2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > May > 20 > Entry
Playing bait and switch with colleges
For years, colleges have played the “wait list” game. Being wait-listed is to be banished to a netherworld where students must decide if it’s worth it to wait for that top choice college to see if it comes through, or cash in their chips, commit to a second choice school and make the best of it.
But now the the New York Times says some private college counselors are urging their clients to turn the tables and put the colleges in limbo. They’re advising kids to “double deposit” or send a commitment and deposit money to more than one college.
The advantage for the student is this — once a student commits to a college, schools usually are then willing to talk more specifically about financial aid and often sweeten the deal. So if a student commits to multiple colleges and keeps bargaining with all of them until he or she gets the best deal, it can push the negotiation well into the summer and perhaps squeeze out a few more bucks. Then at the end of the summer, the student can withdraw from the schools that offered aid packages that didn’t measure up.
There’s a small risk involved. Sometimes if colleges discover a student who has double deposited they will rescind the student’s admission. But that’s rare. Counselors say colleges have long held all the power in these negotiations and its only fair for students to play hardball too.
What do you think of this tactic? Is it low-down cheating, or is all fair in love, war and college admissions?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Colleges and Universities
Comments
By Oldprof
May 21, 2006 10:09 PM | Link to this
The problem isn’t financial aid per se, Mary. If you want to cut college costs, you do these things: (1) reduce administration [the state is looking at that now] (1a) reduce complex funding formulae that require a full-time financial aid staff even at small colleges (1b) reduce the insane level of competition for students so that colleges aren’t spending more on marketing than on library materials (2) de-emphasize high-cost interscholastic athletics in favor of lower-cost intramural programs for all students. Eliminating financial aid EXCEPT for needs-based and scholastic-based scholarships would help, since over 50% of all education dollars currently go to administrative costs and loan guarantees.By Mary
May 21, 2006 8:15 AM | Link to this
This is just another indication how broken the system is. Maybe names should just be thrown into a hat and drawn. Maybe college employees should not get free tuition for themselves and their children. Maybe that would do a lot to control costs. Maybe there should be no scholarships. Let everyone pay the same. Maybe that would also change some things for the better.By Rick
May 21, 2006 7:06 AM | Link to this
Sounds very fair to me.By Oldprof
May 20, 2006 10:37 PM | Link to this
Unless a student has a full-ride scholarship, there should be no question—start at a community college, save at least $10,000 in tuition in the first two years, then get some comparatively generous CC transfer scholarships to attend a four-year to complete the bachelor’s. CCs accept all students, so there’s no “waitlisting”, and Ohio performance reports show that the CC transfers perform as well in junior and senior level courses as students who start at the universities. Problem solved! As for what I think of the students’ multi-deposit tactic, unless legislators get over the dimwitted notion that education must be run “like a business”, then the paying customer is certainly going to shop for price v. quality. A bigger consideration is this: how are today’s university graduates going to prosper when they’re starting career saddled with $30,000 to $120,000 in student loan debt?