decline an early decision acceptance offer?

[mummom]

<p>…“what are we disputing here?”</p>

<p>My contention is that is sounds as if, from the information we have been given, the family could come up with the additional $8k without overwhelming hardship. Are we to believe Wellesley FA people are just big ol’ meanies and that they really don’t want youtube to attend their school, especially after admitting her Ed? I doubt it. So what is being disputed is whether <em>based on the info we have</em> youtube’s family has made, at this point in time, an undeniably good faith effort to come up with the money. If they have, fine. If thy have not, fine. It’s not really my business at all except that the person put a query out there for input from strangers on a message board. In either case, youtube is free to withdraw her app if she has changed her mind.</p>

[marite]

<p>I keep on repeating myself. Different colleges which all claim to meet 100% of need can come up with quite different scholarship amounts–reflecting what the different colleges consider “100% of need.” In a friend’s case, whose family submitted exactly the same financial data, two need-based scholarships differed by $7k per year. Or a total of $28k over four years. For an applicant, or a family, that has to be a significant amount. The fact that Wellesley has settled on a specific amount does not mean that it has calculated the amount appropriately; another college might come to a quite different amount, as is seen every April.

In either case, youtube is free to withdraw her app if she has changed her mind.

</p>

<p>Nice to see that we can agree on something!</p>

[mummom]

<p>You’re not the only one repeating herself around here, marite (meaning me).
There is an ethical dimension to the ED “binding” agreement, no matter how vehemently members of the anti-ethics squad wish to deny it.</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>vballmom</p>

<p>

Perhaps youtube’s posts should be more carefully read.</p>

<p>I think youtube’s initial post is another good example of the discussion of the past 20 pages or so; it’s very difficult for a family to estimate institutional financial aid, no matter how well that family does its homework. The variances in the calculation of “need”, while understandable, mean that there will be times when the college’s EFC will be very different from the family’s calculated EFC. If the youtube family calculates their EFC using the various online calculators, comes up with a worst case number that they’re feel they can meet, allows youtubeD to apply to Dream U based on this number, and then finds that Dream U has calculated EFC + $8K, the response to just stretch may or may not be workable for the youtube family. According to Mr. or Mrs. youtube, it’s not workable.

</p>

<p>I read youtube’s post quite carefully, thank you. Here is what YOU are missing. Youtube’s family ran some calculator and determined based on data THEY input that perhaps they could get up to $10K in aid. Given the cost of Wellesley is over $51K - that meant they had to pay $41K. So we are not talking about poor folks here. But getting back to my point, when they ran the calculator, I am sure they took the most favorable positions / assumptions to help increase the amount of expected aid. Most folks do - I know this from experience on the FA committee at my school. However institutions apply even handed rules consistently for all applicants. So to not build some margin of error into their estimate was foolhardy. People should plan at least a $5K to 10K margin of error into their estimates. If youtube had done that, they would have know they really were only going to get $2K in aid - not $10K and could have decided to apply RD rather than ED to shop around. They chose not to - thats on them.</p>

<p>And FWIW - we are talking $8K more a year over the $41K they were ready to pay. Thats about 20% which certainly is not unreasonable. In fact, it makes the comments of the Wellesley adcom rep youtube talked to seem quite reasonable (ie your best option to make up the $8K gap is to take out a loan). Of course, the usual suspects here (who have given others bad, unethical advice) have blasted the Wellesley rep for these comments as irresponsible, unethical and worse. Amazing</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>younghoss</p>

<p>

We all must remember what is legal is not always what is ethical. For example: what if a student had it in his head that he had 8k cash, (2k per yr) that he’d spend on college, but would take no loans. So student applied ED to a college that has 50k yr tuition. School accepts student, and offers 10k in grants, leaving 40k bal due. Obviously, the 40k due is far from the 2k the student desired to pay. SO, many here would say student can withdraw from ED App based on the legal idea that he considers the financial package unacceptable; and cannot be legally forced to enroll in school.
That is just an example, but I think it demonstrates there can be a difference between ethical behavior and legal consequences.

