Can you renegotiate offer deadlines?

[User456]

I got my first offer, it is not my first or second choice, they want a response by the beginning of January, most schools will not have reviewed my application by then. Am I able to renegotiate the terms to allow myself more time? I am also considering paying the deposit in case it's the only offer I receive, but I read somewhere that law schools talk to each other and U of C's website stated they may release your acceptance to other schools. I do not want accepting this offer to effect my offers from other schools. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Meek19

[Kobe]

Seems pretty shady. Is it a seat deposit and is the deposit refundable?

I would reach out to the school to get clarification on their offer. If they are actually using the deadline to prevent people from exploring other options I wouldn't touch said school with a billion foot poll. It seems more likely they are just asking for a seat deposit and you are still able to explore other options, I have a hard time believing a Canadian school would be shady enough to place an early deadline to accept and then call other law schools to tell them you accepted an offer. 

[Whist]

Generally no, the deadline is the deadline. You can choose to wait and see what happens before the deadline, let the offer go, or you can pay the deposit to keep the seat and sacrifice it if your preferred choice comes along. You won't be penalized by other schools for putting down a deposit.

I'm going to assume by the date you put which school you're talking about, and in my case it was a different one. But I put down a deposit for one school, and later another one I wanted to attend gave me an offer. I emailed where I had put the deposit down to let them know I wouldn't be attending and they were nice about it. You don't get the money back though.

Edit: I want to add that you should consider if in the grand scheme of things, $500 is worth having a spot secured or worth attending a school you want more. To me, both are easily worth the money if you have it.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Whist

[LMP]

15 minutes ago, Kobe said:

Seems pretty shady. Is it a seat deposit and is the deposit refundable?

I would reach out to the school to get clarification on their offer. If they are actually using the deadline to prevent people from exploring other options I wouldn't touch said school with a billion foot poll. It seems more likely they are just asking for a seat deposit and you are still able to explore other options, I have a hard time believing a Canadian school would be shady enough to place an early deadline to accept and then call other law schools to tell them you accepted an offer. 

Lots of schools do it. They need to in order to have some level of certainty that people will be attending. 

 

As an example I had a couple of acceptances from outside of Ontario around this time last year. They had deadlines similar to the ones OP mentions. Why? Because they knew that if they let potential applicants just hold on to potential offers they would have to be careful of issuing more.

If you've got 100 seats to fill and send out 100 offers, you have to be careful with every additional offer you send to avoid overenrollment. This goes double for early offers sent to strong candidates who will almost certainly get offers at other schools (which, as in OPs case, the applicant would prefer to go to). So your best strategy as a school is to send these offers with a shorter deadline. If they accept by the deadline, that's great. If not you know that one of those 100 seats is still open and you can better select who to send the next offer too. 

 

Note: I'm aware that most schools know their approximate yield rate and attempt to correct for it. But this method helps build a stronger class while adhering to those yield estimates. 

[Kobe]

11 minutes ago, LMP said:

Lots of schools do it. They need to in order to have some level of certainty that people will be attending. 

 

As an example I had a couple of acceptances from outside of Ontario around this time last year. They had deadlines similar to the ones OP mentions. Why? Because they knew that if they let potential applicants just hold on to potential offers they would have to be careful of issuing more.

If you've got 100 seats to fill and send out 100 offers, you have to be careful with every additional offer you send to avoid overenrollment. This goes double for early offers sent to strong candidates who will almost certainly get offers at other schools (which, as in OPs case, the applicant would prefer to go to). So your best strategy as a school is to send these offers with a shorter deadline. If they accept by the deadline, that's great. If not you know that one of those 100 seats is still open and you can better select who to send the next offer too. 

 

Note: I'm aware that most schools know their approximate yield rate and attempt to correct for it. But this method helps build a stronger class while adhering to those yield estimates. 

I agree you need to prevent over enrollment and have no problem with seat deposits, even if they are non-refundable (though obviously a refundable one is most generous). But if they actually accept you and make you decide before realistically being able to look at other options by calling other schools to say you left a deposit that is coercion.

[ClarkGriswold]

1 hour ago, Kobe said:

But if they actually accept you and make you decide before realistically being able to look at other options by calling other schools to say you left a deposit that is coercion.

Coercive actions are often leveraged to force a victim to behave/act in a way that is not in line with their personal interests. Is forcing an accepted student to get back to a school before they hear back from other schools not in line with their personal interests? Perhaps. But there are other factors to consider here.

