<p>
</p>
<p>That may be the case among those still actively left on the thread. I think most who disagree (from many pages back) have left the thread as the back and forth rather clearly showed that there wasn’t any real middle ground. </p>
<p>As someone asked a few pages back, has anyone changed their minds? My impression is no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The admission rate for women was 19% in 2008 vs. 9% for men.</p>
<p>3ks, I don’t understand your answer. Was there a school that would not let a family out of ED for a full ride? Which one?</p>
<p>Dstark, again, is this discussion about the OP being able to “get out” of her ED commitment? </p>
<p>Or is it about being able to keep it alive as other FUTURE decisions come in?</p>
<p>The OP must accept or decline Penn’s offer by Jan 1, so she can’t wait to compare offers. </p>
<p>I do think that the OP would be committing an ethical violation if she declined Penn on financial grounds and then accepted an offer from MIT (or any other school) that wasn’t significantly better. I think MIT gets to determine what significantly better means. They are the ones with the power to judge her ethics and withdraw her offer. </p>
<p>I think the proper move, one that would maintain Penn as the first choice, would be to take a significantly better need-based financial offer that crosses the threshold of acceptability, from MIT or whomever, and armed with the independent assessment of need, ask Penn to reconsider their own calculation, even after she has declined. I think Penn should and would reconsider after she has already borne the risk of declining the first time. </p>
<p>I don’t think it would be unreasonable for Penn to put her on the ED list that it circulates with an asterisk indicating that the candidate declined for financial reasons. I then don’t think it would be unreasonable for MIT to ask the candidate to prove to them that MIT’s offer was significantly better and to withdraw the offer if it deems that an ethical violation occurred. </p>
<p>Can she get away with an unethical strategy? I didn’t think so, but maybe. However, I do agree that such a strategy is unethical and if MIT found out, with be within their rights to deny her even after she matriculates. It seems very risky to me. She could lose even the full ride if MIT expels her after May 1. </p>
<p>I still don’t know the OP’s intent and am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>“That is absurd. Penn explicitly permits ED students to apply to EA and rolling admission schools.”</p>
<p>What does that have to do with anything? Of course they can apply to rolling admissions and EA schools so they have choices if they are denied ED. Should they be accepted, however, they are obligated to accept the offer. If kids can compare EA, rolling and ED packages, then ED becomes EA, which it is not (despite people here wishing to make it so). And financial aid is reevaluated yearly, so as someone mentioned before, the student is free to make a different choice come sophomore year if the financial strain is too much for the family, or if she no longer wishes to carry large loans.</p>
<p>I agree with mostly every thing CRD has had to say and would add: in the spirit of speculating about the OP:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>She may very well have had the intent of trying to find a way to go to MIT, if accepted, when she started this thread, either for foolish teenage reasons, good but misguided reasons, or the evil intent some have ascribed to her.</p></li>
<li><p>She may have been completely baffled by the process, given that her EA, ED and state apps all fall within the rules of an ED application.</p></li>
<li><p>She may just be fantasizing MIT will give her a free ride like the state school (Dream on!)…or whatever other idea she may have unreasonably gotten into her head after beating the odds and being accepted to Penn.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>However, whatever her original intent, it seems clear that she “got” what was being said, removed her posts from the MIT thread, and probably will give Penn the opportunity to come closer to state offer. Given her ambition (Penn MIT, etc…), if she has to accept the state ride, she will feel she lost out, and so, I believe, knowing that MIT is essentially off the table, she will negotiate in good faith. Penn has a very good record of meeting need, and she will probably end up there.</p>
<p>This is my scenario, as accurate as anyone’s, and regardless of the “ethics” of schools or students, if the intent of the posters on this thread was to educate a student, discuss the ins and outs and vagarries of ED, and illuminate the process for the sake of OP and other students, it does so. If the intent is simply to continue to bash the OP for perhaps originally hoping to be able to go to MIT, it ought to stop now. She’s a kid. Live and learn.</p>
<p>^^^^You can see how being EA reflects on Chicago’s yield.</p>
<p>Her OP said her Penn package was “not too horrible.” The discussion sort of stops there if you ask me (as marite said early on). I don’t see how that opinion constitutes “bashing.”</p>
<p>poetgrl, I think the truth lies somewhere in your analysis. </p>
<p>For the record, I think Penn is a very classy institution. I don’t think they still do this, but my recollection from my own college application days was that after I turned down Penn to go to MIT (all RD), they sent me a letter telling me that should I ever change my mind, even after I’ve matriculated to another school, their doors were still open to me. I remember thinking that was unusually gracious, and no other institution that I turned down made such an generous offer.</p>
<p>
It’s different in a few key ways. We don’t know that OP has a complicated financial situation at all. Plus, your scenario didn’t include the factor of eagerly anticipating the admission results of a third university. </p>
<p>Oh, wait, she didn’t “apply” to the state university, right? She sent in an app (according to a post), but when someone mentioned the MIT issue, suddenly she didn’t “apply” after all to the state university. So we can’t count that! Because then she would have been caught in a mistruth – she then claims she still only applied to two universities when it was really three.</p>
<p>As far as my statements being “racist,” I disagree. That “racist” card gets thrown around a lot; I notice others in this thread were also called “racist.” She’s the one who played up her immigrant status. No one else can mention it? And remember her depiction of her school as “crappy,” immediately followed by the words “full of minorities and poors.” She is the one who equated “crappy” with “full of minorities and poors.” So who’s the racist here? </p>