</p>

<p>Indeed, younghoss, indeed. While their may be legal loopholes one can exploit, that does not make it ethical to do so. As I said before, if people want to shop around for the best FA award, they should be applying RD and not ED. Someone who applies ED has an ethical and moral responsibility to have researched everything up front (including finances) and commit to follow through on their commitment if accepted.</p>

[calmom]

<p>The REASON that these contracts are not legally binding is that the LAW (courts) have pre-determined that some parts of some contracts are by their very nature unethical, to the extent that they impose an unduly onerous burden on one of the parties. So the courts stay out of enforcing these contracts precisely because it is considered unethical for Party A to be able to force compliance from Party B. </p>

<p>It is important to keep in mind that, at its heart, ED is an anti-competitive measure, designed by the colleges to get around the uniform May 1st deadline that they have independently agreed to as part of a set of “rights” promulgated by NACAC (National Assoc. of College Admission Counselors).</p>

<p>Part of the agreement is legally enforceable and ethical – and that’s the part that says that the college agrees to provides an early evaluation of students, provided that, if accepted, the student will agree to respond to such offer within a period of time that falls short of the May 1st deadline. But that response can be “no thanks” – and the colleges cannot ethically or legally force anything else. </p>

<p>The colleges could ALSO create a legally binding contract that required ED applicants to make a nonrefundable deposit, provided that the deposit was an amount considered reasonable – but they have chosen not to do that. To determine what was “reasonable” the courts might consider the cost to the college entailed in administrative time spent evaluating an application. When my son was contemplating leaving a college after his second year, I insisted on paying a $500 nonrefundable housing deposit to hold a spot for the following year, despite my son’s statement to me that he was 95% sure he wasn’t coming back. I lost my $500 but it was not “unethical” for me to place the deposit, knowing that my son was unlikely to actually take the spot we were holding. Rather, I simply had entered an agreement that the value of having that spot held, whether or not we took it, was $500. </p>

<p>I personally do not believe it is “ethical” for a party to create a “contract” that is worded in a misleading way so as to cause a person to feel honor-bound to abide to something that is not enforceable in a court of law. That is, I could probably save money by hiring immigrants to do work for me at less than the prevailing wage – they’re new, they don’t know any better, and they’re eager to work. They may feel honor-bound to work at the wage I have offered. But I don’t think that it is ethical for me to expect them to stand by the agreement, because I was the one setting up an unfair arrangement in the first place. </p>

<p>Similarly, I don’t think it is ethical to force someone to pay for a service that they cannot reasonably afford, especially when the entity offering the service has other people ready and willing to pay. Contracts can be legally be voided for reason of mistake --and it is very likely that in the ED contract that an applicant can be mistaken about cost they will be expected to pay in the end, precisely because the college does not tell them what it is or how it will be determined at the time they enter the contract. </p>

<p>Since I have legal training, it is hard for me to see how exercising a legal right can be “unethical”. Rather, in my mind, to try to pressure someone into compliance by misrepresenting the extent of their obligations is the part that would be “unethical”.</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>arp2600</p>

<p>

I know the Common App ED agreement has the financial aid out-clause. However, my son applied to a college that accepts the Common App but has its own ED form that doesn’t have the financial aid language. He really wants to apply ED but the financial aid package could be a deal-breaker for us parents. Any thoughts?

</p>

<p>

Actually, I am talking about this year (Fall 2010 admit). The college has a second early decision cycle with a deadline in January. It also has a track record of admitting ED applicants at twice the percentage of RD. My son has good - but not great - GPA and ACT scores that place him right in the median for accepted students. So the benefit of demonstrating interest through ED may make a difference.</p>

<p>The college admissions office tells me that ED is binding regardless of the financial aid package, which is contrary to the Common App form. As I mentioned, the college does accept the Common App.

