<p>in re 1931
Calmom could prob explain far better than I what ethics have to do with a business transaction. She probably could explain it in a way that was general and would make it clearer to you about integrity. The concept of “clean hands” comes to mind, and fraudulently entering a contract. I’m sure there are other examples.
NOT to say those concepts or others specifically apply to a student choosing ED, but merely that she could explain the general idea that ethics do play a part.</p>
<p>I had a tenant once that signed a lease for a yr. Gave me notice they were moving out 5 weeks later, moved out after 2 months because they bought their own house. I had to take them to court to get my lost rent. It came out in court they were negotiating to buy a house when they signed my lease. I got the lost rent AND MORE becuse the judge ruled they had not entered the contract fully expecting to honor the yr lease when they signed it. He considered that fraud.</p>
<p>ONCE again, NOT saying every ED applicant that withdraws is committing fraud. Not saying any are. But trying to show a similar real-life example that ethics can in fact affect a business transaction. Plainly put, this tenant had to pay a penalty for his actions because the court determined it was wrong of him to promise to a yr lease all the while knowing he expected to buy a house and move out soon. Did he have to live in my house because we had a contract? Heck no. But he had to pay a penalty because he had been deceptive.</p>
<p>Well, believe it. I’ve found calmom’s statements and analysis to be very good – as have hundreds or possibly thousands of people here on CC. Get over it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it means that your ridiculously high standards are not being met by the colleges you so admire.</p>
<p>Younghoss, we also have rental properties and all through this thread I’ve tried to find comparisons to the meaning of ED vs. renting one of the apartments. I keep coming back to the fact that the potential tenant knows what the rent is so when they make the commitment they know exactly what they are commiting to. They know ethically and financially what their obligation is if they sign the lease and set a move-in date. If a tenant tells us they are going to rent the apartment and a week later calls to back out it’s irritating and there might be some small financiall harm to us if we can’t rent it immediately, but colleges don’t have that problem as they have a long line of kids willing to take that next spot. That is why I struggle with the few that are arguing there is some ethical obligation prior to the offer of acceptance and the offer of financial. I keep coming back to that point and back to that point as having rental property feels so similar to “a space in a college class.” Landlords and colleges have a space. There is a cost for the space. There is a length of time the space will be occupied. If I step back even further, if a tenant tells us they “want” the space and a week later decides that they can’t commit we as the landlord or college might be irritated at them but ultimately you’re grateful that they didn’t move in and two months later break the lease and move out leaving you hanging. To me it’s actually more “ethical” to be honest at the moment of remorse than later and hopefully before the furniture goes into the apartment. You go in presuming that the tenants want the apartment and you will rent it to them. To me it’s all about when that moment of “ethics” begins.</p>
<p>I’m sorry that you won’t be able to go to Brown. Brown is known to be stingier than some of its peers when it comes to finaid, being more “need-aware” than “need-blind.”</p>
<p>Many applicants to Brown also apply to Vassar and Wesleyan. Of course, there are other schools you could apply to, some more generous than Brown (hint: HYP). Good luck!</p>
<p>I’ll try to clear up the comparison, as I see it Momof3. First, please know the main point of my example that ethics can in fact play a part in a legal contract(referencing your post 1931).</p>
<p>Secondly, I understand there are tenants who sign up then have a change and can no longer afford the place. Those are people forced to break their lease. I understand that happens.
In the case I mentioned the tenants signed up with a great deal of uncertainty that they would be honoring the lease and withheld that info from me. Even more than just uncertainty, the judge thought it unlikely they had intended to honor it. So sure, they paid the legal losses I incurred but the judge added another penalty. It was a small claims case, and the judge decided that they did not act in good faith at the time of the signing.
So, similarly I think some students may be just sending in an ED app just to see if they get a windfall(as Voss puts it post 1957) and if they do, they’ll enroll; but if they don’t they decline claiming unworkable financial aid, and then move on. imo a student that feels that way does NOT consider his ED school his clear #1, if he is so readily willing to attend State U unless he gets the windfall. In that example, the student is just shopping around and I believe choosing an ED app indicates a more serious intent than just inquiring. Don’t some of the ED schools we’ve seen in this thread talk about a certainty of intent to enroll, rather than shopping around(paraphrasing)??
