by that attitude. For the record, I no longer have a child in college.</p>
<p>I’ve got to admit I’m getting a little confused by this thread as it progresses. At first I thought it was pretty easy to identify which players were on which “team” - it sort of seemed like you had calmom and dstark on one side, with mummom, berryberry, and xiggi on the other. But now I find that mummom and xiggi seem to disagree. But I can’t stay away from this monster as confusing as it gets and as unimportant as it is to me in real life. </p>
<p>I guess the truth is that these various methods of admission, along with their various rules, and the various interpretations of adequacy of FA, have made for a hugely diverse and confusing continuum of opinon on what is legal, what is ethical, and what is proper. It seems like the continuum stretches all the way from “Never apply ED unless you are certain you will go to that school no matter what, even if you lose your source in income or undergo some other calamity”, to “ED is just another way of applying which really carries no legally enforceable rules whatsoever, and no particular ethical constraints. Use it as you feel fit.” </p>
<p>I don’t actually believe there are any people on the extremes I mentioned here, that’s just for illustrations. But there are probably as many different nuanced positions in between as there are posters on the thread.</p>
<p>I must say after reading through ALMOST all of this thread I decided to do a little research. My son is a couple of years away from applying and who knows ED may be a thing of the past by that time. He is determined (which could very well change given the amount of time and the fact that he is a TEENAGER) to apply ED to his #1 choice school.</p>
<p>I found this link on the Project on Student Debt and just within these few schools there is a big difference in what they consider a student’s need.</p>
<p>Once you pass $40,000 most of the schools expect 25% of your income. There are a few schools including a few Ivy’s that have more generous FA packages.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link Debatemom. I did not know about it.</p>
<p>It’s interesting to note that Harvard and MIT, both claiming to meet the full need of undergraduate students, expect vastly different amounts of contributions from the students’ families. For families with income of $60k, the amounts vary from about $4k at Harvard to about $16k at MIT. A four-fold difference! Interestingly, Princeton, which offered my young friend $7k more per year than MIT nearly 10 years ago, expects families to pay $14k, or nearly as much as MIT and a lot more than Harvard.</p>
<p>One example… $80,000 income…$250,000 net worth, some of that wealth illiquid…and a family is expected to contribute $25,000 a year at some schools. </p>
<p>Not easy.</p>
<p>Bovertine, have you ever read the book, “The Outliers”? Chapter 4… “The Trouble with Geniuses, Part 2”. “After Protracted Negotiations, It Was Agreed That Robert Would Be Put 0n Probation”.</p>
<p>The arguments about ethics in this thread are ridiculous. Information. Knowledge. And being savvy when using that knowledge. That helps people. </p>
<p>Mummom, it doesn’t help people to add rules to situations when they don’t exist. To tell people they should act in a matter that is neither required nor helpful, but potentially harmful.</p>
<p>The fact that you looked at the ED situation and came to a conclusion that worked for you, doesn’t mean that your conclusion is the only conclusion, the ethical conclusion, and that others should come to the same conclusion.</p>
<p>I’m glad your choice…Worked for you.</p>
<p>I find that what you are expousing can be harmful to others. I don’t find your opinions ethical…definitely not more ethical than others. </p>
<p>The schools are not requiring students to accept ED when there are financial disagreements. And that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>dstark: With all due respect, I am at the point where, after reading all of your posts, I really do not think you are grasping it. I will leave it at that.</p>