</p>

<p>Please apply RD if financial aid is a dealbreaker for you. It is the ethical, moral and right thing to do and will give you flexibility to shop around for the best aid package while not hurting anyone your student or anyone else in the process. This is especially true givenm what you posted in your 2nd post here</p>

[dstark]

<p>“But getting back to my point, when they ran the calculator, I am sure they took the most favorable positions / assumptions to help increase the amount of expected aid. Most folks do - I know this from experience on the FA committee at my school.”</p>

<p>Interesting…and if this happens at high schools, it probably happens at colleges…which means that colleges know their applicants are expecting more aid then they are going to get…yet…colleges say nothing about this…don’t warn the applicants to be careful…instead say… things like “we are going to meet 100% demonstrated need”…</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>momofthreeboys</p>

<p>

mummom,“budgeting” 6-10K up from FAFSA EFC is pretty dangerous for folks that own their home unencumbered, are self employed or own their own business, have their retirement structured differently than an IRA or a 401K, have relatively illiquid assets… and some other scenarios, as some of that is “counted” in CSS and not caputured the same way on FAFSA. Institutional aid is very complex and in earlier posts there are some scenarios posted about why there can be a very large > than $10K difference. I know in our case some calculators come in close to double our EFC but we have very little real cashflow and income (as evidenced by the EFC.) arp2600 you could always as for an early read on finaid, some colleges/unis will say no, some will do this.

</p>

<p>So actually you are agreeing with myself and mummom - in that anyone relying solely on the FAFSA EFC number for a lot of colleges is foolhardy and a cushion needs to be built in. While we may disagree on the size of that cushion (I said $5K to $10K - mumum had $6K to $10K, you say maybe even more), it is clear that a cushion needs to be considered and not doing so is irresponsible (and in an ED situation, pretty unethical)</p>

[dstark]

<p>Is not unethical…maybe ignorant.</p>

[berryberry61]

<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>bingo !!!</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>calmom</p>

<p>

Quote:
The college admissions office tells me that ED is binding regardless of the financial aid package, which is contrary to the Common App form.

</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>Why do you persist is providing unethical advice. Why do you persist in trying to manipulate loopholes in the ED process?</p>

<p>The college has told the applicant that under their rules - ED is binding regardless of the financial aid package. So your legal analysis is hogwash. The college could, if they choose to do so, pursue various remedies. They have spelled out their terms and conditions in advance and applicants must abide by it. This particular college 's rules are that ED is binding regardless of FA package. An applicant knows that going in and commits to it. If the applicant chooses to renege on the agreement, the college can pursue the applicant for financial damages. While no court will likely make a student attend the college, courts can impose financial damages on the student (ie make them pay for the cost of attending even though they are not doing so).</p>

<p>You are quite loose and incorrect in your interpretation of contract law here</p>

[momofthreeboys]

<p>Berryberry, no ethics involved…if a family fails to run calculators or guesstimate then they could be called ignorant but not unethical. Some people are more tolerant of ambiguity and can be entirely “ethical” in their actions or intent. EFC has only to do with what monies are available from through the federal govenment. The institutional method does not give a family an ‘EFC.’ and not much to do with how the colleges will position the offer other than including what might be availailble federally. That ambiguity some people can live with others not so much, but it really doesn’t correlate with being ethical or unethical.</p>

[dstark]

<p>[Student</a> Financial Services](<a href=“http://www.wellesley.edu/sfs/WithdrLOARefund.html]Student”>http://www.wellesley.edu/sfs/WithdrLOARefund.html)</p>

<p>"To be eligible for a refund the student must notify her Class Dean in writing that she is leaving Wellesley. The date the written notice is received by the Dean, or the date the College determines that student is withdrawn will be the date of withdrawal. Refunds are made for withdrawal or leaves of absence prior to the ninth week of the semester. The Comprehensive Fee is pro-rated on a calendar week basis. No refund is made after the eighth week. </p>

<p>Refunds are prorated among the sources of original payment. Scholarships, grants and educational loans are refunded to the grantor or lender. Refunds of federal funds are dictated by federal regulation for the return of those funds.</p>

<p>Wellesley College maintains credit balances for returning students and applies the credit to future charges. You may request a refund of a credit balance by submitting a written request to Student Financial Services. </p>

<p>A student who leaves Wellesley during her first semester at the College has her charges prorated based on the number of weeks in attendance until the tenth week. Students who complete ten weeks but do not complete the first full semester are not eligible for a refund." </p>