Is the early deadline a type of threat? Is it a form of intimidation? If so, does it carry the same coercive gravity as acts of blackmail, physical harm, etc? This early deadline is resultant from someone getting accepted into a program they supplied an application for. I don’t know the slightest about whether or not any of what I’m saying is logically air-tight, but this example seems tremendously weak on the sliding scale of “coercive-ness” relative to more traditional examples of coercive measures. 

[Kobe]

39 minutes ago, ClarkGriswold said:

Coercive actions are often leveraged to force a victim to behave/act in a way that is not in line with their personal interests. Is forcing an accepted student to get back to a school before they hear back from other schools not in line with their personal interests? Perhaps. But there are other factors to consider here.

Is the early deadline a type of threat? Is it a form of intimidation? If so, does it carry the same coercive gravity as acts of blackmail, physical harm, etc? This early deadline is resultant from someone getting accepted into a program they supplied an application for. I don’t know the slightest about whether or not any of what I’m saying is logically air-tight, but this example seems tremendously weak on the sliding scale of “coercive-ness” relative to more traditional examples of coercive measures. 

LOL are you really doing this on an online forum? What do you prefer strong armed? It's really semantics whatever you call it. 

The fact remains forcing someone to pay a seat deposit before they could realistically hear back from other options (Queens even states offers begin in January, might end up being earlier but that's what they said) is predatory, if it's non-refundable. It's preying on people who are scared they won't have other options. 

Also I used if when saying it was coercive about them contacting other schools, there's no evidence that's what they are actually doing and I stand by the original point that doing so would be shady. The schools encourage you to apply broadly because everyone knows it is not realistic to only apply to your first choice given how competitive it is. 

Until someone clarifies what the offer actually is we have no evidence that TRU (which is I think what the post is about) is doing any of the things we mentioned here. I am more than skeptical they would stoop so low but if someone clarifies that is what they are actually doing I will be glad I never applied. 

I was accepted at a t-30 school with much higher medians than TRU and my deadline is April 1 for first seat deposit. When you can actually attract students you do not pull this kind of *whatever adjective you want to call this* because you can actually attract students. Which is why no top school has deadlines a few weeks after you get accepted. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Kobe

[ClarkGriswold]

14 minutes ago, Kobe said:

LOL are you really doing this on an online forum?

Offering a difference in opinion and making the masses aware that I’m not wholly informed on the matters I’m talking about while providing my opinion? Yep I’m doing that! Seems fairly reasonable to me. 

15 minutes ago, Kobe said:

The schools encourage you to apply broadly because everyone knows it is not realistic to only apply to your first choice given how competitive it is. 

The schools also have an interest in filling their seats with the best students that they can attract to their school. Some schools can successfully attract a strong student body through posted class profile medians and job placement rates, but others might have to utilize a different approach (one of which being shortened acceptance deadlines). I’m not going to sit here and argue that the latter approach is demonstrative of a moral high point, but I do think it’s a fair practice to adopt when the first interest of a school should be to serve themselves, not others. 

20 minutes ago, Kobe said:

I was accepted at a t-30 school … and my deadline is April 1 for first seat deposit. When you can actually attract students you do not pull this kind of *whatever adjective you want to call this* because you can actually attract students. Which is why no top school has deadlines a few weeks after you get accepted. 

Got it, so the arbitrary date that’s acceptable and not coercive in this context is April 1st because it’s what most other schools follow. Sure, it’s a much longer window than what TRU is offering to their early admits, but it absolutely does not guarantee students will hear back from all of the schools they applied to by that date. 

Your commentary on “top schools” is entirely fair, and frankly it’s why TRU is doing what they’re doing. They need to fill seats, they want the best students, they feel as though they aren’t a lot of applicants’ first choice, and they don’t receive the applicant volume of some other schools in the country. Look down on it all you want, but I’ll maintain that it’s minutely coercive at best and it is a measure they feel works, hence their use of it. 

[Kobe]

1 minute ago, ClarkGriswold said:

Offering a difference in opinion and making the masses aware that I’m not wholly informed on the matters I’m talking about while providing my opinion? Yep I’m doing that! Seems fairly reasonable to me. 

That's not "a difference in opinion" it's being overly choosey about my choice of words. An acceptable definition of coerce is "to compel an act or choice". Excuse my dramatic language but I think nit picking on the word was unnecessary.  

