<p>“And just who do you expect to pay?”</p>
<p>They are almost all state schools in the other countries, supported by taxes, like our state schools used to be (or maybe some still are?).</p>
<p>Hat</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A pretty good and accurate summary</p>
<p>vossron</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So in essence she wants someone else to pay for her - the hard working taxpayers. Ok, got it</p>
<p>“There are a few here (dstark and others) who believe that if a student/family decide <em>for any reason</em> that they do not wish to attend the ED school, all they have to do is say “We can’t afford it” whether its true or not and the ED obligation is gone with no meaningful consequences other than not getting to go to the ED school.”</p>
<p>Whether or not we believe it, or want it to be true or not, or is ethical or not, if a financial aid offer is involved, it is this easy, in practice. It’s just how it is.</p>
<p>So in essence she wants someone else to pay for her - the hard working taxpayers.</p>
<p>It’s how the other countries choose to run their systems.</p>
<p>Its worse than that - dstark wants to teach and encourage others on how to game the system"</p>
<p>Some posts just keep getting more and more entertaining with their imagined fantasies!</p>
<p>Did someone say party? I’ll bring the wine - how about a nice California pinot noir? Or perhaps a Pennsylvania merlot would be more apropos?</p>
<p>Pinot noir sounds great; you are invited!</p>
<p>Post #1537:
“Alas, some naysayers on here (the unethical ones who have no problem advising a student do whatever and back out of an ED agreement) said my GCs had no idea what they were talking about.”</p>
<p>This still has nothing to do with ethics. You have only confirmed that Sybbie’s school and your own handle ED in the same manner. All schools and GC’s have the right to handle college apps in whatever way they want. At our school, it’s even simpler: GC’s strongly advise anyone who needs FA not to apply ED. Smart students know better than to go against the advice of the GC. And smart GC’s know better than to anger top colleges if they want future students to be accepted.</p>
<p>But again, this is not an ethical position. GC’s at high-powered high schools work very hard at maintaining a relationship with the admissions people at top colleges. And these colleges do not want students backing out from ED. This is for their own convenience – it is not a matter of ethics since their own guidelines state that it is perfectly acceptable to grant a release if FA does not work out. Yes, GC’s at top high schools actively work to make students aware of the serious nature of ED and downplay any possibility of release. And yes, future students may suffer if backing out happens too often at a particular school. But this has nothing to do with ethics; it’s a policy of convenience for the colleges involved and the gatekeeping and enforcement is done by GC’s for the benefit of their professional relationships and of the school. </p>
<p>It is also possible that there are GC’s at low-performing schools (like the one the OP attended) where there are rarely kids applying to Ivies or ED. Where GC’s are not scaring students with dire warnings about the repercussions of declining ED because it rarely comes up. Again, not a moral issue, just a matter of having no reason to cultivate relationships with Ivy adcoms and worry about keeping ED running smoothly for them.</p>
<p>No one is advising students to do “whatever” to back out of an ED agreement or to “game the system”. But unfortunately, it does happen that FA may not match the needs of the family and this is an acceptable, permissible, approved reason for obtaining a release from ED, as stated by all the colleges we have mentioned in this thread. It is perfectly ethical to take advantage of this option when needed. No matter how strongly you believe in the “fairness” of Penn’s or any other school’s FA, it does happen that families and schools can sometimes not come to an acceptable agreement. Thankfully this provision for release exists. It is not “reneging” and it is not “unethical.”</p>
<p>I’d just note that as I have a legal background, I looked at the original post from the viewpoint of a lawyer. The OP asked, "Does anyone know how to decline an early decision offer due to financial reasons?" I answered. (post #21) I told her to write a letter explaining the financial circumstances. </p>
<p>Legally, an ED contract is unenforceable. The college can’t compel the person to attend or to pay money, and the college can’t sue the person for damages, nor prevent the student from enrolling elsewhere. That is what it IS, whether people like it or not. </p>
<p>If the OP had sought legal advice, that is what she would have been told. </p>
<p>I’ve noticed something interesting. There are a handful of posters in this thread who believe that the OP’s desire to turn down her ED spot in favor of a free ride somewhere else is unethical, and who also have repeatedly attacked posters who disagree with them, calling them unethical and otherwise impugning their motives. The [terms</a> of service](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item]terms”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item) for this board specifically prohibit personal attacks of that sort. I find it both ironic and hypocritical that posters who make such a big deal over “ethics” are not able to even comport to the simple standards in place at this board. If those posters feel that the spirit of agreements is so important, then I think they could demonstrate it by adhering to the standards in place for people who want to participate here.</p>
<p>Can’t believe there have been over 1500 posts arguing over such a simple question. </p>
<p>It says that ED policy is not well written so it was open to all kind of interpretation. It also says, there are many standards different people held for them and others. </p>
<p>The believe I have, as many on CC have talked over and over, is that if you have any concern of FA, do not apply ED to any school.</p>
<p>This whole issue is a no brainer, everyone here knows the original intent behind ED as did the OP. The Admission departments weren’t born yesterday, they’ve seen it all. As soon as an impropriety is detected with respect to their policies, (not someone else’s interpretation) they will investigate and if need be, retract the acceptance of that individual in addition to informing the other relevant institutions. FA is an out but not to be toyed with. My Uncle is a retired MIT professor and this has gotten his attention.</p>
<p>yes Dad II, but you should also not “fear” ED. If someone is on the fence about it, they should get themselves educated about the individual college in question and their policies and make an informed decision. Most of what is being discussed relates to the “informed decision” component.</p>
