<p>anneroku - that’s why we could debate about legality of this whole thing until cow comes home (dissecting each school’s ED agreement), but there is the practicality of it how it’s enforced. Common sense tells me that there is no reason for any school to be that diligent as to make sure a student is off another school’s ED list. At the end of day, a school could never be that wrong to just assume a student is still on the list.</p>
<p>poetgrl - sorry, I didn’t mean to offend.</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not think any ED school tells admitted students that they MUST attend, come hell, high water, or overwhelming debt. That is why Penn has an out clause: “if financial issues cannot be resolved.” If you feel that you only have $25k to spend and you are expected to pay $40-50k, this is where you discuss with the finaid officer. “If the financial issues cannot be resolved” then your child is released from ED, and the college will not notify peer institutions that your child is in breach of ED. If you really cannot make up the difference between $2k and $30k and the college cannot or will not cough up the extra $5k, I think your child would still be released and no harm done.
But if you walk away unilaterally or decide that you have $25k to spend, the college expects you to come up with $30k and for your child to make up the difference through summer savings, but you would rather your child go on vacation with you, that would probably cause a different reaction in the finaid office.</p>
<p>Mom - I’m on record as believing ED has no place in college admissions. So I agree with your comments and observations concerning its unfairness to families that are not wealthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>anneroku - we are not talking pure contract law here. What you state is incorrect. Other colleges do abide by ED decisions from other peer schools. Think of it this way - in the OPs case - MIT has the chance to admit an unethical student who backed out of her Penn ED agreement - or a different student - with great stats AND ethics. Who would you admit?</p>
<p>The reason why colleges honor other school’s ED lists is they want honorable, ethical students. They do not want someone who has weaseled out of an ED agrrement with one of their peers when they have so many other choices</p>
<p>there is a reason Harvard recently began requiring “Ethics” course. I think it’s a good idea.
I hope Harvard and other schools don’t admit smart but scummy students(a Dstark phrase). More importantly, I hope they don’t graduate smart but scummy adults.</p>
<p>A college offering “fair and generous” FA has no specific meaning. “Good running car” has no specific meaning. Op called her school crappy, yet she tells us of very nice testing scores. Student says the offer is not horrible. Has no one here ever said they hated their boss on a bad day? Or that they hated their job? Sometimes we say things exaggerated by our emotions. A student who says offer is not horrible when that student want out of her agreement is likely to underplay the offer because she wants out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>dstark - funny how you try to cherrypick one sentence in that post. Did you read the while thing. here is the rest of the post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the facts posted, there has been no significant change in the OP’s financial condition from when she applied. The economy was crap before she applied - it has not changed in the 6 weeks or so since she applied.</p>
<p>As to what if you don’t have a counselor from a private college prep school? The OP still would have had a GC from her school who had to counsel and sign off on the ED agreement with the OP and her parents. Their GC would have known the rules. Please don’t try to make the OP and her counseler out as naive in the process. For someone to apply to PENN and MIT and get accepted at Penn ED - these are not dumb people we are talking about.</p>
<p>There is nothing on Penn’s web site about needing a changed financial condition. </p>
<p>So if Penn is telling your school you need a changed financial condition to get out of ED, then Penn is telling your school privately something more restrictive than what is stated on the web site, and that is scummy.</p>
<p>And the counselor at my kid’s public school for 330 students did not know the exact details of what Penn wants. And I would bet there are plenty of counselors that don’t know.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see what OP’s GC said to her about all of this.</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, the scenario you presented in Post #865 (ED school’s best FA offer requires more $$ contribution from family than comfortable after a real evaluation and consideration) is very different than the scenario you summarized in Post #867 (OP wanting to bail on ED acceptance because a ‘better deal’ comes from some school completely outside and separate from the ED agreement parties’ and their dealings)</p>
<p>Post #865 scenario, the student/family is operating within the spirit of the ED agreement between the parties. (The presumption would be that the FA models run before committing to ED application reflected roughly the $25K expected contribution with the plus/minus factors within the family’s possible, if not most preferred amount.)Being released from the ED agreement is quite probable with no hard feelings or loss of face. No ethics or honor at risk. Simply an application of the Release clause provided in the ED agreement.</p>
<p>Post #867 scenario, the student/family is operating counter to the spirit of the ED agreement between the parties. The focus for declining the admission acceptance there is on receiving a better FA offer from a third party. This is NOT likely to satisfy the Release requirements of the ED agreement. (I believe the spirit of the ED agreement is that the Release application is dependent on an evaluation such as you’ve gone through in Post #865. ) </p>
<p>I still contend that in Post #867 scenario, it would be unethical and irresponsible to ‘walk’ away from the ED admission. Possible, yes; honorable & ethical, no.</p>