<p>I read all of her posts, and to me it seemed like she and her parents didn’t do their homework very well. They assumed that she would get a full ride from UPenn. So because they didn’t do their homework, she is allowed to walk away from UPenn’s offer. She really didn’t sound very disappointed, did she? Of course not. She has the free ride in her pocket, and maybe even an MIT acceptance that she can accept! (Or so she thinks.) Is she so delusional that she thinks MIT’s offer will be substantially better than UPenn’s? Or does she not really care, as she thinks the same amount of money will buy an MIT education, which she now prefers over UPenn? </p>
<p>No one should criticize me for MY speculation, when there’s been plenty of speculation by others. </p>
<p>And there is MIT waiting in the wings. Again, it seems to me that she never mentioned negotiating with UPenn; she was very eager to see her MIT EA admission results. Everyone who says they are waiting for her finaid appeal to UPenn are basing the existence of her appeal on what? I also don’t understand why all of her MIT posts were removed. Only one had her stats. Is she somehow trying to hide the fact that she is eagerly anticipating the MIT EA decision? Why? If it is all just fine?</p>
<p>I’m not “bitter.” I’m appalled and disgusted that people are condoning her actions. ED? Everyone apply, and then your “out” is that you don’t like the financial aid offer. </p>
<p>She said she would “explain” but then ran away and hasn’t been back. Why doesn’t she explain? Parents didn’t run her off. Rather, she’s been caught in a web of her own making and ran off because she realizes she will probably get further caught in her own “stretches of the truth.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really do not understand where this attitude comes from. I don’t think any school is in the business of entrapping students. They would rather have a group of happy students who could well afford to go to their school. It does them no good in admitting students who would withdraw only a year later due to financial reason. I see a real entitlement here. I think one needs to remember it is a privilege to receive any aid from those schools, many alumni have made it possible for those students to attend, it is not everyone’s right to attend those colleges. Just because one is more needy doesn’t give one more rights. As some people have pointed out, a school like UPenn has made ED as fair as possible to everyone, there is no need to paint it as a big evil institution here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Deja, in my opinion, the difference between your speculation and the speculation that you find appalling can be found in the CC Terms of Service with regard to General Behavior. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my opinion, those that take her at her word are within the spirit of the agreement, those that respectfully disagree with her actions are within their privilege to express their contrary opinions. But those that accuse her of malfeasance and make her unwelcome or uncomfortable, have violated their CC terms of service.</p>
<p>I hope you can see the difference between the last two options.</p>
<p>“Dstark, again, is this discussion about the OP being able to “get out” of her ED commitment?” </p>
<p>We don’t know the OPs situation so we can only speculate.</p>
<p>However we do know, without any doubt, according to Penn’s words, that a student can get out of an ED acceptance for financial reasons. So that debate is closed.</p>
<p>As for significant time… Nobody who argued that a student can get out of ED for financial reasons, and these people were correct, argued about a student getting significant time to shop for financial packages. </p>
<p>Penn has a deadline. If Penn wanted to do this, it could have made the deadline 72 hours after the ED acceptance to respond. But Penn doesn’t do this. So take up the deadline issue with Penn. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn’t be a deadline.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ConCernedDad - I saw that as well and agree with you - the OP is trying to unethically game the system. Perhaps she aspires to be the next Bernie Madoff</p>
<p>Calmom</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If she had reservations about the programs or academics at Penn - she should have never applied ED. Doing so was wrong, and trying now to get out of her obligation but still get in to MIT is unethical. Most GCs make students who apply ED aware of the ramifications</p>
<p>Deja, let it go… What is the use of filling yourself with such contemptuous feelings against a person that you know from a few posts that she did on a public forum? There is a system in place to deal with such things, college admission offices were not born yesterday, I believe they know how to handle these kinds of things.</p>
<p>
All I just did was point out her very own words. I “took her at her word.” Because I (and others) pointed out the inconsistency, we are going against TOS? Oh, wait, only you can disagree! Right?</p>
<p>
Thank goodness!</p>
<p>Sparklesplash</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry about your dissapointment. I am glad you have morals and ethics unlike the OP and some others. You will do fine at another institution and in life in general with your attitude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mummom - you weren’t a sucker. You did the right thing. You acted in a responsible, ethical and moral manner. Just because others advocate gaming the system does not make it right nor something others should strive for</p>
<p>Deja, as long as you didn’t question her motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics or posted in a manner that makes other members unwelcome or uncomfortable then you did not go against TOS. </p>
<p>I certainly have no problem with you disagreeing with me.</p>
<p>dstark—Your post on page 32 in response to my post was not necessary or justified.
Go back and reread my post than tell me exactly why it was racist.</p>
<p>ClassicRockerDad—Reread my post because my experience with this type of thing spans over 15 years of having direct contact with Asian parents and children. If my words offended you or anyone else than it is the actions of the people I mentioned that are offensive to you. I spoke the truth and if you reread my post you will see that there is nothing in it to warrant such a response.</p>
<p>Midmo----There are many Asian groups…and some groups are more concerned with education than others. If the truth is offensive to others than political correctness has become a term used to stiffle free speech. I did not say anything awful or mean spirited about Asians. I stated facts from what I see day in and day out in my professional life.</p>