<p>dstark, the majority of my time these days is working with preschool ‘stuff’. 90% of the architecture of brain development occurs prior to age 4 (or at least that’s what I’m writing about these days LOL). Kinda puts a damper on “All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindegarten” should be “Most everyting I Need to Know I Learned in Pre-school.”</p>
<p>:)…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. My thinking has evolved during the 100+ pages of this thread. [I know–I didn’t think that anyone’s mind has been changed.] </p>
<p>I started out with, “Penn has given OP a financial package that is “workable,” even though it sounds like the family will have to take out loans to cover all or part of the EFC. Any attempt to turn down a workable finaid package from Penn that did not include a full ride after receiving a full ride elsewhere would be unethical.” </p>
<p>I’ve evolved to “OP’s family can ethically turn down a workable package from Penn if they feel that it would not be in the best interests of the family to take out loans because of their current debt burden and can ask for a release from the ED agreement so that they can take the full ride from state school.” It looks like ED schools are sensitive to family choices about financial matters and would give a release under these cirumstances.</p>
<p>Where I haven’t changed my mind is my feeling that using the FA out as a way to accept an offer from another school that won’t give you a full ride but you’d rather go to crosses the ethical line. That such a breach would be detected in the spring is pretty doubtful unless the folks at MIT were made aware of the specific situation.</p>
<p>ellemenope: My thinking has evolved almost identically to yours.</p>
<p>The only questions I have are: if you decline an ED acceptance based on financial reasons, will your name be distributed to peer institutions and could it affect your admission to these schools (as Columbia suggests); and whether there could still be repercussions on your HS, as sybbie suggests.</p>
<p>"Where I haven’t changed my mind is my feeling that using the FA out as a way to accept an offer from another school that won’t give you a full ride but you’d rather go to crosses the ethical line.</p>
<p>I think this is rare and, more importantly, I think there is <em>no way to know</em>. I really believe that the vast majority of ED applicants really want to go to the ED school. But in the rare case that someone is trying to back out of ED just to attend another school, well as long as they adhere to the letter of the ED agreement and have a financial reason for declining, the schools are right to let it go. Colleges don’t want to enroll a kid who doesn’t want to be there.</p>
<p>Backing out of ED is an unlikely way to “game the system.” The student still has to wait until spring to learn what FA may be offered from other schools, attending a peer school will not be possible if the ED school has a policy like Columbia’s or if the high school won’t allow it, and the ED school is no longer an option. This is not such an appealing scenario that it would happen often enough to worry about. My point is: you can police applicants’ actions, but not their thoughts.</p>
<p>“if you decline an ED acceptance based on financial reasons, will your name be distributed to peer institutions and could it affect your admission to these schools (as Columbia suggests); and whether there could still be repercussions on your HS, as sybbie suggests.”</p>
<p>I have no idea if a student who has officially been granted a release from ED is then placed on this list. My guess is that it depends on the school. I find Columbia’s policy needlessly punitive and unfair and it’s a red flag for ED applicants who need FA – they should definitely avoid Columbia.</p>
<p>For those applicants who truly want to attend their ED school, but find they just can’t afford it with the FA offered, they do have the option to decline. However, if after that point they are then placed on the ED acceptance list distributed to other schools, no other peer school will consider them. So the student is punished twice: firstly, by not being able to enroll at their #1 choice, secondly, being essentially barred from peer schools. It seems wrong to offer an option for release but then to punish the student who takes this option. At the very least, this consequence should be spelled out in detail by the schools beforehand.</p>
<p>anneroku</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry but it has everything to do with ethics</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on several individuals post on this thread, that is indeed what they have advised</p>
<p>“Sorry but it has everything to do with ethics”</p>
<p>How so? The colleges expressly permit a student to decline for financial reasons, so there is no problem with ethics here.</p>
<p>Dad II</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amazing isn’t it. 1500+ posts on this simple question. The way I see it, initially you had a host of folks weighing in. As time went on, there was a group 6 or so who advocated throwing ethics out the window, do whatever you want, game the system if need be trying to push their agenda. On the other hand, there were a few others (myself included) who stuck around to argue against the posters advocating unethical behavior. Most of the normal folks who weighed in (and did so against the unethical behavior) left this thread long ago. I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I stuck around so long is I believe in storng ethics and morality - and I hated to see a small cadre of posters dominate this thread and advocate IMO unethical behavior. Standing up for strong ethics and morals is important to me and I would hate to see others on CC be influenced by unethical advice</p>
<p>The one thing I do wonder about is why those posters who have frequently attacked myself and others always come back and point out the TOS when someone posts something that irks them. The TOS works both ways. Not once have I complained about some of the insults thrown my way. And IMO, saying someone has supported or advocated unethical behavior is not a personal attack but rather my opinion on what they have told others to do. </p>
<p>In any case, luckily perhaps, it appears things have runs its course and we can move on to more productive discussions</p>
<p>I think your last sentence summarizes it best - If you have FA concerns and / or want to shop around for the best FA deal, don’t apply ED.</p>
<p>Cheers.</p>
<p>“As time went on, there was a group 6 or so who advocated throwing ethics out the window, do whatever you want, game the system if need be trying to push their agenda.”</p>
<p>I know I’m not one of these; I have repeatedly advocated following the stated rule in the Common App ED agreement. Are we to imagine whom you think these six are?</p>