decline an early decision acceptance offer?

Parents Forum
1861

<p>Finley: You are in a tough spot. You obviously need to talk to the financial aid office at Brown and see if there is anything to be done. Although Brown’s written ED policy does not include any language for your situation, you can’t be forced to attend. But you also need to call admissions and find out what, if any, consequences there are to backing out of your ED agreement. </p>

<p>Brown’s financial aid policy focuses on low-to middle-income students – Brown “eliminates loans for students whose family incomes are less than $100,000, reduces loans for all students who receive financial aid and no longer requires a parental contribution from most families with incomes of up to $60,000.” I don’t know what your family income is. If it is above $100,000, then you are not technically from a “middle-income” family, but an affluent family. And Brown has made a policy decision to concentrate its financial aid dollars on families who make less than $100,000.</p>

<p>As I’ve said before, as a Brown alum I am not thrilled with its decision to not address financial aid in its ED agreement. I am curious how Brown deals with your situation, so please come back here (or PM me if you’re more comfortable with that) with an update after you contact the school.</p>

1862

<p>Wordsmiths here may know far better than me, but I see a distinction between “committing to Brown” and <em>considering Brown</em>.
For me to sign up for a committment, I believe I should research it first, unless of course it is my only option.</p>

1863

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ahh, but there’s the rub. A person/family will remain ignorant until the college actually produces an estimated financial aid award. And colleges refuse to produce one until AFTER ED acceptance. </p>

<p>What is “reasonable”? $15k extra to attend Penn or Brown or__? $10k extra? $8k (as to what started this post)? $5k?</p>

1864

<p>

</p>

<p>Here’s why I don’t concern myself with the “ethics” of ED: The schools (and outsiders like us) will never know what was in the minds of the applicants. Were they ignorant or did they choose to disregard the facts? No one will ever know for sure, and so, as a practical matter, this ethical issue seems irrelevant.</p>

<p>What remains is this (from epiphany):

The escape clause exists; therefore it is ethical. Colleges cannot read into the hearts of applicants to learn the “true” reason for decline. My own feeling is that students applying ED overwhelmingly plan to attend the school if at all possible. There is no logical reason to apply ED to “fish” if FA is needed, since there is a very real risk of having to decline a school that is presumably their first choice. And the possibility of being banned from submitting additional applications to peer schools.</p>

<p>Personally, I am more concerned with the “ethics” of offering ED to FA applicants. The serious, binding nature of the agreement is simply for the benefit and convenience of the schools, and exists mainly to lock in high achieving, full-pay students. And private schools certainly have the right to do that. But it does look bad, and that’s why they encourage ED applications from students who need FA, essentially locking them into attending a school without knowing the real cost. That would be unethical without the escape clause. Even with this escape clause, I still think the ethics of offering ED to these students is questionable.</p>

1865

<p>I think Anneroku and have different positions ethically on this issue, but I’m not clear on her position.
Anner says:</p>

<p>“Here’s why I don’t concern myself with the “ethics” of ED:…”
but also says this:
“Personally, I am more concerned with the “ethics” of offering ED to FA applicants…”
and this:
“I still think the ethics of offering ED to these students is questionable.”</p>

<p>The conflicting statements would seem to mean she isn’t sure if ethics of ED matter to her, or maybe that they only matter from the students’ perspective.
Either way, I do understand her point that in that post she is addressing only the legal issue, and refers to the escape clause.</p>

<p>Anneroku also says “The escape clause exists; therefore it is ethical.” I cannot agree it is ethical to use escape clause anytime fin aid offer isn’t what one hoped for- which of course does not mean that it can never be used ethically imo. I also note adultery isn’t against the law either, but it exists, and I think few of us would agrue it is ethical because there isn’t a law against it.</p>

1866

<p>I can see that anneroku and I are like-minded in our understanding of the comprehensive ethical aspects of this issue. And in sound moral systems, those holding appreciatively greater power than the other party(ies) are bound to a higher standard of ethics than their “significant others.” The implicit conclusion in my last post corresponds with this closing statement of hers:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The problem is, if they don’t offer an Early alternative (like SCEA) to FA students they are restricting options both to themselves and to those students, not to mention reverting to the “layered” or class-based admissions system that H and P recently abandoned, because of its perceived unequitable implications. And for those institutions which have retained ED, that option gives them a competitive advantage. Because their decisions are based more on business than on ethics, they know that they have not the credibility to demand a higher standard of ethics from FA applicants than they demand of themselves.</p>

1867

<p>

</p>

<p>To do that, they would have to give up the pretense of being need-blind.</p>

<p>(You can’t say that you are “need-blind” and simultaneously maintain a program that gives early, preferred admission to those who don’t request financial aid).</p>

