Early Decision ?

It's only "binding" to the extent of one's ethics.  A verbal or a hand shake is not legally binding.  So, it really doesn't "force a kid to attend a school."   Even if a NLI is signed, it's really a unilateral contract binding the school and not the kid (though the kid would not be able to play at other schools).

Are you talking about Early Decision in the application process?  Or an early verbal to play baseball?

If you are asking about the ED application process, there could be consequences.  This thread at College Confidential may be helpful (CC is a great website!)

http://talk.collegeconfidentia...-early-decision.html

Once my son made a verbal commitment, he was required to apply early decision, before the NLI was signed.

Not all schools offer the binding early decision option.  Some offer "early action" which is not binding, but lets your child know early that they have been accepted.

I'm talking early decision in applications process.  I just find it to be an impossible "agreement" to enforce.  Things can change.  It's almost indentured servitude.  Take advantage of kids who can't legally make a contract.  I don't get it. 

If you read some of the details in the link keewart provided you will see that they've got the enforcement part pretty well worked out.

Who is taking advantage?  The rules are spelled out very specifically.  If you think you and your child cannot follow the rules, don't apply Early Decision.

Early Decision offers an applicant who is certain of his number one school the opportunity to demonstrate that desire very clearly to admissions.  If your your child only "thinks" they want that school, don't apply.

Our son, now graduated, applied ED to his school.  The guidelines are/were very, very specific, there are/were no ambiguities.  It is meant for students who absolutely know the school is their first choice.  If that is not the case, the applicant should not apply ED, and if one does not care for the structure or concept of ED, apply RD.  Unless there is a compelling and acceptable reason to back out of an ED acceptance - and there are legitimate circumstances, it is extremely bad form in my opinion to back out for willy-nilly reasons, really quite classless.

It's my understanding that an Early Decision agreement, like an NLI, in a unilateral contract and binds the school to the contract as long as the student abides by the contract. 

Note that, like an NLI, a student can only apply ED to one school.

Of course it's not something to take lightly as not abiding to the contract typically reflects negatively on one's integrity.  

Actually it sounds like the "enforcement" is some type of underworld "blackball."  Seems like a lot of trouble just to get even with a young kid. 

Well it seems to me with the costs of college these days it would be advantageous to compare schools and financial/scholarship offers.  I read where one kid had an ED and another school came thru with a full academic ride.  I guess I am just skeptical trying to "bind" a kid to something without full information.  

Then don't apply ED.  It's simple.

Just trying to figure out what its implications are. 

The five Ivies that have ED programs--and I am sure all other schools that have them too--explain the implications clearly on their websites.

Here is the explanation on the Columbia website, for example:

https://undergrad.admissions.c...-year/early-decision

In particular:

If you are admitted under the Early Decision program, you are obligated to accept Columbia’s offer of admission. Once you accept Columbia’s offer of admission, you may file no further college applications and must withdraw any other applications that have already been submitted. Only students who (after consultation with the Financial Aid Office) cite financial reasons for not attending will be released from the Early Decision agreement.

According to the National Association for College Admission Counseling guidelines, “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.” While Columbia does not necessarily encourage the filing of both Early Decision (binding) and Early Action (non-binding) applications, we do not prohibit candidates from doing so. However, candidates should be aware that Columbia’s Early Decision program is a binding agreement and a candidate will be expected to enroll, regardless of any pending applications (early or otherwise). 

As others have said, if these terms are not acceptable, then ED is not the right option.

Some may ask what are they going to do if I do not enroll after I apply and get accepted ED? As part of each ED application file to the Ivies at least, the school guidance counselor has to acknowledge that required application information the counselor is sending to the Ivy is for an ED application and that the counselor is aware of the obligations attendant to applying ED.

If one of the guidance counselor's students backs out of an ED admission, that will probably be the last student that guidance counselor...and perhaps the school..will get into that Ivy for a while. I do not know if Ivies seek any further consequences that would impact the high school or the individual.

As it relates to baseball, is a coach suggesting your son apply ED (esp at a D3) to "get him there so no once else can have him"?

From reading this site, many D3 coaches want to lock up their recruits by doing this.  THEN they still have to try out.

In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, if an applicant is 100% sold on an institution as their first choice, enough so to apply ED, then the parents/family should have thoroughly vetted the finances and likely level/amount of financial aid to be expected in advance with the institution's office of financial aid, in advance of submitting the application - if financial aid will be required to attend the school.

I think this is exactly right. 

I don't know whether non-selective schools offer ED or why you would use it, but when my (non-baseball) 2015 was applying to schools last year, we came very close to going ED. Why?  Because in an incredibly competitive field of applicants for top schools, ED applications are accepted at a higher rate than regular applications.(Though that stat may be skewed somewhat because athletes are among the ED pool).  So if a kid is really, really sure he wants to go to a particular school, or close enough that he's willing to trade some degree of choice for a higher chance of acceptance and the opportunity to put the process to bed early, ED can be a wonderful  thing.

