<p>CRD:</p>
<p>You might be right. But, as I said, I don’t really believe in the one “dream school” philosophy. There are plenty of other great schools besides Wellesley, and some might be far more affordable.</p>
<p>I’ve got to be in the <em>don’t have enough info</em> group about utube. A possible scenario that meets all he told us is this:</p>
<p>utube found a dream school at 51k yr. utube has 10k saved up for school, parents unwilling to take loans. So, although student has found 10k in free money common, utube chooses to apply to dream school ED, crossing fingers that this school will offer more free money; enough to make up the difference between the 51k tuition and the $2500 this student has. However, dream school offers the student less than hoped so student wants out.</p>
<p>This scenario is one possible scenario that would accommodate all the facts utube has told us. While many would argue even that scenio is legal for the tenant to get out of ED, but would anyone argue it is ethical to EXPECT a college to meet that unrealistic dream offer? And, to be so certain the dream offer would come in that student applied ED?</p>
<p>I don’t know that was utube’s plan- but although utube may have investigated likely costs, we are not told what they had or they would have accepted. So in the real life utube dilemma, I have to say I don’t have enough info to determine if utube is acting reasonably or ethically.</p>
<p>marite: My assumption is based on the fact that the youtube said the school in question took a SECOND look at the family’s finances and did not budge. This leads me to believe that they think the family could come up with the extra $8k without overwhelming hardship to the family. Dipping into retirement savings or putting less in the fund may have been but one option they mentioned. We didn’t like all the great ideas S’s school came up with either to pay his COA (home equity being just one of them). Nevertheless, we came up with the money because it was a priority for us. The poster signed off on an agreement that said they would attend. Now they don’t like the choices, apparently, that they have to come up with the extra money. youtube can withdraw her app. I don’t see why we are supposed to feel so sorry for youtube. There are many other colleges out there at which she can receive a great education.</p>
<p>Once again it merits repeating that “100% of need” is 100% of what the college <em>thinks</em> you need. Repeatedly proclaiming otherwise is a pipe dream.</p>
<p>Colleges’ ideas of what is affordable and families’ ideas may well differ. As I said, it does not make either necessarily wrong. Again, I do not know what the family’s finances are, but I have to go on what it says it can and cannot afford. In the end, a family has to decide what is best for itself–not for the college. I do not see this family trying to renege in bad faith. Which is why I do not urge the family to make unrealistic sacrifices.</p>
<p>Who says any of us “has to feel sorry?” We were asked for advice, and we’re giving it, according to our experiences and standards and what our assumptions our regarding the OP’s finances and prospects (which seem to vary quite a bit from poster to poster). I do not rely on a college to provide financial advice to my family. It can propose solutions on how to bridge the gap between what it is willing to offer and what I think I can afford, but these may not be in my family’s interests and we might not be able to afford everything it thinks we can. In your situation, you eventually could afford it and acted accordingly. But I do not think one can generalize from one single case.</p>
<p>Repeating that ED is unwise is too late. It’s been done. In the end, a family has to decide what is best for itself–not for the college. I do not see this family trying to renege in bad faith. Which is why I do not urge the family to make unrealistic sacrifices.Keep the warning for the next admission cycle. In the end, a family has to decide what is best for itself–not for the college. I do not see this family trying to renege in bad faith. Which is why I do not urge the family to make unrealistic sacrifices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a myth that ED will help an unhooked applicant with median or low level stats for the school. </p>
<p>ED serves several of purposes for the school:</p>
<ol>
<li> It locks in applicants from a pool that is less likely to need financial aid, thus helping to control the financial aid budget.</li>
<li> It increases the yield of of the school, which benefits both planning for the following year and provides stats that will maintain or boost ranking levels.</li>
<li> If they typically negotiate or leverage aid, or offer merit aid, to compete with other schools, they will be able to offer less money to the financial aid applicants that they do admit, as they will not be competing with other schools.</li>
</ol>
<p>But colleges ALSO want to maximize the SAT scores of their incoming class for purposes of maintaining or boosting ranking. </p>
<p>So why would they want to lock in a financially needy, unhooked applicant with scores at or below their median? That cuts their revenues and doesn’t particularly help with stats. </p>
<p>The ONLY reason to do that would be if the stats of the entire ED pool are weaker than normal, or if it looks like there is a fall off in the number and/or quality of applicants in the RD pool. (By the time they are deciding ED II, they will generally know the total number of RD applicants, and its possible that they could have run a simple stats analysis on reported scores to have a good profile of both the ED II pool and the RD pool)</p>
<p>Don’t buy into the myth that ED gives the weak candidate a boost. </p>
<p>College admissions is not a system by which sympathetic admission officers go out of their way to help out students in need of a leg up. It is a system in which the admission committee attempts to select the best possible class that they can, keeping in mind institutional priorities. If the student has a quality that improves the class make up or offers something that will benefit the institution, then they will want to accept that student; if there is anything “iffy” about the student, then they will want to pass. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what are they going to do, have you arrested?</p>
