<p>Related article in NYTimes: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/education/17decision.html?_r=1&ref=education[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/education/17decision.html?_r=1&ref=education</a></p>
<p>Ethicists take different approaches, “schools” of ethicism so to speak. Most ethecists, however, would agree that tattling is rooted in envy. Tattlers position themselves as the “good person” who is following a perceived rule as opposed to the offender who is “not good” and skirting the perceived rule. Matters not if the person is a child tattling about a playground squabble or an adult tattling on another adult, the inner motivations are similar. Since I personally don’t envy the original poster nor do I feel a need to pass judgement whether the OPs motives were “good” or “not good” I personally see/saw no need to “tattle” on her. Everyone is entitled to their own position and even ethicists approach situations in different ways. The reason so many teachers, parents, day care providers say “don’t be a tattletale” to small children and have for generations is because, in general, things have a way of working themselves out within the boundaries of that particular society. This is not directed at you, Deja, or your motivations or disscounting your uncomfort, but rather as an example of why, perhaps, people, who for the most part consider themselves ethical, are not getting as excited as you about your perceptions.</p>
<p>I did NOTHING unethical, dstark. This thread is about ED, not EA. For you to imply that what I did was unethical is way off.</p>
<p>Deja, I think what people are trying to say is perhaps you don’t have the “lone” right position. Imagine yourself as the middle of a large circle. Perhaps all the people in that circle are ethical. They may be a distance away from you but they are within the circle. For many questions there can be more than one “right answer.” You can make decisions that are “right” for you but that does not mean that everyone else is “wrong.” They may, also, have a “right” answer that differs from yours but is “right.”</p>
<p>
Think what you will, but I did no such thing. Feel better that you got to spew some “venom” by calling me creepy and saying that I’m “off”? Read the post before yours, and see how that poster phrased things in a much better way (although I do believe that her post was directed at me, despite what she wrote). </p>
<p>Whistleblowers have been maligned throughout history. And it certainly explains why students today are so dishonest (surveys show many cheat). And students rarely inform the adults that other students are cheating. They must have parents like you, or don’t believe in “tattling.” And if you witnessed a crime, you would run the other way – wouldn’t want to be caught “tattling” on the perpetrator, now would you? </p>
<p>I bet you would just love to know who the real tattler was – LOL – you might be surprised!</p>
<p>People, step away from this post. Sheeesh.</p>
<p>Deja-- I think what you are failing to understand is that most of us lost interest in the OP tens of pages ago and became fascinated by the finaid issue as it relates to the ED conundrum. </p>
<p>One thing I find interesting is that you continue to point out how awful and unethical people have become while using the ED system and the example of one person, when the ED system as a whole would actually prove your “boy things are going down the ethical drain” hypothesis completely incorrect, given that the number of people who walk on ED is so low as to be considered a statistical irrelevancy.</p>
<p>Your argument is DISPROVED by the system you are citing.</p>
<p>Come out of the box and join us in the world of inquiry, where today we will be asking question other than where will the OP go to school and will she be sufficiently punished?</p>
<p>Lots of posts since last night how families mired in debt might not be eligible for loans that the FA is based on, thereby somehow justifying the illogic of a FA app allowing <em>any</em> person to exit ED on a whim or fancy.</p>
<p>The simple answer here is that if the loans are not available to that family, then in according to the college’s own terms, a package meeting 100% of need has not been found. This has zero to do with OP, who is now having second thoughts about taking on debt.</p>
<p>Seems simple to me, but then I am not trying to rationalize gaming the system.</p>
<p>
Condescending post, to be sure, but at least you aren’t downright rude and offensive like the previous poster. </p>
<p>My definition of what is ethical is different than some for this situation, but you fail to remind the “Loophole Lovers” that their position is also not the only right one.</p>
<p>“The simple answer here is that if the loans are not available to that family, then in according to the college’s own terms, a package meeting 100% of need has not been found.”</p>
<p>Loans are often needed to meet a family’s EFC, and are independent of funding provided by schools that meet full need. If the family can’t get these EFC loans, attendance may not be possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to you…remember the circle? Uncle, uncle, I don’t want to fight. I’m a pacifist.</p>
<p>So Deja tells us he/she was considering a few schools. Did not apply Ed to any. Got response from each. Hoping for more grants, asked the first-choice hopeful to re-assess. Still wasn’t happy with terms. Made a final choice based on offers presented to her.</p>
<p>I can’t see anything unethical about any of that. Many here posting about ethics of Op’s desire to renege from her ED school- people on both sides- have posted that they recommend not signing up ED in order to permit shopping around without committment.