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing

2 minutes ago, ClarkGriswold said:

The schools also have an interest in filling their seats with the best students that they can attract to their school. Some schools can successfully attract a strong student body through posted class profile medians and job placement rates, but others might have to utilize a different approach (one of which being shortened acceptance deadlines). I’m not going to sit here and argue that the latter approach is demonstrative of a moral high point, but I do think it’s a fair practice to adopt when the first interest of a school should be to serve themselves, not others. 

So blatantly ripping off students for a seat deposit because most other schools haven't given a decision is just fair game? How about this being a public institution and their duty is actually to educate the best students they can and turn out top quality lawyers. Not trying to grift the applicants who are part of the public the university is meant to serve. 

14 minutes ago, ClarkGriswold said:

Got it, so the arbitrary date that’s acceptable and not coercive in this context is April 1st because it’s what most other schools follow. Sure, it’s a much longer window than what TRU is offering to their early admits, but it absolutely does not guarantee students will hear back from all of the schools they applied to by that date. 

Your commentary on “top schools” is entirely fair, and frankly it’s why TRU is doing what they’re doing. They need to fill seats, they want the best students, they feel as though they aren’t a lot of applicants’ first choice, and they don’t receive the applicant volume of some other schools in the country. Look down on it all you want, but I’ll maintain that it’s minutely coercive at best and it is a measure they feel works, hence their use of it. 

I accept this take and think this is reasonable. If it turns out the seat deposit is non-refundable I will look down on them for grifting that money out of people. If it turns out they turned around and called other schools to tell them an applicant accepted, I will look at them as complete and utter swindlers. I hope neither is TRU LOL 😂

I don't see April 1 as arbitrary it's a reasonable amount of time given most schools do some version of a December/January wave, February wave, and March wave. Honestly even March 1 I wouldn't be calling it coercion. 

[ClarkGriswold]

18 minutes ago, Kobe said:

That's not "a difference in opinion" it's being overly choosey about my choice of words. An acceptable definition of coerce is "to compel an act or choice". Excuse my dramatic language but I think nit picking on the word was unnecessary.  

You know what Kobe!?!? Yeah I’ll soften up a bit, it’s coercive but I’ll maintain that its gravity isn’t as significant as other coercive actions, especially if an applicant can easily dish out the $500 and accepting has no impact on their ability to get accepted elsewhere. I’ll admit, those are two big “ifs” though.

28 minutes ago, Kobe said:

If it turns out they turned around and called other schools to tell them an applicant accepted, I will look at them as complete and utter swindlers.

Bingo haha. 

20 minutes ago, Kobe said:

How about this being a public institution and their duty is actually to educate the best students they can and turn out top quality lawyers.

I mean, TRU probably thinks these super short acceptance deadlines positively contribute to them being able to educate the best quality students they can get their hands on and in turn produce graduating cohorts that place better than they otherwise would’ve had they not used this tactic. But yeah, not the best approach in my opinion. 

I feel like I don’t really have anything else to add, but I do get the rationale behind it being viewed as coercive. Something that I’ll maintain though, regardless of your perspective, is that LBJ is the greatest player to ever play on an NBA court. 

[Kobe]

6 minutes ago, ClarkGriswold said:

You know what Kobe!?!? Yeah I’ll soften up a bit, it’s coercive but I’ll maintain that its gravity isn’t as significant as other coercive actions, especially if an applicant can easily dish out the $500 and accepting has no impact on their ability to get accepted elsewhere. I’ll admit, those are two big “ifs” though.

Fair enough my friend. I think it's non-refundable which leads to equity problems as I know coming up with $500 is not easy and not really reasonable when still awaiting the first round of offers elsewhere. 

 

6 minutes ago, ClarkGriswold said:

I feel like I don’t really have anything else to add, but I do get the rationale behind it being viewed as coercive. Something that I’ll maintain though, regardless of your perspective, is that LBJ is the greatest player to ever play on an NBA court. 

I see your point as well, in the grand scheme of things it's not that big of a deal. Feels wrong to try steal better students rather than convincing them on the merits of the school, I know we may disagree. 

As a die hard Kobe fan I can accept LeBron being better than Kobe. I love them both, it's just Kobe is my favourite player ever!