By no means do I say every student that withdraws because of “unworkable…” is acting unethically. But I do believe that some are. Do you believe never does a student ever do that? I cannot magically point to every student that has withdrawn from ED and determine ethical or not in each case; but I am old enough and experienced enough in my life to believe that not all who withdraw are, just as voss gives an example in 1957.</p>
<p>“Vossron, no one MAKES money on going to college.”</p>
<p>calmom, PLEASE, “windfall” was a figure of speech, applying ONLY to an unethical applicant trying to game the system, in response to anneroku’s question about an UNETHICAL applicant. Your explanation is painfully obvious.</p>
<p>"It’s a case where the student could attend, and would if the FA offer looked like a windfall, but instead the student says “This FA offer isn’t high enough to tempt me; I think I’ll wait for better offers I think I can get.”</p>
<p>OK, it’s true that isn’t the way ED should be used, but I still see little advantage in this approach over RD. The student only has one offer to consider – no comparisons. More importantly – and this is still a question – it’s possible that the student may be placed on a circulating ED list and may not be allowed to apply to peer schools. The option of state schools would remain, but that was true even without the ED app. So I see no advantage unless the student has decided it’s either the ED school or the state school. And in that case, I see no practical or moral difference in turning the ED school down for that reason – after all, it’s for a financial reason, presumably a large one. If the “better offers” can’t come from peer schools, I don’t see what the applicant has gained. But if the student is permitted to apply to peer schools after declining ED, I suppose there could be a small advantage to this approach. Seems risky to me.</p>
<p>^ I think this is a good explanation of why there might be few trying to game the system, but we do read their posts on these pages from time to time, ED applicants without the one dream school.</p>
<p>I guess from Anner’s post in 1867, she now sees how some here feel ED should be used, and how it shouldn’t. For the really serious, not just the shopping student as Voss has demonstrated.
But this sentence : “If the “better offers” can’t come from peer schools, I don’t see what the applicant has gained.” would indicate she doesn’t see all possibilities. Let me explain one so you can see it. The shopping student might not have nearly enough money for the ED school. He may very well know it too. But as Voss says, may throw in his ED app just to see what happens. That student would prob NOT expect to enroll in some other prestigious big-name peer school. He is content to go to State U. but would be willing to go to BigName U if it was windfall. So how he can gain is if Big-Name U offers the windfall, he enrolls. An obvious big gain there, entering Big-Name U. and getting the perceived benefit of their education If he declines, he doesn’t care, and doesn’t care if he’s blackballed at peer colleges because he didn’t expect be able to afford them either. This hypothetical unethical student would see chance for a gain if Fa offer at ED school was fantastic, but would see no harm done if it wasn’t. So in that example, although the student would use the “unworkable finan aid pkg” as his excuse to get out of his committment, the real truth would be that ED school wasn’t his clear first choice, and he was just shopping to see what they’d offer before he was truly ready to commit anywhere.</p>
<p>But the real question for those who think withdrawing from ED can be unethical is NOT if there was a gain. “Did that tactic help?” would be a whole different discussion.
A driver that runs a red light has still run a red light even if no cop saw him. The penalty- or lack thereof does not change that he ran a red light.</p>
<p>younghoss, I actually don’t agree that your hypothetical student is unethical. This student does have a clear first choice, but little chance of affording it and knows he is most likely to attend state school for financial reasons. But he submits an ED app on the slim hope that FA will be large enough to allow him to attend. I don’t have a problem with that at all. From my point of view, this student does have a first choice school and is justified in submitting an ED app. Though he may be unlikely to receive enough FA, he cannot know what the offer will be beforehand, so I see no harm in trying. And on a practical level, no one will ever really know if this scenario has occurred. He will just be another ED applicant who declines for financial reasons and enrolls at a cheaper school. You may think he has “sinned in his heart,” but I don’t, and more importantly, there would be no way to know.</p>
<p>Where did u get the impression that bigname U was his first choice school, and that student was ready to commit?
