<p>And I think that’s an unwarranted assumption. First of all, I didn’t see any posts using the phrase “low income” – I saw the post in which she said that her “family background is far from wealthy” and that her parents couldn’t contribute anything because they have a “big loan to pay.” Then she posted, “I just feel like if my parents and I don’t have the ability to pay, I should communicate and at least give all the defered and waitlisted more chance.”</p>
<p>We don’t have much more info than that, because after that point the fine, upstanding, highly ethical CC community managed to drive the OP off by calling her a liar and a cheat. </p>
<p>Parents on CC who make $150K+ regularly post on the financial aid forum describing themselves as “middle income” – so even if there is a post somewhere that I missed where the OP calls herself “low” income – the perception of “low” is subjective. There’s at least one parent poster on CC who has characterized a family income in excess of $100K as being “low”. It’s quite possible that the family lifestyle in comparison to peers has led the OP to perceive herself as “low income” but there are unusual expenses or assets like home equity that change the financial aid picture radically.</p>
<p>That’s why I posted samples of my own financial aid awards from “college A” and “college B” a while back, with a family EFC in the ~$5000 range. “College B” purported to meet full need, but its award was so weak that it made “college A” look great – but “College A” was still looking for a family contribution roughly $10K beyond the FAFSA EFC. </p>
<p>I find it very frustrating that people will pass a judgment based on no evidence – and basically their preconceived assumptions. Whatever the OP’s family finances, as a dependent teenager she is limited by her parents’ willingness to pay. For all we know her stepfather may have substantial nonliquid assets, such as real property – that is counted in the financial aid formula but be seen as untouchable in terms of family finances. </p>
<p>Its very possible that “not horrible” means a dollar figure that a 17 year old thinks is acceptable, such as $20K per year – but her parents may have another view entirely. </p>
<p>I don’t think that very many young people, or their parents, would very readily give up an Ivy admit in favor of a full ride at a state U. without there being a significant price differential. Either there are some family tensions we don’t know about (parents who can pay but won’t for various reasons), or the numbers are leaving them with only one choice that makes sense.</p>
<p>“And I think that’s an unwarranted assumption. First of all, I didn’t see any posts using the phrase “low income” – I saw the post in which she said that her “family background is far from wealthy””</p>
<p>You’re probably right that she hasn’t said she’s low income. I have been assuming she is low income because --in a post that was removed – she described herself as a first gen American who goes to a “crappy” public school filled with “minorities” and “poor” people.</p>
<p>You can imagine whatever you want. No need for me to list the cadre of the 6 or so posters who advocated (and still are advocating) throwing ethics out the window. Its pretty apparent to anyone reading this thread who they are. Shoot, I think they must have their own self support group as they seem to enjoy patting each other on the back here in cyberspace. In any case, naming them may make them upset and why would I want to do that.</p>
<p>OP had also mentioned a stepfather – so while her family may not be wealthy, a PROFILE school is going to expect her mom, stepdad, father and stepmom (if dad has remarried) to all contribute. While none of them may be “wealthy,” when one adds in each person’s income, it may make for an EFC that the parent(s) who ARE willing to pay just can’t put together.</p>
<p>That someone is trying to “game the system” was clear to me when someone asked a gc here <em>twice</em> whether there is a list of schools that are most forgiving for ED applicants who decide they can’t afford the FA and want to back out. That sort of turned the corner for me. If a “low income” kid has had his/her heart set on a certain ivy since they were five, and they apply ED, somewhat naively believing they will get more money than they do get–that is one thing. But when a poster is attempting to compile a list of easy-out ED top schools that is another.</p>
<p>In addition, it’s clear that some posters have giant chips on their shoulders re college FA. They seem to think there is a huge disparity between what they have been given and what they <em>deserve.</em> I’m not sure these are the best people to be dispensing financial aid advice. I think most adults of a certain age realize they have made choices in their lives, and they make peace with their choices. When we have adults consistently grousing about how they’ve been shortchanged, perhaps it’s not quite the best example to be putting forth for young people. For instance, apparently it’s okay to judge a woman who considers herself middle class with a $150,000k income. Why? Who knows that particular woman’s circumstances? She may have several children approaching college age, she may have large medical bills, she may have sundry other responsibilities that eat into her income. (I’m not familiar with that particular example.) But it’s not okay, of course, to judge the OP in any way. Well, I haven’t expressed any judgment of her at all, 1. because she’s a kid and 2. because I think behaving ethically is its own reward, and unethically its own burden. But the point is, if some posters can pick and choose whom they judge, then I suppose everyone should be afforded the same privilege.</p>
