« on: December 28, 2008, 05:50:03 PM »
Well, I have a 3.7 and a 174 and am likely not getting in, so you can add me to the data that suggests a 175+ is needed ;-)
Haha I mean I've given you the best argument I can to say that it wouldn't be "immoral" (or wrong) to keep your apps in at schools after you get in ED at a school. Ultimately, it's your decision. As far as how schools will feel about it, a week is not very long and unless you get a phone call it would be very easy to claim that you didn't check your mail/email that week. Since Columbia gives ED decisions by mail (I believe) you'll be fine to hold your app in at other schools for a week or so. But again, it's not really right, unless you want to try to make the financial aid argument.
this is the most god-damndest ass-backwards line or ethical thinking i believe i've ever encountered. really, it's just childish. as far as i can tell (i've only read it twice) it goes something like this: "okay, it's not really wrong to not do something which you said you would do, as long as you lie well enough for them not to know that you didn't do it." this is freakin' retarded. no wonder there's such a massive amount of disrespect for lawyers and the profession in general... people who find this type of logic okay (i'm gonna do what i want, right and wrong be damned) have something coming to them... eventually you will make a mistake with your cover-up lies, and this kind of decision making will come back to haunt you at some point.
for society's sake, i hope it's sooner rather than later, when other people's vitality is at stake...
FWIW, schools do allow people to get out of ED contracts if they cannot afford to go. That's all I'm working with. And I never said it would be something 'right' to do. I applied ED to a school and if I get in, I will withdraw my applications as soon as I can. But if one was wanting to try and justify not immediately withdrawing their apps after getting into a school ED, those are the best arguments I can think of.
Honestly, if that line of reasoning is that offensive to you, you're going to hate the law.
the way i see it, i'm going to love the law because i'll learn how to prohibit people from making their own interpretation of "IMMEDIATELY" fit what they swore they would do. for you to suggest that your flawed and immoral reasoning is what "legal reasoning" is, i find laughable.