<p>Celleradweller, if you have read the whole thread, you might note that very early on I state (in ‘plain language’) that although a college may have every right to enforce an ED agreement in a court of law, it would be cost prohibitive and impractical to do so. </p>
<p>Simply because it is impractical to pursue one’s rights in a court of law does not mean that right doesn’t exist. It also doesn’t mean it isn’t reasonable to explore the legal elements of that set of facts. </p>
<p>Lawyers make value judgments and recommendations for their clients everyday regarding both the legal outcome of a judicial review of a set of facts and circumstances along with the practical realities of pursuing the judicial review of that set of facts and circumstances. Sometimes, what one gets out of such a judicial pursuit doesn’t justify the expense of time and money (and/or emotional energy) spent in pursuing it. Sometimes, even with the expense of the time and money and the monetary outcome being little more than establishing the ‘legal answer’ once and for all, it is worth the expenditure. </p>
<p>As for ED being a contract of adhesion, well, once again, the choice is the student’s and family to apply ED. There is no scenario (that I’ve been presented with yet anyway) that makes it absolutely imperative that ED is the ONLY choice for the student to have an opportunity to apply to the school. There is always RD; there is also ED with an election to change to RD before the acceptance is offered. The student has choices between at least two application options. If the student opts for the ED choice, there are specific terms and consequences that come with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No dstark - what I said is our GCs are laughing at you and others trying to parse words on Penn’s website and trying to push your own meaning onto them</p>
<p>berryberry61 (post 885): But I’m not talking about someone who “weaseled out” of an ED agreement or who is unethical. Aside from the OP, what about a student who is released <em>by Penn</em> from the ED contract for financial reasons that it finds to be legitimate. This is clearly permitted by Penn and the student has not done anything wrong technically or ethically. If the name still appears on the ED list, and the student is rejected from other schools just for this reason, it seems unfair to me.</p>
<p>But that’s the risk you took when you applied ED - that if you turned down the ED because of FA, you’d still be effectively seen as having ED’d by peer schools. That’s what distinguishes it from RD in which no such notification is made or “threatened”.</p>
<p>berryberry81, the meaning of the words are not that difficult. </p>
<p>If Penn wants more restrictions on ED, why don’t they post them publicly, instead of telling counselors privately?</p>
<p>Because this isn’t hard to figure out…</p>
<p>“if financial issues cannot be resolved.”</p>
<p>“If the student opts for the ED choice, there are specific terms and consequences that come with it.”</p>
<p>I believe a significant proportion of the posters on this thread are suggesting that the terms are adjudged by the APPLICANT rather than the school, and because of that any CONSEQUENCES would be unethical. </p>
<p>What am I missing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahhh back to the old website are we dstarks. I am sure there are lots of things not on any colleges website that happen in practice. Everything is not written down. The website language is general language - it is not the be all and end all. As I stated, you continue to try and parse words and assign your own meaning to Penn’s website and that is wrong. If you read the language, it is very general</p>
<p>Treemaven, I see your point and most here would say that a family heavily in debt (as the OP says her family is) probably should not sign an ED contract since debt is not considered. That was probably mistake one. However, if in fact, the OPs family is heavily in debt that should be consideration for Penn to release her to take the free ride. My scenario was one that I attempted to concoct for a middle class family that would be of comparable age to my family and our friends in the middle of the college years. We’re a tad older but I liked the use of a low EFC high institutional number because I think those are the parents that are the most on the fence about ED and those are the people that tend to be nearing retirement and most likely have diversified portfolios as opposed to a younger 40ish family who may have income and 401K and a mortgage.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, you’re right: "But that’s the risk you took when you applied ED - that if you turned down the ED because of FA, you’d still be effectively seen as having ED’d by peer schools. That’s what distinguishes it from RD in which no such notification is made or “threatened”.</p>
<p>That’s another proof that those needing FA should not apply ED. If a student who is legitimately released by Penn from the ED agreement will still be punished by remaining on the ED list, it should be stated explicitly. If it’s true, then the option for release has a penalty attached that needs to be explained and Penn has no business encouraging those who need FA to apply ED in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>anneroku - it may seem unfair, but it is reality. When schools make awards, particularly peer schools, many will be in the same overall cost of attendance ballpark. No peer school of Penn will want to admit Student A who was admitted ED at Penn and declined for financial reasons because they will view the student as unethical. The reason is that they are unlikely to offer a significantly superior FA package and they have the benefit of having a host of other applicants who all would be great admits.</p>
<p>That is the risk one takes in applying ED. If you want to shop around - apply RD.</p>
<p>Personally I would never recommend anyone needing FA to apply ED.</p>
<p>dstark - yes indeed the meaning of words are not that difficult, thats why I have such a hard time understanding why you are being so obstinate and obtuse when you continue to try to apply your own meaning to the very general terminology on Penn’s website</p>