<p>“That someone is trying to “game the system” was clear to me when someone asked a gc here <em>twice</em> whether there is a list of schools that are most forgiving for ED applicants who decide they can’t afford the FA and want to back out. That sort of turned the corner for me.”</p>
<p>mummom…</p>
<p>I asked these questions because if certain schools are giving GCs more of a bad time than others…when students CAN’T AFFORD THE SCHOOL WITH THE FIN AID, then all else being equal, maybe the GCs should recommend different schools to students who need fin aid.</p>
<p>Better for the GCs because they maintain good relations with the schools. Future applicants won’t be hurt so better for them. Better for the students who need fin aid. Less chance of misunderstanding with the schools. Less chance of feeling obligated to take a deal when the deal is bad for them. Better for the colleges because they are accepting applicants more likely to attend. </p>
<p>A win for all. If there are more schools that are difficult than others to get out of ED without problems coming up. I don’t know this. Which is why I’m asking. </p>
<p>And mummom, what turned for you? This is a rhetorical question. You stated your opinions before I asked these questions and they were similar to the opinions you had after I asked these questions.</p>
<p>And for clarity…so there is no misunderstanding…from what you have written on this board…and only what you have written in this thread…I don’t think much of your ethics. And mischaracterizing my motives…that isn’t too ethical in my book.</p>
<p>Not that your ethics mean anything to me. Or what you think of my ethics. I just want to clarify things for you so you understand them. And then you can think the same with clarity.</p>
<p>And I wish you good luck with your kids and college admissions.</p>
<p>" some of us have good reason to suspect that what she’s calling “not horrible” really is wonderful."</p>
<p>To clarify my interpretation, “not horrible” in this case to me means acceptable; but not as generous as Op had hoped.
And as has been stated here before, the affordability of school A is not dependent on the offer from school B.</p>
<p>Which is precisely why Harvard & Princeton canned ED recently. It became evident how much it magnified class discrepancies, and how it gave FA candidates fewer options and less leverage. IOW, you could say that the institutions have begun finally to see the larger ethical problems ED creates in college admissions.</p>
<p>I really can’t read thorugh 106 pages, growing by the second with every page click. Originally I had ignored this thread, as this is one of the most ancient themes on CC. I also can’t believe it’s gotten so personal and bloody, but I resent the fact that one poster wants to frame the terms for ethics and call other people who don’t meet that standard “unethical.”</p>
<p>And although, like dstark, I hate ED, the real issue is not love or hate but contract law. Contracts imply full disclosure from both sides (especially from those making the offer) or they are invalidated on their face. I think the colleges know this darn well, or there wouldn’t be that legitimate escape clause in the wording about the eventual financial aid package being not affordable. Therefore, the only way ED should be enforceable under contract law (never mind the contract being also ethical from the entity offering the contract) is for that full disclosure to happen before ED decisions are due. Period. </p>
<p>The appropriate way, it seems to me, to approach this at this point from the family’s part is to ask. That’s not “unethical.” They’re not running away absconding with money. They’re saying, We assumed one thing when applying to an ivy league U for FA; apparently we were wrong. Here’s the sitch. We were not trying to be deceptive. Based on the best but incomplete disclosure we had available to us (from you) at the time of ED application, we hoped we could afford your college. Based on your response as to what you are now prepared to offer us, it appears that this FA package is unworkable/will cause severe financial distress, etc.</p>
<p>That response is entirely within the broad terms of the contract.</p>
<p>And in broad principles both legal and ethical, the U isn’t “losing” anything. They have a gigantic mega-qualified waitlist of equally acceptable candidates, many of whom will be full-pay candidates they won’t be shelling out a dime of aid for.</p>
<p>altho I disagree with epiph and dstark (no surprise, there ) on ED, I totally concur that the family did not have full disclosure as part of the bargain. As a fan of ED and contemplating it, I asked several colleges last year for an early finaid read – not admisssions – but, based on existing financials, an early indication of a potential finaid award IFF my D was accepted. Each of them turned me down, with the standard caveat: you can back out of ED if the award is… Thus, the college could, but fails to fully disclose its net cost.</p>
<p>Bluebayou…I really like your post, and epiphany’s too. Bluebayou, what you said in your post is what I have been saying for 200 @@@ damn posts. lol.</p>