“He is content to go to State U. but would be willing to go to BigName U if it was windfall.”</p>
<p>In our high school, parents of those applying ED must attend a meeting with the guidance counselor, the head of guidance and either the asst. principal or principal to make certain that the student, the family and the high school are all in agreement that x student is applying ED to x school and that it is a commitment to attend if accepted. Guidance makes it very clear that unless finances are not an issue, do not apply ED, end of story. If someone does apply ED and then withdraws, there are implications for future students from that high school applying to that same university, as well as any younger siblings in that family going through the application process. Neither of our daughters either wanted to apply ED nor would we have let them as we were looking at merit $ possibilities/comparisons.</p>
<p>“Guidance makes it very clear that unless finances are not an issue, do not apply ED, end of story.”</p>
<p>Many colleges disagree, and want top students who need FA to apply ED to their dream schools. ED should not just be for the wealthy; it’s why colleges provide the ability to decline if the FA offer is not enough.</p>
<p>Ahh, younghoss, but is IS such a case – the only difference is timing. Finley has chosen to wait for something else “better” to come along. While it may just be his/her 's instate public Uni, Finley has decided that Brown is not worth the net cost of attendance relative to the cost of attendance at other schools (yet to be named) to which s/he could be accepted.</p>
<p>In the back of Finley’s mind is the net cost to attend instate public U. With an acceptance to Brown, acceptance to the instate public becomes a 99% safety. Thus, something financially better (to Finley) is nearly assured. But the instate public are several great colleges who love to throw merit money at Ivy-stat kids.</p>
<p>Wow, almost 2000 posts in this mega-thread! Let me help getting there with this small tidbit of information that goes back to the OP’s ED school. </p>
<p>Certains posts in this thread have hinted at a palpable cynicism by the ED schools regarding offering financial aid that is subject to the vagaries of the Profile and IM calculations. There have been numerous pointed fingers at the pure definition of aid --and probably few that understood that the real term is “meeting 100% of **demonstrated **aid.” </p>
<p>In the meantime, it might be important to underscore that Penn DID accept 26 student via the Questbridge program and that the students are all considered having a ZERO EFC and will receive what people like to call a “full ride.” In addition, Penn is reviewing an additional 50 students from the same group for the RD pool and intends to admit a substantial number of student who will need considerable aid. </p>
<p>All in all, it is easy to fall in the trap of discussing financial aid in broad terms and ignoring the fact that no situation is ever the same. As has been noted, there are many families that operate businesses (or farms) where the differences between net and taxable income and gross income are important, in addition to the business assets. </p>
<p>When it comes to financial aid, it is also important to remember that the first rule is that the PRIMARY responsibility of meeting the cost of an education rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents. In this regard, it might be rather unfortunate that the system of funding the public K-12 education in our country tends to mask this fact to many families.</p>
<p>maybe every student that uses the fin aid unworkable loophole to get out of an ED promise truly wanted to attend that only that one dream school and has done a diligent effort to read and understand the rules before student, and probably parent and GC sign the promise. And maybe every student that did that also put in every effort to make fin aid offer work if it was less than the student hoped. And every student that did all those things but found they couldn’t make it work promptly called school and declined offer because it wouldn’t work.
And maybe no student ever merely used the fin aid loophole when the real reason was that he changed his mind about the climate; the coach of a sport changed; the plan was adequate but he found a better offer; not sure school is #1 but willing to look at offer; the student was just shopping around, or other non financial offers that could not be resolved.
Or, maybe a student did act unethically, but it’s OK because college ED policies are unethical too. Or, maybe it’s OK because school has other applicants and doesn’t really get hurt anyway. Or, maybe some feel it’s OK to use the fin aid loophole even if the real reason is something other than an unresolvable money question. That would indicate no student has been unethical, or that maybe they were, but it really doesn’t count.</p>
<p>Maybe. Or maybe there are some who wrongfully take advantage of the <em>inadequate fin aid loophole</em> and are in fact, being unethical if they choose that action.</p>
<p>I understood Finly to say he had carefully estimated as best he could, and had re-negotiated with the school upon receipt of their offer, but the best he could come up with was borrowing 30k yr to attend that school; and that there is no way he can come up with any other money. I can see that based on that, despite his advance calculations the offer was WAY lower than he would reasonably expect. I can also see that he could reasonably consider 120k debt for undergrad school unworkable. His post tells us too, that he will now look for another school. This isn’t a case of applying ED, yet juggling 2 offers at the same time and picking the lower(not ED) school.
I assume all he’s told us is true, so I have no problem with what he’s chosen.</p>
<p>Younghoss, there are people that are going to act unethically. Some of these unethical people may be renters. Some may be landlords. Some may apply ED. Big deal. That’s not news. There are people doing unethical things in most areas of life.</p>
<p>To assume that some poster, who you don’t know, is one of those unethical people says more about you than it does about the poster.</p>
<p>oh please stop the hyperbole. calmom is not a FA expert. She has not worked in a college FA office. She has given advice that is wrong and dangerous. You may be sukced in by her misleading information but others are not. In fact, I find it enlightening that new fewer than 3 individuals who work in college admissions / financial aid have pm’d me thanking me for my comments on this thread and specifically thanked me for pointing out the dangerous errors and advice calmom is posting. You are the one who needs to get over it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm, well I would rather have high standards instead of the low or no standards you and others adhere to</p>