1868

<p>^Right, calmom. And it is a pretense, as the overwhelming majority of ED applicants are full-pay. Most FA applicants are rightly scared away by the inherent risks.</p>

1869

<p>Younghoss – I wish you would spend some time over on the Financial Aid forum – that would give you some insight into common misconceptions about financial aid. I think the number 1 misconception that is repeated over and over again is that students (and parents) believe that their FAFSA EFC is what they will have to pay to attend college. So if the number comes out, say, at 8500 – a huge number of people believe that means that is going to be their full out of pocket cost for college.</p>

<p>I KNOW that seems ignorant and stupid, but the system is confusing and very often the people doing the research are 16 and 17 year olds. </p>

<p>The colleges have the ability and the power to be more informative about the financial aid process. For example, they could easily provide ED applicants with some sort of graph or grid that specified the expected grant levels for various ranges of income - assets - and family size. The document could have some caveats written in that also alerts them to potential problems if their parents are divorced or self-employed, and encourages them to contact a financial aid counselor at the school for more information in such a situation – and they could provide some sort of entry-level financial aid counseling for prospective ED students. They could ask the applicants to sign some sort of acknowledgement that they had received and reviewed that documentation about financial aid as part of the process of entering the agreement. </p>

<p>The colleges have lawyers. They know what they would need to do to make ED binding. They don’t WANT to do that – the statement that they are “need-blind” and meet “100% need” is a marketing gimmick, hype at best and an outright lie at worst… But it is in the college’s interest to maximize the number of applicants and keep their admit rate down. They really don’t mind when students who need a substantial amount of aid dollars walk away – they are saving money every time that happens. (And if it is a student that they really desperately want – some star athlete or student who is so amazing that they don’t want to lose him or her – the admissions people contact the financial aid people and make sure that the student is offered preferential aid packaging.) </p>

<p>Most colleges that say they are “need-blind” for admissions do not maintain a similar “need-blind” policy when they go to their wait list – so needy students who walk away are often replaced by full pay students. How does that hurt the college? It doesn’t – it helps them. </p>

<p>So you have a system that is marketed in a way to lead the consumers (17 year olds and their parents) to believe that their “need” will be fully met (“100%”) – AND that if the financial aid award is not sufficient, they will be allowed to withdraw from the agreement. And it is set up that way, deliberately, by the colleges because they want to control their financial aid budgets. </p>

<p>It’s like a merchant who promises a 100% satisfaction, money-back guarantee, no questions asked. Is it unethical when someone returns merchandise purchased under such a guarantee, even if their complaint is trivial or if it unclear whether the merchandise broke because it was defective or because of improper use?</p>

<p>The bottom line is that colleges engage in highly deceptive marketing practices, trying to entice as many applicants as possible. It is no surprise that they actually succeed in deceiving some applicants who believe their hype and who don’t really understand the terminology and words of art used in describing financial aid. (I mean – how does a person know that the word “need” does NOT mean, “actual individual need” – but instead means, “amount derived from secret formula applied by college”)</p>

1870

<p>

</p>

<p>And the ones who are not scared away are the ones who are taking the college at their word – that is, that the college will meet 100% “need” and that they will be permitted to withdraw from the agreement if the amount of financial aid isn’t sufficient to meet their need.</p>

1871

<p>younghoss:
The reason I’m not concerned with the ethics of ED applicants who need FA is a practical matter – there is no way to really know what is in their hearts. So as long as they adhere to the letter of the contract, I (and the schools) have no problem with declining ED for financial reasons.</p>

<p>Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around the allegedly “unethical” behavior of ED applicants. I tend to put ethics in quotes because I don’t see it in these terms. If I have no proof of misconduct, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw for financial reasons, as most schools allow. I am more concerned with what I consider to be deceptive business practices on the part of the colleges, and if some are concerned with “ethics,” I think this is an area for discussion.</p>

<p>Locking FA applicants into a contract where they do not know the price beforehand just doesn’t make sense, so colleges have rightly provided a financial out. However, the ED applicant who must decline does face continued punishment in the form of (possibly) being banned from applying to peer schools. So I do question the practice of allowing (and encouraging) ED applications from kids who need FA. It may or may not be “unethical,” but it really only exists to promote the illusion of “need-blind” admissions. It would be more honest to lock in only full-pay students who know exactly what they will be required to pay beforehand and can afford it.</p>

<p>

This is where we’ll have to agree to disagree. How would you know the true reason for declining ED? And if the FA turns out to be not “what one hoped for,” how would you know that the family could still afford the cost? I think colleges realize they can’t answer these questions and they simply offer the escape clause. You are free to judge those who use the escape clause for “unethical” reasons. I think it’s impossible to know, and the schools themselves don’t seem to care, so I choose not to judge.</p>

