Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a gut feeling that the Colorado Academy College Counseling Office turned a blind eye to more than one of its own students who rejected an early decision offer for a better deal. This is a small world among independent schools, and college counselors and admissions officers talk. Tulane would not randomly single out a school like this for no reason. There must have been evidence of a pattern of skirting the rules.

That’s a good point. I cannot imagine any of the DMV area schools doing this. They are much more in the spotlight.

What’s a guidance counselor supposed to do? They can’t force a student to act for the collective good, especially one that’s graduating. I suspect this happens much more frequently than people suspect, even in the DMV.

They can refuse to send grades/ recs and other information to schools beyond the ED

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with Tulane doing this. Seriously, all the kid had to do was make up some reason and send it via email. I wish there is a way for the kid to be punished too.

+1 Same here. It's not like this Colorado private school can't have its kids accepted at all. It's just that they can't apply ED. For 1 year. This is hardly a tragedy. The NYT article even talks about how the guidance counselor is advising students to say "I would have applied ED if I could" in their essays. So they don't have the binding constraint of ED but can still claim it's their "first choice."

Yes, but if you know anything about Tulane admissions, you know that kids rarely get in unless they ED1 or ED2. There are something like 50 or fewer RD admits in a class of about 2000.

It probably affects only 1 or 2 kids. No way that many kids from a private in Colorado Ed to Tulane every year.

The first PP was also wrong about their knowledge of Tulane admissions. The NY Times article said:


About two-thirds of the more than 1,800 freshmen in the class were admitted through early decision, and only 106 with regular decisions, according to a report by Inside Higher Ed. (Others got in through early action, a preferential way to apply without committing to enrolling.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a gut feeling that the Colorado Academy College Counseling Office turned a blind eye to more than one of its own students who rejected an early decision offer for a better deal. This is a small world among independent schools, and college counselors and admissions officers talk. Tulane would not randomly single out a school like this for no reason. There must have been evidence of a pattern of skirting the rules.

That’s a good point. I cannot imagine any of the DMV area schools doing this. They are much more in the spotlight.

What’s a guidance counselor supposed to do? They can’t force a student to act for the collective good, especially one that’s graduating. I suspect this happens much more frequently than people suspect, even in the DMV.

Anonymous wrote:I have a gut feeling that the Colorado Academy College Counseling Office turned a blind eye to more than one of its own students who rejected an early decision offer for a better deal. This is a small world among independent schools, and college counselors and admissions officers talk. Tulane would not randomly single out a school like this for no reason. There must have been evidence of a pattern of skirting the rules.

That’s a good point. I cannot imagine any of the DMV area schools doing this. They are much more in the spotlight.

I have a gut feeling that the Colorado Academy College Counseling Office turned a blind eye to more than one of its own students who rejected an early decision offer for a better deal. This is a small world among independent schools, and college counselors and admissions officers talk. Tulane would not randomly single out a school like this for no reason. There must have been evidence of a pattern of skirting the rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane getting huffy and punishing so many other students from this high school is childish and unethical.

Not that Tulane interests me, but now we have one less reason to consider it.

Tulane didn't do this to the junior class, the high school counselor did. The Junior class should demand that person be fired and that the school withhold the offending students' transcripts. Then maybe Tulane will be able to trust the school, take the school and its students at their word, and change course. No college wants to admit unethical people and if you are coming from an unethical high school, its a huge red flag.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Tulane for enforcing its rules. At least they're being transparent about it. What's the point of binding ED if the students are just going to take the advantage of being admitted ED while also going to the best school/taking the best offer they get (the reason most kids don't apply ED in the first place).

Let me make this clear. If by chance it was the student who was in the wrong then punish the student, not the innocent ones who had nothing to do with this! Disgusting move by Tulane.

If the student wasn't in "the wrong," the private school can clearly contest its ban. But since the Colorado Academy guidance counselor was asking other guidance counselors "how to deal with this" rather than saying that Tulane's assertions were false, it doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't know how you suggest Tulane "punish the student." Clearly the action Tulane is able to take that's within its powers as a university is to ban other kids from that school from doing ED for one year. You can suggest others, but I would suggest the university has thought more about this than you have. And as others have said upthread, these private school kids can still apply EA or RD if they want.

Don't most civilized people reject collective punishment as immoral? What is the rationale for justifying it used against kids by a college (not just Tulane, all of them) that at a bare minimum is not transparent with its admissions process (no data on percent of ED admits versus EA versus regular decision, no disclosure on numbers of legacy, donor, athletic admits, no disclosure of what secret "institutional priorities" they are looking for), i.e. no real ability of unhooked applicants to assess their chances of admission

Immoral? Please.

It's short-sighted on the part of Tulane, I give you that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with Tulane doing this. Seriously, all the kid had to do was make up some reason and send it via email. I wish there is a way for the kid to be punished too.

+1 Same here. It's not like this Colorado private school can't have its kids accepted at all. It's just that they can't apply ED. For 1 year. This is hardly a tragedy. The NYT article even talks about how the guidance counselor is advising students to say "I would have applied ED if I could" in their essays. So they don't have the binding constraint of ED but can still claim it's their "first choice."

