This is a follow-up to the PCACAC December Case. As you may
remember, we hosted a competition to solicit replies concerning the following
case. Below, please find the case, the winning submission and additional
discussion. Watch for the January Case by the end of the month.
Just a reminder, as part of the PCACAC AP Committee’s desire
to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.”
In these cases, we offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in
compliance with NACAC’s
Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). This month’s case was
submitted by Casey Zimmer, a member of the PCACAC AP Committee as well as Director
of College Counseling of Samford School (DE). If you have a question about a
situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.
December Case:
Charlie, the College Counselor for his school, was quite happy for his student,
Schroeder, when Schroeder happily walked into Charlie’s office on December 15th
to share the news – he’d been admitted to Peanuts U Early Decision! Schroeder
had also been responsible in keeping his options open, and he had already
submitted several other applications Regular Decision. Charlie felt that Schroeder had played his
cards pretty well, getting his applications out of the way while making a
prudent decision to apply ED to his first-choice school, Peanuts. He reminded
Schroeder that he was supposed to withdraw his other applications, and
Schroeder went on his way to play the piano for the school’s holiday concert.
One day in late February, Schroeder came into Charlie’s
office and asked him, “So Mr. Brown, have you sent my mid-year reports to my
other colleges yet?” Alarm bells went off in Charlie’s mind. Schroeder
shouldn’t be worried about his other applications or mid-year reports! He sat
Schroeder down for a talk, and found out the scoop. The Financial Aid Award
presented by Peanuts to Schroeder and his family was way off what the family thought it could afford to pay for Peanuts.
Schroeder had not officially withdrawn his other
applications after he had been admitted to Peanuts, because they had not yet
received a Financial Aid package. Once they did receive it in late January, the
family quickly started filing appeals with Peanuts – and Schroeder started to
get concerned about keeping his other options open – hence his question about
his mid-year reports. Schroeder was unsure when they would get a final decision
from Peanuts.
To complicate matters, Schroeder proceeds to ask him to send
materials to two new schools not previously on his list.
What should Charlie do? What are the ethical issues?
Winning Submission: We
would like to thank the numerous professionals from around the country,
particularly the numerous members of Illinois ACAC, who took the time to think
about and submit an entry to the December Case. The response was enthusiastic
and the PCACAC AP Committee had a tough time picking a winner. In the end, the following write up submitted
by Samantha Schneider on behalf of the Towson University of Admission Office
was selected:
“SPGP defines Early Decision (ED) as the application process
in which students make a commitment to a first-choice institution where, if
admitted, they definitely will enroll. While pursuing admission under an Early
Decision plan, students may apply to other institutions, but may have only one
Early Decision application pending at any time. Should a student who applies
for financial aid not be offered an award that makes attendance possible, the
student may decline the offer of admission and be released from the Early
Decision commitment. The institution must notify the applicant of the decision
within a reasonable and clearly stated period of time after the Early Decision
deadline. Usually, a nonrefundable deposit must be made well in advance of May
1. The institution will respond to an application for financial aid at or near
the time of an offer of admission.
We felt it was within the student’s right to re-consider the
binding agreement if they are no longer able to afford the cost of attendance.
Charlie is burdened with #1 of the member conventions: protecting the best
interests of all students a primary concern in the admission process. It didn’t seem like Charlie or the Schroeder
family could foresee how far off the financial aid package for Peanut U was
during the process but what type of financial research did the student complete
before applying? Is there any documentation from the school indicating that
they could promise a certain amount of aid (merit or need?). This may also fall
back to the net-price calculator if scholarship calculations are included. From
the school’s perspective, what language do they include on the website about
the procedure for an ED student to question their financial aid? Must it be
done by a certain date? The counselor is certainly in a tough spot, but it
seems that he might have followed up with Charlie about his notifications or
had a conversation with the ED institution and the student jointly. We would
want Charlie to speak with the ED school before doing anything more with the
other applications in question.”
Further Discussion: Since
this case was posted in mid-December, there has been an active and lively
related discussion on the NACAC Exchange. The AP Committee has been enthused to
see the timeliness of the case; the responses that we have received, as well as
the opinions on the NACAC Exchange, demonstrate
this issue is relevant and murky. In reading the various thoughts on this
topic, we see multiple viewpoints and considerations ranging from college (from
the ED college and others involved), student-counseling (high school, CBO or
independent professional) and student/family perspectives. For example, some of
the issues that affect each viewpoint include:
-
How does the acceleration of the application
process (application creep) effect Early Decision? Is ED really early
anymore?
-
How does the advent of Estimated Cost
Calculators effect this process? Do they provide enough accurate information
ahead of time for families? What is a fair timeline for an ED college to get a
package to a student?
-
With the FAFSA process opening in October, will
more colleges package earlier? Will this effect students’ interpretation of
“affordable”? How is “affordable” defined given differential packaging and
tuition discounting?
-
What is the role of the counselor when this
becomes messy? Gatekeeper not allowing more applications, student advocate or
combination?
-
How do other (non-ED) colleges react to a
student withdrawing from an ED commitment?
__________________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to file a complaint, please complete a
NACAC Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept
confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate
affiliate AP Committee. This committee will follow up on the issue.
Want to review previous case studies?
View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies on The Anchor
here.
Want to submit a case for consideration? Please e-mail the
PCACAC AP Committee Chair at jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org
No comments:
Post a Comment