<p>I don’t see an exception for ed students.</p>

<p>If I could withdraw and get my tuition returned, or almost returned…after I accept…even if I go to a class…or a few classes…I doubt a school would try to make a student pay a penalty for declining ED… and the courts…lol.</p>

<p>If Student leaves: Refund %
Prior to the first day of class 100%
Before the end of the 1st week of classes 93%</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>Momofthreeboys - Ethics are are very much involved. What you and dstark term ignorant others view as unethical. </p>

<p>People participating in a process like ED have a moral and ethical obligation to educate themselves beforehand. The accepted standard of behavior for ED applicants is if you apply ED and are accepted, you will attend. As plenty of folks have attested to it is only a small number of folks who do not adhere to this accepted standard of behavior</p>

[berryberry61]

<p>dstark</p>

<p>

I don’t see an exception for ed students.

</p>

<p>Thats all well and good for Wellesley but arp2600’s child is not applying to Wellseley. the college they are applying to has stated, in no uncertain terms “that ED is binding regardless of the financial aid package”. Thus a different legal condition exists</p>

[ClassicRockerDad]

<p>

Thats all well and good for Wellesley but arp2600’s child is not applying to Wellseley. the college they are applying to has stated, in no uncertain terms “that ED is binding regardless of the financial aid package”. Thus a different legal condition exists

</p>

<p>berryberry61 has written a post that I may just agree with! :-)</p>

<p>Is the ED contract legally binding for arp2600’s kid’s school? Obviously, they can’t force the kid to go, but can they sue the parent to pay liquid damages and can they win under the rationale that they would be harmed? I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to have all of the elements of a contract? What am I missing?</p>

<p>Calmom, if they specifically modify the common app language to exclude the financial contingency, why does this impose an unduly onerous burden on one of the parties?</p>

[anneroku]

<p>“There is an ethical dimension to the ED “binding” agreement, no matter how vehemently members of the anti-ethics squad wish to deny it.”</p>

<p>I don’t agree that there is any ethical dimension to Youtube’s dilemma. The contract is very straightforward. The student is permitted to decline for financial reasons. This student has legitimate financial reasons. It is completely ethical to decline. And in this case, we also have knowledge of intent – the student fully intended to enroll, did her research, is shocked by the FA award, and is now very disappointed to have to decline.</p>

<p>“The accepted standard of behavior for ED applicants is if you apply ED and are accepted, you will attend.”</p>

<p>No, the accepted standard of behavior is that you will attend, unless you cannot reach an agreement with the school in regards to the FA award.</p>

[calmom]

<p>Re post #1757:</p>

<p>No, they cannot sue for “liquid damages” because the amount of damages is not stated in the contract. (The correct term would be “liquidated damages” and it refers to a specific amount that is preset):

**Liquidated damages<a href=“also%20referred%20to%20as%20liquidated%20and%20ascertained%20damages”>/b</a> are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach (e.g., late performance).

</p>

<p>[Liquidated</a> damages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidated_damages]Liquidated”>Liquidated damages - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>(Wikipedia is not a legal reference, but in this case the definition is right on the money - so I’m citing simply because I know it to be accurate.)</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>“I’m applying to UPenn. Getting in RD is kind of dicey, so I’m gonna apply ED for the admissions boost. If I get in (fingers crossed) then I’m gonna argue that the financial package is inadequate. Who knows, I might have to go public with the “fact” that UPenn is intentionally misleading kids about meeting 100% need. I don’t know, maybe I’ll have to threaten a lawsuit. Whatever happens, I win. Either I get my deal or I opt out. Obviously I’ll have to keep my other applications in play while I do this. Yeah I know it’s contrary to the ED agreement my parents and I signed. By hey, what are they gonna do about it?”</p>

<p>Nobody sees an ethical problem here? Calmom is right, colleges can’t force applicants to attend (and what college would want a disgruntled student). But so long as colleges provide an admissions boost for ED applicants (or at least the appearance of an admissions boost) there needs to be some quid quo pro on the part of the applicant. What I’m not hearing from the “ED isn’t a contract” crowd is what that quid quo pro is.</p>