Yes, but if you know anything about Tulane admissions, you know that kids rarely get in unless they ED1 or ED2. There are something like 50 or fewer RD admits in a class of about 2000.

It probably affects only 1 or 2 kids. No way that many kids from a private in Colorado Ed to Tulane every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane getting huffy and punishing so many other students from this high school is childish and unethical.

Not that Tulane interests me, but now we have one less reason to consider it.

Tulane didn't do this to the junior class, the high school counselor did. The Junior class should demand that person be fired and that the school withhold the offending students' transcripts. Then maybe Tulane will be able to trust the school, take the school and its students at their word, and change course. No college wants to admit unethical people and if you are coming from an unethical high school, its a huge red flag.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Tulane for enforcing its rules. At least they're being transparent about it. What's the point of binding ED if the students are just going to take the advantage of being admitted ED while also going to the best school/taking the best offer they get (the reason most kids don't apply ED in the first place).

Let me make this clear. If by chance it was the student who was in the wrong then punish the student, not the innocent ones who had nothing to do with this! Disgusting move by Tulane.

How are they going to "punish" the student? You can't make them attend, nor can you force them to pay the tuition. That student obviously could not care less what Tulane thinks, or s/he wouldn't have done this.

So, if Tulane is going to make a stink about this, which BTW, I think is a pretty dumb move and I say this as a Tulane parent, they have no choice but to "punish" the school and the counseling office that the student came from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane getting huffy and punishing so many other students from this high school is childish and unethical.

Not that Tulane interests me, but now we have one less reason to consider it.

Tulane didn't do this to the junior class, the high school counselor did. The Junior class should demand that person be fired and that the school withhold the offending students' transcripts. Then maybe Tulane will be able to trust the school, take the school and its students at their word, and change course. No college wants to admit unethical people and if you are coming from an unethical high school, its a huge red flag.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Tulane for enforcing its rules. At least they're being transparent about it. What's the point of binding ED if the students are just going to take the advantage of being admitted ED while also going to the best school/taking the best offer they get (the reason most kids don't apply ED in the first place).

Let me make this clear. If by chance it was the student who was in the wrong then punish the student, not the innocent ones who had nothing to do with this! Disgusting move by Tulane.

If the student wasn't in "the wrong," the private school can clearly contest its ban. But since the Colorado Academy guidance counselor was asking other guidance counselors "how to deal with this" rather than saying that Tulane's assertions were false, it doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't know how you suggest Tulane "punish the student." Clearly the action Tulane is able to take that's within its powers as a university is to ban other kids from that school from doing ED for one year. You can suggest others, but I would suggest the university has thought more about this than you have. And as others have said upthread, these private school kids can still apply EA or RD if they want.

Don't most civilized people reject collective punishment as immoral? What is the rationale for justifying it used against kids by a college (not just Tulane, all of them) that at a bare minimum is not transparent with its admissions process (no data on percent of ED admits versus EA versus regular decision, no disclosure on numbers of legacy, donor, athletic admits, no disclosure of what secret "institutional priorities" they are looking for), i.e. no real ability of unhooked applicants to assess their chances of admission

Collective punishments happen all the time. Having to go through security, well, anywhere. Having medicines and other products behind lock and key at stores. These are but a few examples of things we all endure because of a subset of bad actors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane getting huffy and punishing so many other students from this high school is childish and unethical.

Not that Tulane interests me, but now we have one less reason to consider it.

Tulane didn't do this to the junior class, the high school counselor did. The Junior class should demand that person be fired and that the school withhold the offending students' transcripts. Then maybe Tulane will be able to trust the school, take the school and its students at their word, and change course. No college wants to admit unethical people and if you are coming from an unethical high school, its a huge red flag.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Tulane for enforcing its rules. At least they're being transparent about it. What's the point of binding ED if the students are just going to take the advantage of being admitted ED while also going to the best school/taking the best offer they get (the reason most kids don't apply ED in the first place).

Let me make this clear. If by chance it was the student who was in the wrong then punish the student, not the innocent ones who had nothing to do with this! Disgusting move by Tulane.

If the student wasn't in "the wrong," the private school can clearly contest its ban. But since the Colorado Academy guidance counselor was asking other guidance counselors "how to deal with this" rather than saying that Tulane's assertions were false, it doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't know how you suggest Tulane "punish the student." Clearly the action Tulane is able to take that's within its powers as a university is to ban other kids from that school from doing ED for one year. You can suggest others, but I would suggest the university has thought more about this than you have. And as others have said upthread, these private school kids can still apply EA or RD if they want.

Don't most civilized people reject collective punishment as immoral? What is the rationale for justifying it used against kids by a college (not just Tulane, all of them) that at a bare minimum is not transparent with its admissions process (no data on percent of ED admits versus EA versus regular decision, no disclosure on numbers of legacy, donor, athletic admits, no disclosure of what secret "institutional priorities" they are looking for), i.e. no real ability of unhooked applicants to assess their chances of admission

You're conflating a lot of issues. Tulane has a very distinct business model driven by ED, and may not be transparent with its admissions data (I don't know--my kids are not interested in Tulane). You can punish them by not having your kids apply there.