The one valid point about the OP's concern about ED is the money.  But there are ample resources to get a good read on how much aid you can expect from almost any given school. Still, it doesn't always work out. I just looked at last year's numbers for a school my kid strongly considered applying ED to.  Of 798 students they accepted ED, 777 enrolled.  So yeah, some ED admits back out. But not many!

In my opinion, the valid financial reason for backing out of an ED acceptance is when there is a dramatic change in family finances, lost job, etc after the fact that impinge on the ability to afford the school.

Merely getting a better offer from some other school, even a "full ride" is not.  That's like asking a girl to marry you, then, backing out because another gal comes around in a month or so who is prettier, richer, etc.  Obviously, you were not 100% committed to the first woman in the first place, so it was a poor decision on your part.

Can these D3 schools really give a fair representation of what the expected costs will be prior to Nov of this year (for a 2016).  I'm sure they can give an idea but if they tell you your 2016 will get $XXX per year in academic or merit money are they actually held to that?  

I believe a majority of the D3 schools that offer ED application plans are very high academic to elite academic, and they skew a majority (in some cases all) of their financial aid as "needs-based" aid as opposed to merit aid.  Needs-based aid would be more easily calculated in conjunction with the school administration, as well EFC calculations, etc. 

Requesting and obtaining a "financial pre-read" is a standard procedure for recruited athletes who are applying Early. Might there be a few schools that do not provide this? Sure. But it is standard procedure nonetheless.

If the actual award is less than what was stated in the financial pre-read, that would be a major breach of trust for these reputable institutions, and most likely grounds for breaking the obligation to enroll. Of course, that would also result in missing other possible recruiting opportunities.

For the need-based component of a financial aid award, the online calculators provided by practically every school give a good indication of what can be expected.

Is that a "legitimate" statistic?  While the % of ED applications accepted are higher, does it really increase chances of acceptance for a single application?  They don't lower the admissions criteria.  In other words, could it be that they have a higher percentage of qualified applicants during ED?  I don't know as I am not really a numbers/probability guy.    

It's most definitely a legit stat and it's very common among highly selective colleges. At the school I mentioned above, (OK it's Duke) the ED admit rate for the class of 2018 was 25%, while the regular admit rate was 10%, for an overall total of 11%.

Some schools are very open about liking applicants who show "demonstrated interest", such as visits and interviews, and there is no stronger way of showing interest than ED. However, athletes and legacies and plenty of other very high level  applicants go ED so you should expect some skewing.  Schools also like ED because it helps up their yield rate, IOW what percentage of admits choose to matriculate.

As for lowering admissions criteria - there's no need. These schools have many more highly qualified applicants than they can place. So the game for them is figuring out which ones to choose, and for the student,  figuring out how to be among the chosen.   ED is one tool that may help.

ED does not increase chances of acceptance for applicants who are not "hooked". In addition to recruited athletes, there are higher percentages of legacies, faculty kids, and other "hooked" applicants who apply Early. If you subtract these out, the percentage acceptance rates for Early and Regular admissions are very similar.

No reason to rely on me though, just go to the websites of the schools you are interested in. Most of them address the issue of whether there is a better chance of acceptance if an applicant applies Early. Will there be a school or two that is an exception? Yes. But what I have said is the standard situation

Here is a link to the ivys...and there is a most definite increase % in ED acceptance rate:  https://www.ivycoach.com/2018-...missions-statistics/

includes hooks, athletes, whatever.

There is a whole book written about this, which I read about 5 years ago.  Basically, highly competitive schools can pick their "bottom 25%", plus other,s from this ED pool, because there are so many to choose from from the RD pool to cover the other 75%.  

I was told if you really want to to go the school, apply ED and your chances are better. Worked for son #1 (non baseball) for engineering.

"ED does not increase chances of acceptance for applicants who are not 'hooked'".

That is false at most schools that offer ED (or EA for that matter). 

There are some schools where it won't matter.  There are some schools where the "hooked" percentage is very high and will skew the data.  But for most schools, applying ED or EA for the non-"hooked" applicant will greatly increase that applicant's chance of admission.

I'm in "the business" and demonstrated interest is a very big deal presuming the applicant is qualified.

I've had two son's apply ED.  Oldest son was a recruited athlete applying ED to an Ivy.  His chances increased dramatically through baseball.  ED was a requirement for a recruited athlete.  We knew it and they knew it.  Without baseball, his chances were 50/50 to apply into the engineering school which had a 7% acceptance rate that year.

Middle son attended the same high school pre-engineering program as oldest son but was not a recruited athlete.  He applied to an in-state school known for its engineering program (same as keewarts).  His numbers were on the cusp, and we know many kids with similiar numbers who did not get into the college of engineering RD.  He demonstrated interest and did all the right things (multiple letters of recommendation, project submission, campus visits, etc) they requested him to do including apply ED.  He was accepted ED and is now making Deans list.