<p>Think about it: they cannot MAKE a student attend. They can’t come to your house, pull out your checkbook, and write themselves a deposit check. </p>
<p>The ONLY thing that is enforceable about the agreement is the deadline for a student to respond to an ED II offer of admission. And their remedy for failure to abide by the deadline is to rescind the offer of admission. </p>
<p>But obviously this college is going to be impossible to work with if you are unhappy about the financial aid. They are telling you up front that they are not going to negotiate the package, and will claim to you that you are bound (when any first year law student could tell you that the agreement is unenforceable) – why would you apply under these circumstances? </p>
<p>Think if it this way. You hire a neighborhood kid to come to your house once a week on Saturday and mow the lawn; you’ll pay him $20 every time he does it, after the work is done. You’ve got an agreement. The kid doesn’t show up. What can you do? You can’t force him to come – that would be slavery. You didn’t pay him yet, so you can’t ask for your money back. Basically, you had an understanding, he didn’t live up to his end of the bargain… and your remedy is go hire someone else. </p>
<p>If your kid applies ED II and the college admits him, they will send a letter that offers a spot in next year’s class, subject to a deadline to response and make a deposit. If you do not respond affirmatively and make a deposit by that deadline, the college’s remedy is to rescind the offer and open up the spot for someone else. </p>
<p>I think its dumb to apply ED under the circumstances, but I don’t know why people can’t get the simple concept that these agreements are not legally binding no matter what they say. The only binding part is the date set where the student agrees to make a deposit ahead of the May 1st deadline.</p>
<p>mummom, you keep saying that “The poster signed off on an agreement that said they would attend.” This is <em>not</em> what they signed off on. The agreement clearly stated that the student may decline for financial reasons. The student has financial reasons… so, end of story. Since you have admitted that “youtube can withdraw her app,” what are we disputing here?</p>
<p>Any guesses (by us or the college) about what the family can afford are irrelevant. If the family feels it is financially impossible, the student has the option to not accept according to the agreement she signed. It sounds to me that OP has acted in good faith, but that is also irrelevant. The family has adhered to the terms of the ED contract.</p>
<p>“I don’t see why we are supposed to feel so sorry for youtube.” We are not supposed to and youtube was not asking for sympathy, just advice. Youtube is now suffering the consequences of having to decline – she will be unable to attend her first choice school.</p>
<p>calmom:
“I don’t know why people can’t get the simple concept that these agreements are not legally binding no matter what they say.”</p>
<p>I completely agree that these agreements are not legally binding. However, many ED applicants really want to make sure they honor the contract they signed, whether it’s legally enforceable or not. They may believe it’s a matter of personal integrity, or they may be concerned about hurting the prospects of future ED applicants from their school. My point is that in youtube’s case, according to the wording of the contract, she is acting within the agreement. The option to decline for financial reasons is stated in the agreement, so if she chooses that option, she is still meeting the requirements of the contract she signed.</p>
<p>I’d remind Camom that many many pages of this thread have dealt with opinions on the ethics of withdrawing. Different conditions elicit different answers about the ethics and I don’t desire to re-new the debate.
I just want to point out the issue at hand and some of the subsequent posts are not only a legal ground to get out of ED but also the ethical ground. While there could be legal consequences for the kid in Calmom’s example as Calmom knows, such as if the replacement lawnboy charged more than the first kid, but I agree with her that for something so small the yard owner isn’t going to pursue it. But let’s don’t overlook that the kid has reneged. The kid will escape legal consequences, but he has still acted unethically.</p>
<p>I am reminded of an attorney that told me, referring to disputes: “it is not his job to decide what is right. It is not his job to decide what is fair. On this Earth, that’s what a Judge does. Here, he is paid by whatever client hires him to advocate the client’s position.”</p>
<p>When we say “binding” many think of legally binding; but unless it is specified otherwise, many people consider themselves bound by their honor or word.</p>
<p>I will do the deal if I can afford it. I am waiting for information. I now have the information I need. I can’t afford it. I can’t do the deal. I won’t do the deal. </p>
<p>younghoss, where is the ethics violation?</p>
<p>here’s where I disagree with Anneroku(post 1726). I can agree utube prob has a legal right to withdraw from the ED school. But I cannot agree utube has acted in good faith. Why? We don’t know if utube made sound, reasonable decisions, to sign up for ED based on what money they had available and the likely aid package from the school.(see my scenario post 1722). Clearly my scenario in that post would be a student NOT acting in good faith, and would be unethical to drop out for finances in that example. I think in order to be judged as acting in good faith, utube must have done research and then applied ED based on realistic, but uncertain $ figures. Utube may have just crossed fingers and hoped this offer was far better than others. That isn’t good faith if that occurred. That’s just wishing.
