decline an early decision acceptance offer?

d_smom · December 15, 2009, 11:45am

Pizzagirl,

These colleges try very hard to not only attract kids with money(obviously someone has to pay the bills), but they try very, very hard to attract minorities, foreign students and socioeconomically challenged students as well. These top colleges vie for the ranking spots that show their college has “X” amount of students receiving aid, and “X” amount of students of various ethnic backgrounds, and “X” amount of foreign students…

And, if the schools are ethical(which I believe for the most part they are), their way of admitting a student is they go through admissions process first and then once they are accepted their file is sent to the FA office and the award/package is put together.

Personally I think Penn will be just fine with a student going to MIT over Penn, but that doesn’t mean that if we are to presume that the OP does end up at MIT and the package is basically the same that the way in which the OP gets there is ethical.

dstark · December 15, 2009, 11:50am

“And if by some chance that student had second thoughts again, and wound up at MIT, which had accepted her before she turned down Columbia . . . Would Columbia follow up enough to know that? Would it go to MIT in May and demand that the admission be withdrawn?”

Where does MIT give Columbia the authority to tell MIT what to do?

bovertine · December 15, 2009, 11:50am

I pretty much agree completely. 
In fact, I would not even go so far as to say “she” (meaing OP) was unfaithful in her heart. I have no idea what’s in her head, I haven’t seen her financial statements or academic records. At this point, she’s just a collection of pixels on a screen to me.

I was really just positing a true hypothetical, which did involve a bit of mind reading as far as the hypothetical person’s intentions. I made them up - so I gave them thoughts. I could envision a master plan totally unrelated to finances where a person maximizes their ability to gain admission to elite universities using loopholes in the ED system. Even under my hypothetical I don’t think the person is doing anything illegal, or really deserves any punishment.

xiggi · December 15, 2009, 11:50am

Haha, Dstark. That is priceless.

ClassicRockerDad · December 15, 2009, 11:51am

Columbia’s policy is very interesting also. It’s seems as though students who decline Columbia’s ED offer on financial grounds, are released to pursue options at schools that offer merit scholarships like USC and Duke.

While I believe that schools make every effort to calculate need based aid fairly, because collusion is prohibited by the 1993 antitrust settlement, it is possible that two offices looking at the same data could come up with very different numbers. Nobody’s perfect, though I’m sure they try to be.

What would happen if while looking for merit scholarships at these schools after declining Columbia, the independently derived need based offer from one of those schools turns out to be substantially more in line with the applicant’s expectation. In this case I would think that Columbia WOULD reconsider their offer and could potentially offer to match the need-based award.

The Columbia text is clearly a case where they don’t think it is unethical to walk away if you don’t feel like you can afford it. By doing so though, you are clearly taking a huge risk of ending up at an inferior school. They also make it clear, that you are NOT released to pursue options that cost the same or higher.

dstark · December 15, 2009, 11:54am

Xiggi, what’s your problem? Parents get to make the financial decision to go Columbia. Columbia’s own words.

“The Columbia text is clearly a case where they don’t think it is unethical to walk away if you don’t feel like you can afford it. By doing so though, you are clearly taking a huge risk of ending up at an inferior school. They also make it clear, that you are NOT released to pursue options that cost the same or higher.”

Yes.

ellemenope · December 15, 2009, 11:54am

After extending an ED offer to a candidate who requires financial aid, Penn and the applicant must BOTH deal with each other “in good faith” to come to a “workable” financial aid package. “Workable” may or may not mean a full ride in this case. We can’t tell without knowing the Penn package and OP’s financial status.

OP herself has been inconsistent on the workability of the package as it stands. She describes in her first post that the package was “not too horrible”–which implies that the package was workable but now with a State College full ride on the table, the package is much less desirable. But she later says that her parents can’t pay a thing and that she was hoping for a full ride from Penn–which implies that the package is not workable.

Assuming the latter situation, I don’t see anything wrong with telling Penn, “Look, your financial package says that my parents can afford to contribute $X,XXX a year for my education. That is $YY,YYY over a 4 year period. My parents would have to borrow all of that money and with their current large debt load, they can’t afford to take out those loans. Can you up your financial package? Because if you can’t, I won’t be able to come.”

Penn can either revise her package to something better or stand pat. OP can accept the package or move on.

The problem comes in rejecting a “workable” finaid package, ostensibly for financial reasons, because you got a better deal somewhere else or because you want to go to another school more than you want to go to Penn. That would not be acting in good faith.

We don’t know for sure whether Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 is the correct one at the moment.