Edited December 9, 2021 by Kobe

[Thrive92]

OP i think the reason why TRU may have such a short deadline may be in order to avoid the clusterfuck that happened last cycle: https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/local-news/dozens-of-students-accepted-into-tru-law-school-now-on-waitlist-4448712

Based on your stats, I would say that you are competitive for the schools in Alberta, but I would still wait until the last day to either withdraw/accept the offer from TRU in order to see if Calgary or Alberta does something with your application.

 

IMHO, I would decline and take the chances (more like risk) for my first pick schools, but that's all upto you obviously. Good luck on whatever decision you make

[ClarkGriswold]

Brutal that it’s non-refundable, and that for sure presents an equity issue. And yeah, I think we both agree it’s a less-than-ideal way to secure seats, I just went out of my way to over-analyze coercion for who knows what reason.

10 minutes ago, Kobe said:

I love them both, it's just Kobe is my favourite player ever!

Respect. I wish I was around earlier to better appreciate his days playing alongside Shaq, they looked electric out there every night.

Hey Mods and Administrators, somehow we managed to resolve this difference in opinion fairly quickly without personally attacking each other. Any ideas on how this happened? I’m used to unproductive arguments on here, this feels too mature? What’s going on? 

Edited December 9, 2021 by ClarkGriswold

[Thrive92]

Just now, ClarkGriswold said:

Hey Mods and Administrators, somehow we managed to resolve this difference in opinion fairly quickly without personally attacking each other. Any ideas on how this happened? I’m used to unproductive arguments on here, this feels too mature? What’s going on? 

I can fix this.

Kobe is literally garbage and LeBron is nothing compared to Jordan. Anyone who says otherwise do not watch basketball

[ClarkGriswold]

5 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

Kobe is literally garbage and LeBron is nothing compared to Jordan.

[Kobe]

7 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

I can fix this.

Kobe is literally garbage and LeBron is nothing compared to Jordan. Anyone who says otherwise do not watch basketball

I took this personally 

 

[Whist]

23 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

OP i think the reason why TRU may have such a short deadline may be in order to avoid the clusterfuck that happened last cycle: https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/local-news/dozens-of-students-accepted-into-tru-law-school-now-on-waitlist-4448712

No, they had a short deadline when I applied before this happened. I think it was three weeks to decide. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

I am a bit surprised to hear the chorus of noes on this one. You can't really "negotiate"—because you have very little leverage—but you can ask for an extension of time. Law schools are generally somewhat reasonable and will at least consider requests like this. 

When I was applying, I got accepted by UBC with a relatively short deadline to accept or decline. I emailed and told them I was considering both their school and an Ontario school, and I was hoping to visit both schools ahead of making a decision. I asked if they would extend their deadline, and they agreed to give me an additional month. I know several others who had similar experiences. 

The discussion around seat deposits and short turnaround times is weird. Schools are under no obligation to give students the chance to consider all their options, and most schools won't. Life is full of hard choices that have to be made with imperfect information, and the sooner people accept that the more smoothly things will go for them. 

[Kobe]

6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I am a bit surprised to hear the chorus of noes on this one. You can't really "negotiate"—because you have very little leverage—but you can ask for an extension of time. Law schools are generally somewhat reasonable and will at least consider requests like this. 

When I was applying, I got accepted by UBC with a relatively short deadline to accept or decline. I emailed and told them I was considering both their school and an Ontario school, and I was hoping to visit both schools ahead of making a decision. I asked if they would extend their deadline, and they agreed to give me an additional month. I know several others who had similar experiences. 

The discussion around seat deposits and short turnaround times is weird. Schools are under no obligation to give students the chance to consider all their options, and most schools won't. Life is full of hard choices that have to be made with imperfect information, and the sooner people accept that the more smoothly things will go for them. 

I love a good gamble my friend, I have long accepted making decisions with imperfect information is a part of life even embraced it 😂

I also tried not speak in absolutes. If they are reasonable like UBC was for you that is enough to ask. 

I will say the thing is they are giving you the chance to explore other options just not before they get $500 out of you. It's not as if it is binding, so this is just a way to shakdown $500 from students. The problem I really take with it is that if you come from money this is no big deal, ask mommy and daddy for it and the cycle goes on. If you don't you are forced into making a decision earlier, this is an equity issue. If I only have limited resources how many times can I shell out $500 for a non-refundable seat deposit? Meaning you potentially are creating a situation where rich students can explore all the options they have but not low income students. I don't think it is at all weird to examine ways to further equality of opportunity. (Again applies only if they are not reasonable, obviously if they extend the time that is different)

Also not sure why it's weird when there are discussions around seat deposits all the time. Some t-14 schools have eliminated them because of similar concerns I raised here. Was that weird for them to do? 