Sure the debate continues about the Op’s dilemma, but I can’t remember anyone that has said it is unethical to shop around when a person has not made any kind of committment.</p>
<p>To question that it may be wrong is either:
not a clear understanding of what Deja was saying or
a deliberate attempt to cloud the message by trying to cast doubt on the messenger.</p>
<p>Frankly, whether Deja is perfect, or ethical in her behaviors is not at issue. The issue is the Op’s ethics. Even if Deja is writing from her prison cell, for embezzlement(an example) is not germain to the Op’s situation. Sometimes people see clearly right from wrong but don’t always choose right. Don’t we all know it is wrong to deliberately burn down a property(example)? Yet we have laws against arson? And people in jail for it? Ethically they know it is wrong but do it anyway. If caught they pay a penalty for their actions.</p>
<p>If dstark wants to present the idea that it is wrong to shop around for schools, and that it is wrong to request a school to re-evaluate their offer- WHEN a prospective student has made no kind of committment whatsoever; then how in the world could it be argued that shopping around after one has submitted an ED app is ok? If it is wrong to shop around with no commitment, doesn’t it follow that it is horrible to shop around after a committment?</p>
<p>Poetgrl,
Your ‘fascination’ turns on gaming the system, which always has ethical connotations – particularly for people not so inclined. A link in this thread to a newspaper article said that 3% of ED acceptances are rescinded at student request. I’ll guess that number is not viewed as high by colleges if it applies to them, but it is not hardly miniscule as some posters have tried to paint the problem.</p>
<p>My guess ? If colleges see that ED gaming is on the rise, they will attempt to box-in parents with more paperwork upfront. Signing an ability to pay like the internationals do comes to mind. Even if gaming does not rise, the same might happen if successful funding of loans becomes a problem.</p>
<p>Colleges that pursue students who must take on debt to attend are part of the larger picture of so many americans living beyond their means whilst justifying it as a ‘need’ or a ‘right’. Sooner or later, the debt pyramid will collapse here too.</p>
<p>anneroku</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not what I said - please stop twisting my words and misquoting me - and implying the GCs at my school know nothing. For the record - this is what I said:</p>
<p>I wandered over to our college guidance office this morning and asked our counselers about this situation to obtain a professional opinion. They can not believe the OP is leaving her EA application open with MIT when she has this ED acceptance from Penn. Furthermore, they tell me Penn is generous with their FA awards and that for the OP to say her “not too horrible” award is insufficient - just so she can change her mind and get out of the agreement is plain wrong and violates the spirit of the ED agreement</p>
<p>They advise all ED applicants about the benefits and the ramifications of applying ED. They note that students can not have it both ways.</p>
<p>They tell me what the Op is doing is not only putting her acceptance at Penn as well as any potential acceptance at MIT in jeopardy - but is also hurting future students from her school who apply to both those institutions. They say her school and GC’s will lose all credibility with Penn and MIt for allowing the OP to game the system. </p>
<p>So there you have it. Word from people who do this for a living</p>
<p>Eric-- your post raises some interesting points.</p>
<p>But first: I have no interest in “gaming” a system. I actually have a fear that the ED system is “gaming” the students, anyway, and allowing schools like Cornell who claim to be need blind to accept 40% of thier class from the more affluent ED group. (I actually have no issue with schools accepting these full pay students, as mine would be one, but I think this ought to be more “up front.”) That’s my feel on the whole gaming issue.</p>
<p>Also, I am on the record repeatedly of pointing out that I see no advantage whatsoever to a disadvantaged student applying ED, regardless of the ability to withdraw due to unresolved financial issues, as I believe it takes way too many important options off the table for these students, including the opportunity to apply to peer institutions.</p>
<p>I also never believed the OP was allowed to compare the MIT vs. Penn packages, though I saw that was being disputed, under the ED committment.</p>
<p>As for the debt pyramid collapsing, I know this. I wonder, really, how long colleges can continue to survive on the backs of the middle class debt carriers. It is all bound to fall in like a house of cards, and still they continue to raise tuition even as CPI falls. But, this, honestly, is a different subject…one which really interests me as someone who believes in the cash system.</p>
<p>“They tell me what the Op is doing is not only putting her acceptance at Penn as well as any potential acceptance at MIT in jeopardy - but is also hurting future students from her school who apply to both those institutions. They say her school and GC’s will lose all credibility with Penn and MIt for allowing the OP to game the system.”</p>
<p>What power do the colleges think the GCs at OP’s apparently public HS have, exactly ? Do colleges really expect, e.g., for GCs to not recommend a student that may be a gaming risk ? That would astound me.</p>
<p>fireandrain</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fireandraid - I have sympathy for all those parents who are earnestly trying to fund a college education. I do not have sympathy for fools who believe they have to pay nothing or only what they think they can pay. I don’t have sympathy for those who believe they are entitled to aid from colleges. I have no sympathy for those who try to game the system. And I have no symathy for those unwilling to do the research on financial aid, cost of attendance, etc - especially before signing a binding agreement</p>
<p>I have to agree with Eric’s last post. I think too much weight is given to the GCs. They are hardworking people and with the exception of a handful at very large public or small privates are not “college admissions experts.” For the most part I believe their primary interest aside from grades 9-11 is graduating the seniors and making sure they get where they want to go. I just ran into a friend this past weekend who is a GC at our high regarded small public and his main concern is not the college bound kids, but the seniors who are missing certain classes, trying to fit those kids in and shifting/bumping kids to fit them in so that those seniors actually graduate…doubt he gives high achieving kids whose apps are already in much thought…let alone wondering what’s up with the ED kids. If I were a GC for a living and someone told me I was to be the “gatekeeper” of the CSS Profile agreements or individual college/student agreements I might have a small problem intellectually with that and I highly doubt many GCs see themselves in that position. I have no problem with GC’s being “charged” by the public with sending a final transcript in June to the final college that a student “tells/reports to them” they are attending. One and only one final transcript to one and only one university. This all seems reasonable, but to claim that they are the “gatekeepers” seems off. The colleges and universities should be policing and maintaining their relationship with their applicants or make it part of the job of their third party providers. But that’s just my opinion.</p>
<p>" Furthermore, they tell me Penn is generous with their FA awards and that for the OP to say her “not too horrible” award is insufficient "</p>
<p>The GCs have no idea what the actual award was.</p>
<p>Younghoss, your interpretation of my question is not my interpretation of my question. And I wrote it. ;)</p>