Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED can't be made illegal. But say the current or future US president decides he doesn't like ED. He could cut off aid, stop medical and science research contracts, or force them to fire the college president or board, if they don't stop ED

It’s called legislation. Just like the federal government can’t tax endowments? Or states can’t outlaw legacy admissions? Please.

Highly unlikely that legacy can be outlawed, otherwise CA would have done so. They said no state aid if legacy allowed and USC and Stanford said fine, we don’t need your aid.

No, of course it can. CA chose to do it that way to more easily get it passed. You don’t know what you are talking about.
It is amazing to me how much otherwise educated people do not know the power of their own governments. Brainwashed.

Anonymous wrote:Admissions would become slightly more random than it already is because applicants would apply to more schools.

Set a hard limit on the number of schools to which you can apply. One centralized application—12 applications max

Admissions would become slightly more random than it already is because applicants would apply to more schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED can't be made illegal. But say the current or future US president decides he doesn't like ED. He could cut off aid, stop medical and science research contracts, or force them to fire the college president or board, if they don't stop ED

It’s called legislation. Just like the federal government can’t tax endowments? Or states can’t outlaw legacy admissions? Please.

Highly unlikely that legacy can be outlawed, otherwise CA would have done so. They said no state aid if legacy allowed and USC and Stanford said fine, we don’t need your aid.

Anonymous wrote:ED can't be made illegal. But say the current or future US president decides he doesn't like ED. He could cut off aid, stop medical and science research contracts, or force them to fire the college president or board, if they don't stop ED

It’s called legislation. Just like the federal government can’t tax endowments? Or states can’t outlaw legacy admissions? Please.

ED should not be outlawed. It is a great option for many families and absolutely benefits universities for yield management and financial aid optimization. Without ED, you would likely see a lot more wait-listed applicants and less generous FA offers in RD round as universities would have a lot more uncertainty.

The perceived benefit of ED for most kids is way inflated unless they are legacies or athletes anyway. Unhooked kids with weaker applications are not getting in during the ED round and have nothing to lose by waiting until RD and comparing packages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the solution is limited ED. No more than 25% of the class, maybe? Enough to cover a reasonable amount of FA, but not so much that families who need to compare offers feel locked out.

If you need financial aid beyond what the NPC shows apply RD. It kills me that people are so entitled that they expect private institutions bend to their whims rather than their own priorities. We're full pay so my preference would be that schools drop all institutional financial aid and set their prices accordingly but I accept that this doesn't fit their institutional priorities and that they are unlikely to accede to my preferences.

This is a situation where institutions that get huge subsidies from taxpayers are then setting policies that reward taxpayers for putting themselves in a position where they can't comparison shop based on price. personally, I can pay full price for any college for my kids but I still think that ED potentially violates anti-trust law and if not should be considered to be incompatible with being a tax exempt/non-profit institution. If colleges want to continue to have ED they could, but they should be paying taxes on their endowments.

Complete nonsense. You can comparison shop based on the Not to Exceed number from the NPC. Not for profit doesn't in any way mean "must do what every entitled whiner asks". ED in no way violates anti-trust law, that is foolish.

Thanks for your thoughtful and well-reasoned legal analysis.

You are welcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donut-hole families are insufferable.

I’m not sure why it is insufferable to think it would be better if the price was known before you sign a contract.

I can’t think of anything else in life where you are expected to sign a contract without insight into whether additional discounts are available.

DP. Except it’s not always true. We submitted tax and financial info to ED school’s financial aid office provided a financial aid offer before DC made the final decision to apply ED. We knew that DC could not attend without aid so there was no point in trying to play games or pretend to be full pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the solution is limited ED. No more than 25% of the class, maybe? Enough to cover a reasonable amount of FA, but not so much that families who need to compare offers feel locked out.

If you need financial aid beyond what the NPC shows apply RD. It kills me that people are so entitled that they expect private institutions bend to their whims rather than their own priorities. We're full pay so my preference would be that schools drop all institutional financial aid and set their prices accordingly but I accept that this doesn't fit their institutional priorities and that they are unlikely to accede to my preferences.

This is a situation where institutions that get huge subsidies from taxpayers are then setting policies that reward taxpayers for putting themselves in a position where they can't comparison shop based on price. personally, I can pay full price for any college for my kids but I still think that ED potentially violates anti-trust law and if not should be considered to be incompatible with being a tax exempt/non-profit institution. If colleges want to continue to have ED they could, but they should be paying taxes on their endowments.

