No gratuitous officiousness here - just trying to keep unknowing readers from following bad advice. I personally know two families who followed similar advice posted on this forum and suffered adverse consequences.
The ethical standard did not change. The adherence portion was changed in 2020 from mandatory adoption to best practices, which gives members the option rather than the requirement to report violations.
The NACAC is not limited to college counselors. It's institutional membership includes virtually every high school and college in the USA, including every service academy. Most college admissions officers and high school college counselors are individual members.
I have no fondness for the leverage colleges use against applicants and have no problem with keeping a Plan B. I merely want appointees to understand the potential risk, choose a course of action wisely, and not unwittingly get caught because someone on an internet forum told them it was ok.
"Or equivalent" actually does mean accepting an offer without deposit. It is any action showing commitment to enroll such as formally accepting an offer, completing required paperwork, registering for dorm room, etc. It is added because the deposit is waived for some students due to financial circumstances and thus "deposit" does not completely cover commitment to enroll.
Risks are uncertain. There is no known case of an appointment being withdrawn for violating this rule and no SA has formally issued a policy, but a USNA BGO did post on this forum a couple years ago that USNA would rescind an appointment if informed of such a violation. The three types of adverse actions that I am aware of occurring are:
- High school college counselor called family of appointee informing them he received a letter from Plan B (large, prestigious public university) listing all of that high school's students who committed to attend Plan B and was surprised to see appointee's name on the list. After much groveling from family, counselor agreed not to report violation to Plan B and SA, but appointee must withdraw acceptance from Plan B immediately.
- Appointee parent calls Plan B at the end of summer training and informs them that appointee has successfully completed summer training and will be attending SA. Plan B admissions officer is furious and threatens to report student to SA, but apparently never does. Family holds breath waiting for hammer to drop, which fortunately never does. Note - most of the time Plan B takes the high road and congratulates family.
- As reported by member of this forum as best I can recall - Arizona public college (U of Arizona or Arizona State, don't remember which) took hard line and went after lost tuition from student. Debt sent to collections and reported to credit rating agencies.
Based on the above, my advice to those using a Plan B backup:
- Be upfront and ask Plan B to be a backup. Then there is no issue. Many of the most competitive schools will not agree, but there are plenty of colleges that will.
- For those using a stealth Plan B - Do not inform Plan B of reason for withdrawal. Just send an email informing them of withdrawal to pursue another opportunity. They will most likely assume student got in off a waitlist, which is an accepted reason for withdrawal. Also, be very aware of your high school's policies and likelihood they will object.
These recommendations seem sound to me. What I objected to was the suggestion that it is "considered unethical" for an applicant to have "Plan B" deposits down. Another poster referenced the Common App, and that's a valid consideration if an applicant used the Common App and expressly agreed not to put down multiple deposits. On the other hand, if an applicant didn't use the Common App, then we're back to square one from an applicant's perspective. And aside from the Common App, the only ethics I see in play from the applicant's perspective is the understanding that the applicant may lose a deposit, which, after all, is the point of a deposit.
My larger point is that to the extent that some schools may try to prevent applicants from having more than one iron in the fire (absent an express agreement to the contrary, such as binding ED or I guess the Common App), they are being grossly unfair to applicants and bespeak a giant double-standard from the perspective of the schools. Schools themselves offer admission to more students than they can enroll precisely to protect themselves against under-enrollment. They assume that yield rates will protect them. And most of the time they are right. But when they are not, kids find themselves temporarily living in hotels, three to a double, in storage rooms, unable to register for necessary courses, etc. Is this considered "unethical" by schools? Airlines do the same thing when they intentionally overbook flights. If they get caught short, then they have to bargain their way out with the consumer. But it's not considered "unethical" to do so. So why is it considered "unethical" for students, the consumer, to do the same thing? In truth, it isn't inherently unethical. Instead, it's a blatant attempt by some schools to co-opt third parties (including Common App apparently) at manipulating the little guy for the benefit of schools.
As far as SAs and other military-related entities are concerned, I have to observe that they seem utterly unconcerned with the issue (the BGO opining about what USNA might do aside). What I see is that as soon as non-appointment notices go out, that triggers a minor frenzy by some schools, including ROTC units, attempting to recruit/entice unsuccessful SA applicants with scholarship offers, late application offers, etc., well after the May 1 "deadline" that the cartel has agreed on. To be sure, this is all to the benefit of applicants, but it's utterly inconsistent with any notion of "ethics" in deciding where to attend school and by which date.
Finally, all I'll say about the Arizona anecdote is that, if it is true, there must be more to the story. I've never heard of an enrollment deposit by itself being construed as a commitment to pay a semester's tuition.
