Should Early Decision be outlawed and replaced by non-binding Early Action?

<p>
[quote]
ED is immoral because it favors the wealthy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Doesn't ED also favor applicants who have extremely low EFC, are part of under-represented groups, and might enjoy the higher admission rates of ED? </p>

<p>Also, aren't students almost guaranteed a "free look" if the financial package is deemed insufficient? In past discussions on CC, it has become apparent that the strong binding language used by the schools has lost all its bite and leaves the student quite unimpressed by the necessity to play by the rules. </p>

<p>If there is an admission advantage to apply ED, where is the downside for low EFC families, and perhaps families with not so low EFCs that do not mind challenging the system.</p>

<p>"I believe ED exists to benefit the institution"</p>

<p>Everything private schools do is for their own benefit, in their own interest. One of the main things they must do is to make themselves attractive to applicants. ED is clearly beneficial to schools, allowing them to lock in money (full payers) and top students (from needy to wealthy). Some applicants like ED for its obvious benefits, so some schools offer it, especially those with limited endowments.</p>

<p>Metallika, no application that a given student makes anywhere is "fair" or "unfair" to anyone else. I have twins who will likely apply ED at certain places and EA to others (within all parameters). They are not obligated to hold back any apps they make in good faith because of anyone else. </p>

<p>Look, if you want to talk something that is a scam, get rid of athletic scholarships which have nothing to do with the mission of a college before going after ED.</p>

<p>The rich will always have more choices in life. They will have more choice of what to eat, what car to drive, where to live, where to vacation, and where to send Jr. to college. The "ED is immoral" argument is thinly disguised whining. I wouldn't let my kids apply ED for financial reasons and I can't afford a week at the beach, but I don't begrudge those who can and do. Keep in mind that the wealthy are not a static group. Fortunes are made and fortunes are lost or frittered away. College admissions over the past 50 years have had a lot to do with class mobility. In addition, private college endowments, funded largely by wealthy benefactors, have helped fund many of the generous financial aid at the nation's best colleges and universities. This informal system works rather well I think, and far better that a mandated methodology for college admissions, even if what is fair and immoral could be agreed upon.</p>

<p>Outlaw? Immoral? LOL</p>

<p>ED does favor those who aren't slaved to FA offers, that's right. But your assuming that these colleges also don't recruit heavily for middle to lower income students. Just not the case.</p>

<p>What you are suggesting is so blatantly intrusive, it's obnoxious. The marketplace sorts this kind of thing out. Leave it alone. Many schools have chosen to adapt and even abandon this practice as it fits the school goals. Wanna vote? Get on a University board.</p>

<p>
[quote]
ED does favor those who aren't slaved to FA offers, that's right. But your assuming that these colleges also don't recruit heavily for middle to lower income students. Just not the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, and what if a college does favor full-pay? I don't see what's "immoral" about that. They can choose to favor full-pay just like they can choose to favor legacies or football players or valedictorians or people who score above X on their SAT's. They are not obligated to provide access to everyone -- they just can't be discriminatory against protected classes.</p>