<p>So you differ with me because you like ED and I don’t?</p>
<p>I don’t like ED, but if a person wants to use it … I have no problems with that.</p>
<p>In most cases, I think a person shouldn’t use ED if they need fin aid because it may limit his choices. And kids can change their minds about what they want in a school over senior year too.</p>
<p>But ED exists, and if a person want to use ED… that’s his or her call.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m a supporter of ED. And, I don’t buy the PR Spin that ED is that much of a bigger disadvantage to the poor – bcos, by definition, applying to highly highly selective colleges automatically disadvantages the poor, even in RD. For example, UVa also dropped ED at the same time as P’ton and the next year has a wopping EIGHT (8) additional poor students enrolled - yeah just 8. (You’d think they could find some poor kids somewhere, particularly with the WaPo and NYT giving them accolades for being so bold and brave.) Moreover, where is the Pton press release that shows that dropping ED means their admissions process no longer “advantages the advantaged?” Where is Harvard’s analysis that showed dropping EA has improved their economic diversity? (They have some bright guys/gals there, so I’m sure they can back out changes to their new finaid policies, which were implemented at the same time.)</p>
<p>epiphany, that is the gist of it and what most of us still hanging in have maintained. I also maintain that none of it is any surprise to the colleges/unis – it is just not in their interest to broadcast the “out” and would prefer to deal with it on a case by case basis. bluebayou your situation is interesting, because for the nano second my S2 considered ED this year I would not have let him unless I had gotten an early read as I’m not a big fan of the ED language. Ironic that the colleges told you no and asked you to wait for the acceptance and award package. One of the colleges for S2 was one that his older brother looked at. Three years ago they had a calculator on their website which they have since taken down.</p>
<p>“This years freshman class was drawn from the largest applicant pool in Princetons history, totaling 21,370 students, which made for a very busy winter in West College. With no early decision process, the fall could be devoted to visiting a wider range of schools than ever before and introducing their students to the unique qualities of a Princeton education and thanks to our generous program of financial aid its affordability. Coupled with the assurance of equitable treatment implicit in a single admission process, these efforts yielded the most diverse class ever. Just shy of 38 percent of freshmen are members of minority groups; the percentage on financial aid reached 56 percent for the first time; there are a record number of international students; and, in another first, the class is evenly divided between men and women. Our success in broadening Princetons reach can also be seen in the fact that we offered places to 428 students who were enrolled in schools from which no student had been admitted in at least the last five years.”</p>
<p>ED was always about locking down a certain bunch of students for institutional reasons not so much about giving 17 year olds peace of mind for 3-4 months. My guess is the colleges/unis that reverted to EA did so because they want to fish in a larger pond to “find” the students that meet their institutional needs. I doubt there was ever any intent to change the make-up of an admitted class in this economy. Hence, “no story” as you speculate.</p>
<p>For the record, I never advocated ANYTHING that assumed anything less than good faith on the part of the OP for Penn to be her first choice after taking financial considerations off the table. Applying ED when that’s not the case WOULD be an ethical breach in my humble opinion. </p>
<p>I still think that it’s likely that she’s giving up her dream school, Penn, over money and I am very sorry for that. If the offer wasn’t too horrible, perhaps it’s her loss and may be a mistake that she will live to regret. Penn does not lose in any way shape or form. Because Penn anticipates rare cases where a student backs out for financial reasons, other applicants didn’t lose out either. </p>
<p>Additionally, I always assumed that the colleges would never want to forcefully extract money that a student’s family was so uncomfortable paying that they would prefer to back out of the deal for financial reasons. Their first offer may or may not be their final offer. It is worth having the discussion within the reply period.</p>
<p>Because of my assumption of the ED school’s position is that they would not WANT to disadvantage a student needing aid, I still think ED is an appropriate choice for people for whom the school is their first choice, whether or not they need financial aid. For most cases, both the school and the applicant end up happy. If that makes me unethical, so be it.</p>
) on ED, I totally concur that the family did not have full disclosure as part of the bargain. As a fan of ED and contemplating it, I asked several colleges last year for an early finaid read – not admisssions – but, based on existing financials, an early indication of a potential finaid award IFF my D was accepted. Each of them turned me down, with the standard caveat: you can back out of ED if the award is… Thus, the college could, but fails to fully disclose its net cost.</p>