Potential ethical dilemma in need of help by end of Feb: rolling-admission program asks me to respond much earlier than 415

[xyzpsych]

BACKGROUND

I received a lovely admission offer with financial support from a PhD program (I'll refer to it as X program) very early. However, X requires that I respond by date N in late February, while I'm still waiting to hear back from a few other programs. I have interviewed for some of the other programs. I don't expect to hear back from these programs by date N from what I recently learned. I have asked X to extend my deadline TWICE already before February. X specifically told me that they cannot wait until close to April 15 to hear from me because 1) they are competing with other programs for academically strong students and 2) I assume they need the spot for other candidates that come along later. I would like to attend X, if rejected by other better choices (there are about three of them), none of which has confirmed my status. All above programs are inside universities that signed the 415 resolution.

DILEMA

1. I'm not leaning toward asking them to extend my timeline again since: 1) I already did it twice; 2) I don't know when I can get confirmation from other programs as many in my field have delayed making a final decision this year due to unpredictability in funding; and 3) because of # 2), I don't feel I can think of a reasonable extended timeline to suggest at this point except April 15, which they had said they couldn't agree to.

2. I'm thinking about accepting this offer. After all, I might have already been rejected by the other programs that I haven't heard from. But, can I possibly withdraw my acceptance if a better offer comes up elsewhere? I will send out notice asap of course if this happens. If this is ethically unpreferred, is it even acceptable under the 415 resolution? My admission letter at this point is from the department. It doesn't say  that I cannot withdraw acceptance of the offer. It didn't attach the 415 resolution either.

3. Is it common for rolling-admission programs to have early deadlines? I'm having doubts regarding making the spot available for other candidates. They can always create a waitlist for later applicants and extend an offer provided that they are not admitted into better choices?

I'm so lost right now. I would appreciate input!

 

[fuzzylogician]

Given that you are being unfairly pressured, I think that a very reasonable plan is to accept the offer and to withdraw if/when you get a better offer. They're not leaving you many other options, and declining before you have other solid options isn't a good strategy. It's a shame, but I don't think there is anything else you can do. 

[xyzpsych]

6 minutes ago, fuzzylogician said:

Given that you are being unfairly pressured, I think that a very reasonable plan is to accept the offer and to withdraw if/when you get a better offer. They're not leaving you many other options, and declining before you have other solid options isn't a good strategy. It's a shame, but I don't think there is anything else you can do. 

My thoughts exactly, just wondering the ethical aspect of it and hope it won't negatively impact others in major ways. Thank you!

[victoriaaa]

4 minutes ago, xyzpsych said:

My thoughts exactly, just wondering the ethical aspect of it and hope it won't negatively impact others in major ways. Thank you!

I don't know how they could condemn you for having poor ethics while they're the ones forcing you into a huge choice before you know all your options. I wouldn't worry about it, they get what they get for doing this to their applicants.

[xyzpsych]

1 minute ago, victoriaaa said:

I don't know how they could condemn you for having poor ethics while they're the ones forcing you into a huge choice before you know all your options. I wouldn't worry about it, they get what they get for doing this to their applicants.

Thank you. They didn't "condemn me" to be fair, but I wasn't sure about the meaning of the deadline in the big context of how offers with funding are usually done. It's more about me not wanting to leave an "unethical" impression. Thanks!

[victoriaaa]

1 minute ago, xyzpsych said:

Thank you. They didn't "condemn me" to be fair, but I wasn't sure about the meaning of the deadline in the big context of how offers with funding are usually done. It's more about me not wanting to leave an "unethical" impression. Thanks!

Ahh, I see. I thought you were worried what they might say to you if you withdrew your acceptance. I don't know how this program does their funding, but if they always do this early deadline thing, I'm sure you are not the first person to be in this predicament. They must obviously make it work somehow.

[fuzzylogician]

This is something that's fairly commonly done in the context of postdoc/job offers, but there is a reason why the April 15 resolution exists, and if they are ignoring it, it's hard to see how they can blame you for following their lead. You have to know that it's not the most honest thing to do, but again, they aren't leaving you with any better choices, and I still think that you have to worry about yourself first. 

[Eigen]

Just to be clear, the CGS resolution is not a binding document. It's a guideline a number of schools have agreed to for mutual benefit. 

It's also worth noting that the CGS resolution only effects financial offers- not admission offers. A school can ask you to accept an offer of admission before April 15th, just not an offer of a financial package. They're usually (but not always) one in the same. Some schools offer financial packages after admissions. 

I also suggest you be wary of thinking of this as intentionally unethical on the schools part- the honest truth is that many graduate faculty and departments have no clue what the CGS is. It's something a dean or provost signed, but not necessarily something they educated the school about. 

Finally, I'd remind everyone that the CGS resolution isn't directly intended to benefit students, although that's a good benefit. It's intended to put all graduate schools on an even playing field. The person "wronged" by a school jumping the gun is the other schools who are not, and might lose a good student- although this indirectly has a negative effect on the student, by limiting concurrent choices. 

That said, it's a harsh change of reality when after grad school the chances of ever deciding between concurrent offers is nearly non-existent, and you have to decide on what's currently available in a vacuum. 

[xyzpsych]

3 minutes ago, Eigen said:

Just to be clear, the CGS resolution is not a binding document. It's a guideline a number of schools have agreed to for mutual benefit. 

It's also worth noting that the CGS resolution only effects financial offers- not admission offers. A school can ask you to accept an offer of admission before April 15th, just not an offer of a financial package. They're usually (but not always) one in the same. Some schools offer financial packages after admissions. 

I also suggest you be wary of thinking of this as intentionally unethical on the schools part- the honest truth is that many graduate faculty and departments have no clue what the CGS is. It's something a dean or provost signed, but not necessarily something they educated the school about. 

No, of course not, from what I experienced, they are not an "unethical" program. After all, ethics has such broad meaning!

[thelionking]

The only other way around it that I can think of is to accept the offer and to defer for 1 yr. If you get another offer by April 15, then withdraw your deferral and decline the offer. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by thelionking

[COGSCI]

If you do not have a better offer at the moment, accept it for now. It is not uncommon for students to withdraw after receiving a better offer. 

Better safe than sorry right!? 

 

[xyzpsych]

Thanks everyone for sharing!