As another poster wrote:

I agree. Unless there was a changed circumstance for the better in her family financial situation, that would be proof that she acted in bad with in rejecting the Penn offer.

d_smom · December 15, 2009, 11:55am

“Where does MIT give Columbia the authority to tell MIT what to do?”

They don’t technically, but they are both peer schools and I am sure have a lot of respect for one another and try to live by the creed “do unto others” if you will. If they never enforce or at least try to enforce the ED agreement, then it wouldn’t work very well now would it? The ED is a serious agreement and should be taken as such and everyone who signs it knows that.

ClassicRockerDad · December 15, 2009, 11:56am

bovertine I agree with you and JHS completely, though if the bad faith could be uncovered, I would hope the schools get wind and take appropriate action.

I have been operating the whole time that the OP was asking a question in good faith. She may or may not have been. Having a merit scholarship change a family’s financial perspective is not an act of bad faith in my opinion. That is where I differ with some posters.

d_smom · December 15, 2009, 11:58am

"The problem comes in rejecting a “workable” finaid package, ostensibly for financial reasons, because you got a better deal somewhere else or because you want to go to another school more than you want to go to Penn. That would not be acting in good faith. "

EXACTLY!!!

And, I think those of us who think that this may be unethical behavior are looking at it exactly the way you describe.

xiggi · December 15, 2009, 12:05pm

You just edited your reply. Allow me to point out that we are NOT talking about the same points. There are two elements here:

<ol>
<li>Who decides if attending Columbia is feasible?
Ultimately, it is the familys decision whether or not they feel capable of accepting the need-based Columbia financial aid award. </li>
<li>Who grants the release and under which terms?</li>
</ol>

a. The family must first speak with a financial aid officer, before the release is granted.
b. Those who do opt out of their Early Decision contract are released to pursue lower-cost school options, such as state schools and/or schools that award merit aid. The admission offer at Columbia is then cancelled.

The entire issue that separates us is very clear. In this thread and in others, your point is that there should be NO consequences for anyone to apply ED as there is no BINDING commitment to attend, or if there is one it can be eliminated by claiming inadequate financial aid.

My point, on the other hand, has been that, while the decision NOT to attend or accept the ED offer rests with the family or the student, the granting of the release is NOT necessarily automatic, and that conditions might be imposed by the schools before granting the … release. My point here that there ARE real consequences that could hinder a student’s ability to apply to other schools, accept a different offer, or even future problems such as violations of Honor codes at schools that could cause rescissions.

I think that time has come to agree to disagree. If you want to share your advice based on your assumptions, so be it. I know that I would tell anyone considering an ED application to understand that it is not a free-for-all, and that it is neither a free look or a secret loophole.

dstark · December 15, 2009, 12:07pm

Xiggi, I NEVER SAID there should or would be no consequences. Ok?

You can get out for financial issues. You can’t pay the same or more for another school.

So now, maybe we agree?

3Ks · December 15, 2009, 12:24pm

YES…thank you. I think this is the point that many are arguing for balance. I have not been comfortable with posters suggesting that it is easy or that there are no consequences to being released from ED.

ellemenope · December 15, 2009, 12:30pm

I thought that this was very interesting. If OP had applied to Columbia rather than Penn, then OP would have no problem in being released to accept the State College full ride, even if the Columbia offer was “workable”–it is up to the family to decide what is “capable.”

Columbia is assuming that applicants are acting in good faith and would only apply to those schools where the costs are actually lower or merit aid is available or both. Basically they are saying that you aren’t to apply to institutions that only give need-based aid–not to other super selective/competitor schools like themselves. Early action application to MIT would have to be withdrawn.

But then how could they really police that? Again, the system works on trust.

Pizzagirl · December 15, 2009, 12:33pm

What if colleges were upfront about “when we accept people ED, we send a list of those names to Colleges X, Y and Z. Be forewarned that if you turn down ED here because of financial aid issues, those other colleges will see / know that you have done so. Consequently if you have applied to any of them EA, be aware that … blah blah blah.”

marite · December 15, 2009, 12:34pm

Yes, it was never about legalities and decisions being enforceable (though a college could be sued for reneging on an offer). It was always about trust–which is a matter of ethics.

Columbia also makes it clear that it cares only about its peers; not about merit aid schools or state unis. The OP should be absolutely fine to go to full ride state U under these terms.

sybbie719 · December 15, 2009, 12:35pm

I don’t understand why people think that you get to negotiate, because you do not get to do so. Financial aid is not a car deal or something to be haggled. You get your financial aid package and if you feel that the package offered by Penn or any other school is not an accurate reflection of your financial situation you request a financial review. In requesting your review you amy state something like my EFC is 37,000 however, my spouse, kid had a major medical crises and we received a 87,000 hospital bill that is not covered by insurance. You provide documentation to the school regarding your financial situation, and the school may, emphasis on the word may amend your package. However, you are simply not going to get a new package because Penn or any other school did not take into consideration that you have $50,000 worth of credit card debt, you lost a ton in the stock market or your dead beat realative got you caught up in a pyramid scheme.