Complete nonsense. You can comparison shop based on the Not to Exceed number from the NPC. Not for profit doesn't in any way mean "must do what every entitled whiner asks". ED in no way violates anti-trust law, that is foolish.

Thanks for your thoughtful and well-reasoned legal analysis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the solution is limited ED. No more than 25% of the class, maybe? Enough to cover a reasonable amount of FA, but not so much that families who need to compare offers feel locked out.

If you need financial aid beyond what the NPC shows apply RD. It kills me that people are so entitled that they expect private institutions bend to their whims rather than their own priorities. We're full pay so my preference would be that schools drop all institutional financial aid and set their prices accordingly but I accept that this doesn't fit their institutional priorities and that they are unlikely to accede to my preferences.

This is a situation where institutions that get huge subsidies from taxpayers are then setting policies that reward taxpayers for putting themselves in a position where they can't comparison shop based on price. personally, I can pay full price for any college for my kids but I still think that ED potentially violates anti-trust law and if not should be considered to be incompatible with being a tax exempt/non-profit institution. If colleges want to continue to have ED they could, but they should be paying taxes on their endowments.

Complete nonsense. You can comparison shop based on the Not to Exceed number from the NPC. Not for profit doesn't in any way mean "must do what every entitled whiner asks". ED in no way violates anti-trust law, that is foolish.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the solution is limited ED. No more than 25% of the class, maybe? Enough to cover a reasonable amount of FA, but not so much that families who need to compare offers feel locked out.

If you need financial aid beyond what the NPC shows apply RD. It kills me that people are so entitled that they expect private institutions bend to their whims rather than their own priorities. We're full pay so my preference would be that schools drop all institutional financial aid and set their prices accordingly but I accept that this doesn't fit their institutional priorities and that they are unlikely to accede to my preferences.

This is a situation where institutions that get huge subsidies from taxpayers are then setting policies that reward taxpayers for putting themselves in a position where they can't comparison shop based on price. personally, I can pay full price for any college for my kids but I still think that ED potentially violates anti-trust law and if not should be considered to be incompatible with being a tax exempt/non-profit institution. If colleges want to continue to have ED they could, but they should be paying taxes on their endowments.

Complete nonsense. You can comparison shop based on the Not to Exceed number from the NPC. Not for profit doesn't in any way mean "must do what every entitled whiner asks". ED in no way violates anti-trust law, that is foolish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the solution is limited ED. No more than 25% of the class, maybe? Enough to cover a reasonable amount of FA, but not so much that families who need to compare offers feel locked out.

If you need financial aid beyond what the NPC shows apply RD. It kills me that people are so entitled that they expect private institutions bend to their whims rather than their own priorities. We're full pay so my preference would be that schools drop all institutional financial aid and set their prices accordingly but I accept that this doesn't fit their institutional priorities and that they are unlikely to accede to my preferences.

This is a situation where institutions that get huge subsidies from taxpayers are then setting policies that reward taxpayers for putting themselves in a position where they can't comparison shop based on price. personally, I can pay full price for any college for my kids but I still think that ED potentially violates anti-trust law and if not should be considered to be incompatible with being a tax exempt/non-profit institution. If colleges want to continue to have ED they could, but they should be paying taxes on their endowments.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the solution is limited ED. No more than 25% of the class, maybe? Enough to cover a reasonable amount of FA, but not so much that families who need to compare offers feel locked out.

If you need financial aid beyond what the NPC shows apply RD. It kills me that people are so entitled that they expect private institutions bend to their whims rather than their own priorities. We're full pay so my preference would be that schools drop all institutional financial aid and set their prices accordingly but I accept that this doesn't fit their institutional priorities and that they are unlikely to accede to my preferences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why require this? What about ED is the issue that requires some sort of change? Do most people not ultimately attend their ED school? If so, then your solution makes sense. If the issue is that ED offers an unfair advantage to the wealthy, I still don’t see how your solution will solve anything. Also, people needing FA cannot pay their tuition on the spot. I’m also not sure how that would work with 529s — you can’t dispense funds for the next year in the current year.

Yet another person who thinks ED benefits applicants - and not the universities. Wow! And I thought it was gen z that had no critical thinking skills: you gen xers are really something.

DP. Of course ED benefits students too! The student is choosing their first choice university, and if the school accepts them, they are done. Mission complete. ED benefits the schools by giving them a tangible number of applicants whom they know will be attending, if accepted. It's a win-win. If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT.

Plus families know the maximum price as well. If that price doesn't work then don't apply.

ED can't be made illegal. But say the current or future US president decides he doesn't like ED. He could cut off aid, stop medical and science research contracts, or force them to fire the college president or board, if they don't stop ED