1872

<p>This is a part of the Muhlenberg website. I made my D read it and it was incredibly helpful to her. Of course, it doesn’t explain how the ability to pay number is arrived at, but more information is better than less.</p>

<p>[Muhlenberg</a> College| The real deal on financial aid](<a href=“http://muhlenberg.edu/main/admissions/realdeal.html]Muhlenberg”>http://muhlenberg.edu/main/admissions/realdeal.html)</p>

1873

<p>My son applied ED with high financial need. He applied to a need-blind college that meets 100% of need without loans. He was accepted, they met full need, we and he contribute a reasonable amount (pretty much exactly the FAFSA EFC for us, and a summer earnings portion from him), he has a part-time workstudy job. I do not feel that they were in any way misleading, deceptive or unprincipled. In fact they were very open, provided tentative FA figures with an online calculator (highly accurate in our case), and I appreciate them giving my son the opportunity of communicating his committment to attend in that event that made a difference in their decision-making. He was, stats-wise, a student on the bubble. ED was a great option for him.</p>

<p>I guess I’m only posting this to say I’m not so cynical about ED for FA kids as many others are. It really depends on the school, on their openess about how aid awards are determined, and on the simplicity or complexity of the family’s finances.</p>

1874

<p>Excellent point, calmom:

</p>

1875

<p>^^I think I’m closely aligned with Annerokus thinking regarding where and when “ethics” are actually involved, although I think if there is ED, everyone should be able to utilize it and transparency of being able to reject the offer if the finaid is not doable should be a clear part of each participating ED college. ED is for full pay students only would never happen because then it eliminates the athletes and hooked students that the college really wants and no college would agree to ED for full pay only because it is contrary to their vision and values. Rejecting the offer is part of the ED Common App Supplement language, but the colleges are not echoing the language in a way that is clear to the students and parents.</p>

1876

<p>

</p>

<p>What if the financial aid award had come back and you were expected to pay $15K over the FAFSA EFC? Would you have felt that you needed to “honor” the ED commitment even though the aid wasn’t what you expected? Or did you think that part of the understanding was that you would have the option to withdraw if the aid wasn’t in line with what you expected?</p>

<p>I drew an analogy to a money-back guarantee. Most merchandise sold is not defective, and most people rarely need to return merchandise – but I think we all have experienced a problem at one time or another. The point of the warranty is to provide recourse for what should be a very small fraction of consumers – ideally, the ED provision that lets financial aid applicants withdraw will also be exercised by only a few. But it remains their right to exercise that option if they find the financial aid to be unworkable.</p>

1877

<p>Can anyone explain to me how, if applicants apply ED with a clear understanding that they may decline the offer if the financial aid is not to their liking–that is, not “100% of their need” as they see it (as people here seem to be advocating), this is fair to the students who apply RD?</p>

1878

<p>

</p>

<p>My pleasure. </p>

<p>Since you have to respond by Jan 1 for ED, the college knows exactly who is coming. </p>

<p>Thus, if kids drop out, it increases the number of slots in the class for RD. </p>

<p>Therefore, doing the math, it increases the chances of RD applicants. </p>

<p>On the other hand, if those applicants had waited until RD, they might have displaced another RD kid who will now get in.</p>

<p>Actually, going a little further, since we know the yield in ED is like 95%, if a schools overall yield is like 50%, that means it could be something like 33% for the RD round. Thus, for every ED kid that doesn’t matriculate, 3 more RD kids get in.</p>

1879

<p>mummom, basically in my opinion ED students are saying “you are my number one choice above all others and I realaly, really want to attend” and RD applicants aren’t saying that. My kids didn’t have a clear nuimber one above all others choice which is great because we’re leary of finaid because we don’t know how how financial situation will be calculated at the CSS schools. ED = number one choice, can’t wait to go there. RD = like the school not sure yet if it’s my number one choice, I want some time to decide. To me EA = I’ve got my stuff together, I work ahead and I’m ready to apply and get to a decision. Both my kids had their list together and got their apps done by early November and applied to rolling decision schools and EA to the others, #1 committed in February after the EA notifications and a couple weeks of thinking and I see #2 making a decision after he hears back from everyone. So yes, I think it is fair. What would be more fair to me is for all kids to be able to apply ED if they have a clear #1 choice.</p>

1880

<p>marite</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Marite - I am being realistic - not suspicious. Some people deliberately misstate their financial situation to colleges because they think they can get away with it. Others mistate it but unknowingly. Others are just plain confused. </p>

<p>As I stated, cash type business are the areas of greatest possible manipulation and / or misunderstanding. besides the unreported income factor, there are instances of overstated expenses along with a host of expenses that folks deduct on their income tax return that are disallowed in the FA process</p>