As I stated previously, most families know their financial situation when they apply ED (the reason why both the parent and the child signs the ED agreement). It is not to say that the financial bottom doesn’t fall out from under some families in the 6 week time frame, but it is highly unlikely that it does. Unless the money fairy comes to your house with a big financial windfall, your finacial situation is not changing between November 1 and mid December.

If the family has debt on November 1 there is a great likelihood that the debt is still going to exist mid december or as a matter of fact May 1.

d_smom · December 15, 2009, 12:38pm

ellenmope,

You are correct. It does work on trust, ethics and integrity and quite frankly what do you have if you don’t have those???

xiggi · December 15, 2009, 12:43pm

Dstark, actually I believe that at the end of this thread we might have slightly different opinions and perceptions, but that we should be able to agree on almost every factual element that was debated.

This thread could be CC counterpart to the Health Bill in Congress. :)

treemaven · December 15, 2009, 12:43pm

Thank you, Sally, for post #792. That’s what I understood was the terms of ED application and the financial aid opt-out and that comports with my legal training. Pretty much basic hornbook law.

As I (and several others) have opined: The full-ride scholarship from State U and the potential MIT FA offer are red herrings and have no bearing on the examination of whether the ED FA offer is adequate to permit attendance. Those two issues are ‘off-the table’ until the inquiry into whether the ED release contingency has been met.

Only AFTER the ED release is obtained (forever removing that admission offer from the table) would ANY attention then be turned to the consideration and weighing of the full-ride scholarship offer from State U and the potential MIT admission/FA package that would be now appropriately on the table.

Any consideration of the State U and/or MIT offerings prior to the resolution of the ED FA offer/admission status is premature and inappropriate pursuant to the terms of the ED agreement.

It is the acceptance/advocation of the co-mingling of the consideration of those offers that I (and several others, I believe) find to be unethical and irresponsible in terms of honoring the terms of the ED agreement between the student/family and the ED college.

The FA offer from the ED college should be viewed in its own right, essentially in a vacuum–as agreed upon by the applicant’s affirmation in the ED agreement that this is his/her first choice school and an offer of admission will be accepted if offered, barring the FA offer insufficiency.

(I still don’t see how any of the ED College’s actions --be it offer of admission, offer of FA, or having some quid pro quo in exchange for the early admittance decision–can be characterized as being as loathsome, unconscionable, or under-handed as quite a few posters see it. One may not like the schools, the process, or the results, but they are free to not make use of it.)

Just because one party to a contract/agreement is larger does not automatically make the resulting contract a ‘pig’ contract nor make it unconscionable. As long as the agreement was entered into at arm’s length, without fraud or coercion, and the terms are not illegal, a court of law will not look for reasons to re-write terms or results. Parties are free to contract whatever terms they choose to agree upon. Courts will not look for reasons to alter a contract—even if one party, in hind-sight, feels the contract/agreement terms favor the other party.

In the case of an ED agreement, that is not the only option the student has for applying to the college. So, the student is not in a rock and a hard place in terms of selecting ED over RD. What the student does need to do is evaluate which method of application better suits that student’s needs and wants. Furthermore, up until the time of decision, an ED application can be changed to RD at the student’s request. (So, to the extent a student starts to see possibilities at the State U–or any other school-- that he/she didn’t see at the time of the ED application election, there is still time to alter that decision.

Specific performance is not the only remedy for a breach of contract. A liquidated damages clause is not a required term of a contract. Nominal damages can be awarded. A court of law can most certainly find that a contract has been breached without a show of specific monetary damages. So, while a student/family that reneges on an ED agreement (assuming they do not prove that the Release provision is applicable to their circumstances–and as that is the party seeking to benefit from a particular contingency in the contract/agreement, that is the party who ‘bears the burden’ of proving the contingency is applicable) will not be ordered to attend the school or pay the tuition, it does not mean that there can’t be some other ‘remedy’ fashioned–be it nominal monetary damages (e.g. $1 or some other amount) or some equitable remedy.

The student/family can always ‘walk’ away from the ED acceptance. The question is will it be pursuant to the Release contingency clause or will it be ‘in breach’. One is an ethical and honorable action; one is not.

decline an early decision acceptance offer?

CONNECT WITH US