What would happen if ED was outlawed?

[Anonymous]

Wasn't there just a thread about this? Face it, ED is not illegal and never will be illegal. If you don't like it - don't use it.

[Anonymous]

If ED were outlawed then the makers of Viagra would be out of business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If ED were outlawed then the makers of Viagra would be out of business.

Absolutely. A federal consumer law could take care of all forms of ED.

[Anonymous]

Then it would be High Noon at the O.K. Corral

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If ED were outlawed then the makers of Viagra would be out of business.

ED is a common, burdensome, and costly condition strongly related to all aspects of general health, from physical to mental. ED has profound consequences as it may interfere physical well-being, quality of life (QoL), self-esteem, relationships, self-worth, and productivity.

- Am J Mens Health. 2020 Oct 12;14(5)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet that a lot more schools would go to rolling admissions. Maybe not constant, but at least waves.

Rolling admission would be amazing! So much better for students than this ridiculous binding ED.

[Anonymous]

Emory would become even more of a shithole

[Anonymous]

Also acceptance rates would triple in 2 -3 years. Schools would try gamesmanship via waitlists.

[Anonymous]

There would chaos raised to the power of 10 in April, May, June and July. Waitlists would be much longer than they are now to absorb the uncertainties. Dorm spaces might run out at more schools due to underestimating yield. Students would be even more stressed holding out hope that they would be pulled off waitlists. Not a pretty scene.

[Anonymous]

It should be

[Anonymous]

I bet a dollar that OP must not like ED very much because they cannot afford it and are jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be found to violate anti trust law.

A simple solution to any perceived antitrust issues would be for schools to drop the requirement that accepted ED applicants withdraw all of their applications to other schools and, instead, the school would require that anED applicant submit the first semester’s tuition in full within a short designated time following acceptance. If the applicant didn’t submit the tuition, the acceptance would be withdrawn and the application would then be denied.

So, double down on the rich kid advantage?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There would chaos raised to the power of 10 in April, May, June and July. Waitlists would be much longer than they are now to absorb the uncertainties. Dorm spaces might run out at more schools due to underestimating yield. Students would be even more stressed holding out hope that they would be pulled off waitlists. Not a pretty scene.

Or schools could just move all decision making forward and start using the waitlist sooner.

I’m a fan of ED. DD picked a realistic one and was successful. She is thrilled, and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't happen but I will play.
I suspect it would negatively impact students needing financial aid. It's pretty clear colleges use ED to lock in highly qualified full pay students. They need them in order to be able to offer spots to students who can only attend with FA.

My kid got quite a bit of FA during ED, so not for the rich

+1 Posters like PP keep repeating this chestnut, but it's simply not true. It's all about the NPC. What is true is that you can't shop merit offers but the NPC estimate was a significant factor in determining DC's ED choice. When it came down to two schools, DC went with the one with the more generous NPC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet a dollar that OP must not like ED very much because they cannot afford it and are jealous.

ED does not preclude financial aid. Stop.