We don’t know utube did that. We don’t know they didn’t. We don’t know, so I am not confident enough to say utube acted in good faith, nor can I say it was bad faith.</p>
<p>“But let’s don’t overlook that the kid has reneged. The kid will escape legal consequences, but he has still acted unethically.”</p>
<p>“We don’t know”</p>
<p>Interesting…</p>
<p>dstark please read my example scenario post 1722. In that example, the hypothetical student is expecting an extremely unreal amount of gift money in order to be able to afford the school. That is a made up example of course, but I hope it demonstrates my feeling that a student counting on an amount of help way out of the norm- and then withdrawing because of finances isn’t quite ethical. I think there is the need for responsible math before one applies to ED that is necessary to be considered acting in good faith. To choose to close one’s eyes to the facts is not acting in good faith
Please note I didn’t say all withdrawing is unethical. I said the student in my example (post 1722)would be unethical.</p>
<p>And of course “the kid that escaped legal consequences…” refers to the kid in Calmom’s yard mowing example.</p>
<p>Younghoss…I don’t want to accuse somebody of ethics violations when I don’t know the facts.</p>
<p>I don’t want to come up with hypothetical situations and then put a real person in the hypothetical situation, and then accuse that person of poor ethics.</p>
<p>Why can’t you accept what somebody says on face value? If you were youtube and you told me the same thing as youtube…would you want me to judge your ethics?</p>
<p>I don’t want to do that either, dstark, I’m glad you agree with me. That’s why I have -more than once- said I cannot judge the ethics of utube good or bad, because I don’t have enough info. I absolutely, positively have not accused utube of poor ethics. If I am wrong, show me where and I’ll apologize.
I did present an example using what utube provided us to demonstrate that it could be possible to have been unethical. That is why I will not <em>make the call</em>- because I don’t have enough info. Utube did not tell us how much they had expected to pay. Utube only told us that other sources led them to guess they’d be offered 10k, but were actually offered only 2k. Utube didn’t even say if 10k would be acceptable! Maybe utube expected more? maybe utube could have done with less? I think it odd utube listed some of the circumstances surrounding the app and the desire to decline, but left out the biggest fact of all- how much did utube expect to pay? To merely say -I turned it down because of financial concerns- isn’t enough for me reach any conclusion on the ethics of honoring a contract.</p>
<p>I am asking you why you feel the need to come up with scenarios where the poster acted unethically.</p>
<p>Why don’t you accept what the poster says at face value?</p>
<p>younghoss:
“We don’t know utube did that. We don’t know they didn’t. We don’t know, so I am not confident enough to say utube acted in good faith, nor can I say it was bad faith.”</p>
<p>Agreed. But personally, I don’t care as long as the applicant has stuck to the letter of the agreement. </p>
<p>“I think in order to be judged as acting in good faith, utube must have done research and then applied ED based on realistic, but uncertain $ figures.”</p>
<p>I disagree with this. There is no language in the ED agreement that includes “having done research.” If youtube did not do research, she was naive, but not unethical.</p>
<p>You are reading things into the contract that are simply not there. Wellesley could have said the ED contract is binding in all cases. Instead, they chose to include the option of declining for financial reasons. If a student chooses this option, it is not unethical because it is allowed by the college.</p>
<p>Because they left out info that I think is germain to making the decision. It seems peculiar to me that they left out such info. I wouldn’t feel comfortable announcing that I have decided they acted ethically, not would I feel comfortable announcing that they did not. I’m not the King or something, but since they’ve posted here for us to comment, I just feel I don’t have enough info.
This thread is about the legalities and the ethics of the Op, and has now expanded to the same questions about utube. We had much more info about the Op and her decision.</p>
<p>No anneroku, I am NOT reading things into the contract that aren’t there. In no way shape or form do I say that a students’ researching the costs of a college are in the contract. If you don’t care about the ethics, anneroku that’s your business(post 1736) but this thread has discussed both legalities and ethics. I was addressing the ethics.
I do feel however that before one promises to enroll if accepted, that they have a moral obligation to have a sound idea what they are promising. That is what I consider the ethical part of her dilemma. I just don’t feel <em>choosing to look the look the other way</em> is ethical.
As I aid before, some of this thread has dealt with the legality of an ED agreement, some discuss the ethics.</p>
<p>younghoss:
“I do feel however that before one promises to enroll if accepted, that they have a moral obligation to have a sound idea what they are promising. That is what I consider the ethical part of her dilemma.”</p>
<p>OK, I see. But I think that if the school considered it to be a moral obligation, they would have included this stipulation in the ED agreement. My own opinion is that one is acting morally and ethically as long as they adhere to the letter of the agreement. I see nothing unethical in choosing to exercise an option explicitly allowed in the contract.</p>
<p>Younghoss, I care about ethics. I didn’t see youtube’s ethics violation, nor do I want to come up with scenarios where she might violate my ethics.</p>