I'm here to tell you ED makes a difference.  It can be a magic bullet if used in the right situations for both a recruited athlete and a student.

Here are links to Harvard, Brown and MIT sources all indicating Early admission is no advantage at those schools:

Harvard does not offer an advantage to students who apply early. Higher Early Action acceptance rates reflect the remarkable strength of Early Action pools.

https://college.harvard.edu/ad...rictive-early-action

The University admitted about 160 athletes, roughly on par with the admit level for the past five years, Miller said. Since many athletic recruits apply early decision, the early decision admission rate is significantly higher than the regular decision rate.

“That really skews our admit rate,” Miller said. “If you pull athletes out of that process, the admit rate in early and regular is very similar.”

http://www.browndailyherald.co...-dips-to-19-percent/

There is no positive or negative prejudice associated with or conferred by applying during either cycle. We do not have a preference, and there is no strategic benefit to be had.

http://mitadmissions.org/apply/freshman/cycles

Prove anything? No, except that for some schools--these are just the first ones I checked--Early admissions for the unhooked (this includes non-recruited athletes) provides no advantage

"Prove anything? No, except that for some schools--these are just the first ones I checked--Early admissions for the unhooked (this includes non-recruited athletes) provides no advantage"

One thing it proves is that you can't believe everything you read on the web.

Can we agree to disagree on this one?  I think you're correct in that many if not most  very highly selective schools state on their websites that ED provides no advantage. Whether that's true in practice, and true at all all schools is subject to debate.  

From a piece in Forbes:  “Does applying early increase my (son/daughter’s) chances for admission to that school?” This is a common question that many students (and parents) ask me. Yes and no, depending on the school. Even top colleges and their admission deans disagree often with each other on this issue."

There are many experts in the field who say that ED may provide a small advantage for some applicants to some schools.  Note that we're talking about fully qualified applicants, not those with GPAs and test scores below the schools' average range. The link below will provide links to many of those opinions, including the one quoted just above.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Does+appl...provide+an+advantage

One thing it proves is that you can't believe everything you read on the web.

 

Yes, Harvard, Brown and MIT state that there is no advantage applying early for the unhooked on their official websites. I agree there are some things on the web that you can't believe, but if you can't believe Harvard, Brown and MIT well...where does that put us?

By the way, the link in my prior post was to the Brown student newspaper, here is the link to the Brown website:

Please do not assume that your admission chances are improved by applying under the Early Decision plan. The Board of Admission makes the same decisions under Early Decision that it would under the Regular Decision plan.

https://www.brown.edu/admissio...irst-year-applicants

There's plenty of wiggle room in that Brown statement.  If they were aware of a statistical advantage for ED applicants, even if it was unintentional on their part, there are good reasons for them not to acknowledge that.

And like the Forbes guy says, the admissions dept. and the web copywriter might have minor differences in their understanding of dept. policy.

As for believing Harvard, etc....I've not said or implied anyone is lying.  But even if I had, we've seen mendacity emanate from equally exalted places in the past. 

First, I think the vast majority of the people reading this are involved with athletic recruits who are included among the "hooked" applicants. So the issue of whether Early admissions is an advantage for the unhooked is probably not of priority relevance to them.

Second, I think each reader can make an individual decision on how much credence to give sources such as the Harvard, Brown, MIT official websites; the let-me-Google-that- for-you-tool; Forbes; and other sources.

If there are any unhooked applicants reading this, you typically get only one chance to file an Early application (there are some exceptions with non-restrictive EA). I encourage you to make sure you have done your research before you assume that just by applying Early you are getting an advantage

You can't lump the truly elite schools with all other schools. So, with the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, for the regular student, there is no advantage statistically to apply early. (Don't forget there are huge differences between EA, ED, and SCEA.)

However, for schools which weigh "demonstrated interest" as an admission factor, as you drop down from the elite schools, ED becomes a very important business decision for the school (ED is considered demonstrated interest.). Schools at this level will weigh somewhat reduced scholastic standards against the advantage of making sure sufficient students are actually coming so that the school can meet its budget. ED yields are high - extremely high; while RD yields at these schools are low (for many admitted students these schools are "safety" schools). These schools are faced with the crap shoot of guessing RD yields with the near certainty of ED yields. (The Common Data Set [CDS] has all the information needed to make a determination which schools favor ED applicants. In some schools, e.g., Penn, children of Alumni get a considerable boost only in the ED round.)

For any family needing FA, IMO, ED is a very poor choice.

There are lots of moving parts with recruiting and admissions; ED is only one part. For athletes heading to D3, unless the coach can assure you that you're in, all the risk is tilted against the student; recruiting stops because the student has committed, the Guidence Counselor's reputation (as well as the HS) is on the line, etc. In reading so many posts, I think the process of D3 recruiting is harder then D1.