To Withdraw or Not Withdraw?

Interesting, I found another similar thread discussion... https://gmatclub.com/forum/serious-question-regarding-withdrawing-from-early-action-131419.html#p1078972

Seems like a lot of other people don't think that "binding" means that they need to withdraw...

Thank you for starting this discussion. It may be helpful to post the Terms and Conditions of at least one or several EA schools to provide the Full picture of what binding means and the ethical side of things.

Columbia:


Fuqua:

I think the answer to the basic question of pulling other applications out is pretty easy. Having said that, I would hate to waste all that work and would at least want to know the end result was (e.g. ding or admit from other schools) but that's because I like numbers and playing out scenarios. So the risk is that somehow it would leak out that you still have apps in other schools and you would get dinged from the EA list. The chances of this are slim and if you do indeed get dinged then it is almost what you wanted anyway (or am i wrong?).

The Fuqua language is a bit strong for my liking - what if I decide not to attend and not to accept their offer? It seems everything is contingent upon their furnishing of the offer, not my acceptance.

My question would be - what happens if I decide to delay my MBA for a year? Am I banned from the school? Meaning I don't go anywhere? Would they give me a one year deferral? (my guess is that the answer is no as most schools don't). I don't have that choice it seems. I really don't like that.

Thanks bb

I think I agree with you that they should allow accepted candidates to defer a year, however I haven't heard of anyone successfully doing so. I have heard of people flat out declining business school as a whole after deposit simply because they felt that they could achieve their goals without an MBA. I don't think that's wrong at all, in fact I believe it is fairly admirable.

I also see how waiting to see other schools' decisions can be desirable simply to satisfy my personal curiosity. However, I also think that "not withdrawing" immediately is somewhat "unfair" to waitlist applicants. Ultimately though, only qualified applicants will get admitted and if someone is truly qualified and deserving, they will get admitted off the waitlist when someone declines an offer.

According to the language for early decision, I believe someone has fulfilled their moral obligation to the early decision/early action commitment as long as they eventually decline other offers or withdraw their application. The commitment does not indicate a specific time after receiving acceptance. Although, I personally would withdraw immediately to allow for other applicants to have a better shot at schools I would clearly no longer be interested in.

It'd be interesting to hear from other users with unique dilemmas however regarding the early decision binding statements (Shakandbake)...

I like your perspective and logic. I feel it is supposed to be by choice (e.g. I choose to stay with you even after I reviewed other offers) as opposed to, i will kill all apps while they are still in their infancy. This compulsory application abortion seems to be a very unpleasant concept, at least to me (and I am hearing others feel somewhat similar in the last year's thread)

BazingAu,

I think the issue is that some (I'm not sure how many but I'd be curious to know) people don't withdraw their applications to other schools immediately as many would expect. I'm guessing there may even be a small number of individuals that decline early admits if they get into higher ranked schools. From some people's perspectives, the early decision/early action programs are a strategy for the schools to try and increase their yield numbers which can be a metric used in some ranking systems.

It appears Fuqua's statement says "you are required to attend with or without scholarship award." I think with professional school, it is assumed that as an adult you are willing to take on the entire tuition obligation regardless of scholarship award.

Here's an interesting article dealing with the undergraduate ethics of single choice early action (SCEA). This seems somewhat relevant to business schools as well.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/27/early

It appears that many people in higher education feel that early decision/early action is not really fair to students as far as aid distribution is concerned.

Although most people that have already posted here seem to agree that going to another school after getting an early admit is wrong, I'm curious to hear from the (12%) that think otherwise.

Interestingly enough, here's an article (read only if you have time, it's long...) that describes in depth the motivations for admissions at elite colleges to have ED https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/the-early-decision-racket/302280/?single_page=true.

ED's impact on a college's numbers seems extremely favorable for the college which then results in a favorable ranking. I guess one could make the argument that if the admissions committees can "game" the system, so can they.

I think both applicants and adcoms know that such committment isn't easy and that if you for example get admitted in CBS early decision and then received an offer from HBS, it's extremely difficult to throw HBS offer immediately. If you run into such scenarios, then I think you're at least entitled to having some internal thoughts of going to HBS. The problem in my opinion is when you apply to early admission without even the initial thought that this school is the right school for you. I have applied to Duke EA and placed a "pledge" because I wanted to go there so badly even if I receive a better offer (I received an invitation from Darden and withdrew it). But I totally understand the hesitation you may have and I don't think it makes you a "dishonorable" person by any chance

First of all, you have my respect for withdrawing the other applications and keeping your commitment.
Next, you do have a good point, but that's why all schools, consultants, alums and current students give sooo much of emphasis on doing due diligence in finding the right school.

So, in comparison, I'm throwing in the policy for Tuck:

Early Action
For re-applicants or prospective students who have completed their business-school research and know that Tuck is their first choice, the Early Action round is a great option. Early Action provides you with the certainty of learning whether you have been offered admission to Tuck no later than December 18, 2014. This offer is nonbinding, giving you the opportunity to explore other
options until the January 15, 2015 response deadline. Any applicant who is accepted in the Early Action round and who would like to secure a spot in the incoming class will be required to submit a nonrefundable deposit of $4,500—which is applied against tuition—by January 15, 2015.

Since the policy clearly states that it is non-binding, can I assume if someone decides to go to other schools after paying the deposit will only need to deal with the financial penalty but there is no ethical strings attached?

Yes, because of Tuck's nonbinding early action nature, I believe you should be free to matriculate at another school if you choose, however if you've already put a deposit down you'll be out of $4,500.

That's a larger deposit than a lot of the other schools at that point.

Thanks for posting this information! I think it's useful for this discussion!

I'm with BazingAu. Using a hypothetical "you", if you got into an ED school, you should go. If you're trying to "game" the system, then shame on you for being selfish.