At the same time, Tulane has the right to exercise a punishment against a school whose student didn't adhere to its rules. Collective punishment happens all the time. Countries can get banned from the Olympics when its shown that too many of its team members have failed drug tests. Citizens of a country get banned from international activities due to sanctions related to the actions of their government. I'm not going to shed tears for the students of Colorado Academy. They can apply EA or RD. Tulane isn't that great of a school such that their life will be much worse off if they don't attend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane getting huffy and punishing so many other students from this high school is childish and unethical.

Not that Tulane interests me, but now we have one less reason to consider it.

Tulane didn't do this to the junior class, the high school counselor did. The Junior class should demand that person be fired and that the school withhold the offending students' transcripts. Then maybe Tulane will be able to trust the school, take the school and its students at their word, and change course. No college wants to admit unethical people and if you are coming from an unethical high school, its a huge red flag.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Tulane for enforcing its rules. At least they're being transparent about it. What's the point of binding ED if the students are just going to take the advantage of being admitted ED while also going to the best school/taking the best offer they get (the reason most kids don't apply ED in the first place).

Let me make this clear. If by chance it was the student who was in the wrong then punish the student, not the innocent ones who had nothing to do with this! Disgusting move by Tulane.

If the student wasn't in "the wrong," the private school can clearly contest its ban. But since the Colorado Academy guidance counselor was asking other guidance counselors "how to deal with this" rather than saying that Tulane's assertions were false, it doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't know how you suggest Tulane "punish the student." Clearly the action Tulane is able to take that's within its powers as a university is to ban other kids from that school from doing ED for one year. You can suggest others, but I would suggest the university has thought more about this than you have. And as others have said upthread, these private school kids can still apply EA or RD if they want.

Don't most civilized people reject collective punishment as immoral? What is the rationale for justifying it used against kids by a college (not just Tulane, all of them) that at a bare minimum is not transparent with its admissions process (no data on percent of ED admits versus EA versus regular decision, no disclosure on numbers of legacy, donor, athletic admits, no disclosure of what secret "institutional priorities" they are looking for), i.e. no real ability of unhooked applicants to assess their chances of admission

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane getting huffy and punishing so many other students from this high school is childish and unethical.

Not that Tulane interests me, but now we have one less reason to consider it.

Tulane didn't do this to the junior class, the high school counselor did. The Junior class should demand that person be fired and that the school withhold the offending students' transcripts. Then maybe Tulane will be able to trust the school, take the school and its students at their word, and change course. No college wants to admit unethical people and if you are coming from an unethical high school, its a huge red flag.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Tulane for enforcing its rules. At least they're being transparent about it. What's the point of binding ED if the students are just going to take the advantage of being admitted ED while also going to the best school/taking the best offer they get (the reason most kids don't apply ED in the first place).

Let me make this clear. If by chance it was the student who was in the wrong then punish the student, not the innocent ones who had nothing to do with this! Disgusting move by Tulane.

If the student wasn't in "the wrong," the private school can clearly contest its ban. But since the Colorado Academy guidance counselor was asking other guidance counselors "how to deal with this" rather than saying that Tulane's assertions were false, it doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't know how you suggest Tulane "punish the student." Clearly the action Tulane is able to take that's within its powers as a university is to ban other kids from that school from doing ED for one year. You can suggest others, but I would suggest the university has thought more about this than you have. And as others have said upthread, these private school kids can still apply EA or RD if they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED has to go. It used to be an option used by the very few kids who had an absolute 110% first choice AND could be confident about the strength of their high school record grades 9-11. I don’t know anyone from my private high school class (early 90’s) who ED’d anywhere. This was a high school filled with full pay kids, that sent a good-sized contingent to the Ivies, T-25’s and SLAC’s most years. Now ED has added another unnecessary layer of stress to an already stressful process and has become a too for colleges to game the rankings.

You’re wrong. I applied to college in 1980 and ED’d to Dartmouth. My sister ED’d to an Ivy 7 years later. Private high school. Many did.

+1. Pretty much my whole private HS graduating class in early 90s applied early.

Wow, some of you are really super jealous that your kid can't ED. I had no idea! Where I live in the real world, some people ED and some don't and no one cares one way or the other. I'm so glad I don't live in psycho private school land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulane getting huffy and punishing so many other students from this high school is childish and unethical.

Not that Tulane interests me, but now we have one less reason to consider it.

Tulane didn't do this to the junior class, the high school counselor did. The Junior class should demand that person be fired and that the school withhold the offending students' transcripts. Then maybe Tulane will be able to trust the school, take the school and its students at their word, and change course. No college wants to admit unethical people and if you are coming from an unethical high school, its a huge red flag.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Tulane for enforcing its rules. At least they're being transparent about it. What's the point of binding ED if the students are just going to take the advantage of being admitted ED while also going to the best school/taking the best offer they get (the reason most kids don't apply ED in the first place).

Let me make this clear. If by chance it was the student who was in the wrong then punish the student, not the innocent ones who had nothing to do with this! Disgusting move by Tulane.