Pretty sure the horse has been beaten to death at this point, some people don't care and others do, such is life. I am not emotionally invested in the cause, I just think it's a shitty way of doing things and your argument did not sway me. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Kobe

[BlockedQuebecois]

35 minutes ago, Kobe said:

It's not as if it is binding

It is binding*, though. By paying your deposit, you've entered into a contract with the school whereby they agree to let you matriculate as a law student at their school and you agree to pay both the deposit and the tuition for the year. The fact that the school is unlikely to pursue you for damages if you break your contract (and indeed, is unlikely to suffer any damages) does not make it any less of a binding contract, nor do any exit clauses either party might have.

35 minutes ago, Kobe said:

Also not sure why it's weird when there are discussions around seat deposits all the time. Some t-14 schools have eliminated them because of similar concerns I raised here. Was that weird for them to do? 

I don't think it was weird for Harvard and whatever other schools may have stopped taking deposits to have done so, and I don't know why you drew that from my post. Harvard is free to do whatever it wants to do. It would be logically inconsistent for me to say Harvard is weird for doing that but saying other schools are within their rights to collect them. 

What I said was weird was the conversation surrounding seat deposits, which included—amongst many other weird statements about grifting—you implying that a university has breached some undefined duty towards applicants. If you want to have a conversation about the disparate impact seat deposits can have on marginalized folks I'm all for it, but thats a much more grown up conversation than the one where you assert undefined duties and call law schools grifters and swindlers. 

*This statement and indeed this entire post is not legal advice

Edited December 9, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[Kobe]

23 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It is binding*, though. By paying your deposit, you've entered into a contract with the school whereby they agree to let you matriculate as a law student at their school and you agree to pay both the deposit and the tuition for the year. The fact that the school is unlikely to pursue you for damages if you break your contract (and indeed, is unlikely to suffer any damages) does not make it any less of a binding contract, nor do any exit clauses either party might have.

I don't think it was weird for Harvard and whatever other schools may have stopped taking deposits to have done so, and I don't know why you drew that from my post. Harvard is free to do whatever it wants to do. It would be logically inconsistent for me to say Harvard is weird for doing that but saying other schools are within their rights to collect them. 

What I said was weird was the conversation surrounding seat deposits, which included—amongst many other weird statements about grifting—you implying that a university has breached some undefined duty towards applicants. If you want to have a conversation about the disparate impact seat deposits can have on marginalized folks I'm all for it, but thats a much more grown up conversation than the one where you assert undefined duties and call law schools grifters and swindlers. 

*This statement and indeed this entire post is not legal advice

I see your point, I thought I had read the school had said it doesn’t effect chances elsewhere. Maybe I am mistaken but thats where that came from, I thought I read that on this site.

Totally fair about my language too. I will apologize again for being a bit to charged up, I’ll tone down in the future.

I’m not really in a position to offer much more than me seeing it as an equity issue. One I know has been raised with the colleges and universities in the past, and they continue to ignore. 

Apologies to OP for derailing your thread with my stupidity. The issue hits close to home and bothers me on personal level but I realize it’s weird as blocked points out to approach this way. Such is life though, nothing is likely to change. 
 

EDIT: After re-reading someone did confirm on TRU accepted thread the school said it does not effect chances elsewhere and you only need to pay the $500 to save the seat, which implies non-binding to me, though obviously I am not a lawyer. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Kobe

[User456]

13 hours ago, Thrive92 said:

OP i think the reason why TRU may have such a short deadline may be in order to avoid the clusterfuck that happened last cycle: https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/local-news/dozens-of-students-accepted-into-tru-law-school-now-on-waitlist-4448712

Based on your stats, I would say that you are competitive for the schools in Alberta, but I would still wait until the last day to either withdraw/accept the offer from TRU in order to see if Calgary or Alberta does something with your application.

 

IMHO, I would decline and take the chances (more like risk) for my first pick schools, but that's all upto you obviously. Good luck on whatever decision you make

Oh for sure, that's exactly why! I wish they would at least make the deposit refundable in this case. i'll be declining, but waiting 🙂 I don't anticipate to hear back from Alberta schools until late January at the earliest. U of C hasn't even updated my profile to reflect my LSAT score yet.