Difficult Letter of Intent Question

[Zorbonaut]

Hi, I am looking for advice. I may be acting very irrationally, and if that is so, that would suffice as an answer. This is my first cycle applying. By April I had had four interviews and four waitlists. Two of these schools are much better for me than the remaining two. For various reasons, I felt that the school which would be best for me had no intention of admitting me off of the waitlist (bad interview day, chilly replies to my queries from the admissions office.) Eventually I sent a letter intent to my second choice and said I would relinquish other acceptances if accepted. I was accepted to that school shortly after, and immediately began to dread moving to its city (the other school is located where I went to undergraduate in a small town and is much cheaper and more convenient, among other things.) I do have real financial and personal (family) reasons for wishing to attend the other school. My question is this: should I call the admissions office at my first choice school, explain that a deposit is due at a school I have been accepted to, and request clarification of whether or not I will be admitted. If admitted, I would explain my situation to the admissions dean at the first school and ask his permission to (essentially) renege on my letter of intent. I have no idea what his level of sympathy would be in that situation. Typing this out the situation seems more clear (that I should clearly just accept the acceptance I have,) but I keep having doubts.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LizzyM]

This is why my dean believes that letters of intent are pure bull sh1t. If you try to back out of the school that admitted you then you are only proving what many deans already believe, these Letters of intent mean nothing.
The first school doesn't seem to want to give you much love, why do you think that they'll change their tune when they hear you are going elsewhere? Wouldn't they just say, "Adios and good luck to you." ?

 

[tmn]

Hi, I am looking for advice. I may be acting very irrationally, and if that is so, that would suffice as an answer. This is my first cycle applying. By April I had had four interviews and four waitlists. Two of these schools are much better for me than the remaining two. For various reasons, I felt that the school which would be best for me had no intention of admitting me off of the waitlist (bad interview day, chilly replies to my queries from the admissions office.) Eventually I sent a letter intent to my second choice and said I would relinquish other acceptances if accepted. I was accepted to that school shortly after, and immediately began to dread moving to its city (the other school is located where I went to undergraduate in a small town and is much cheaper and more convenient, among other things.) I do have real financial and personal (family) reasons for wishing to attend the other school. My question is this: should I call the admissions office at my first choice school, explain that a deposit is due at a school I have been accepted to, and request clarification of whether or not I will be admitted. If admitted, I would explain my situation to the admissions dean at the first school and ask his permission to (essentially) renege on my letter of intent. I have no idea what his level of sympathy would be in that situation. Typing this out the situation seems more clear (that I should clearly just accept the acceptance I have,) but I keep having doubts.

I don't mean to be over-dramatic (maybe I do), but you were willing to make a promise in order to leverage an acceptance but then are willing to rescind that promise if a better offer comes along? Perhaps this warrants an examination of what your word means to you.

 

[tmn]

Okay, done being dramatic now.

 

[Zorbonaut]

I doubt they will change their tack, but if they do admit me, it would make a lot of things much less difficult for me and my family. My concern really is whether I will cause problems for the dean. I don't intend to just withdraw and silently renege on my letter but talk with him. I can't see how having one student of hundreds from the waitlist choose to attend elsewhere could pose problems for him - if it did, of course I would attend there.

 

[tmn]

I doubt they will change their tack, but if they do admit me, it would make a lot of things much less difficult for me and my family. My concern really is whether I will cause problems for the dean. I don't intend to just withdraw and silently renege on my letter but talk with him. I can't see how having one student of hundreds from the waitlist choose to attend elsewhere could pose problems for him - if it did, of course I would attend there.

You're likely right. My argument was an academic one. It will virtually have no ill effect on the school you withdraw from. I guess you could justify it by calling it a "no-harm-no-foul" situation. I was making a broader comment on the value of a person's word. The premise of a promise is that it applies regardless of whatever unforseen future contexts may arise (such as getting a better acceptance offer).

Tl;Dr OP, you will be fine. I doubt the school will lose any sleep if you decide to withdraw your acceptance. However, perhaps you should attend because you said you would.

 

[Mad Jack]

I doubt they will change their tack, but if they do admit me, it would make a lot of things much less difficult for me and my family. My concern really is whether I will cause problems for the dean. I don't intend to just withdraw and silently renege on my letter but talk with him. I can't see how having one student of hundreds from the waitlist choose to attend elsewhere could pose problems for him - if it did, of course I would attend there.

It is disrespectful to the school and the other students on the waitlist that might have been admitted in your place but subsequently weren't based on your LOI. Integrity and respect are critical in a field like medicine and it is quite frankly depressing to see so little of both in a future physician like yourself.

 

[LizzyM]

Some schools will protect their yield (proportion of offers that are accepted) by giving great weight to letters of interest/letters of intent. It does hurt the school you back out of after sending a LOI by reducing the school's yield. It also demonstrates what you are willing to do to get an advantage and how little your word means when you think you can get something better.

 

[235009]

From an ethical standpoint you already know where you stand (that this would be a crappy thing to do). If the school holds a grudge the most they can do is decide never to take anyone from your college again. At the end of the day though there are no repercussions for you.

With regards to your strategy: aren't we talking about an MD school here so the deposit is just $100? I know at this point you wouldn't get it back if you withdrew but telling another school "omg I have to pay $100 so you better accept me now" isn't going to garner any sympathy.

 

[LizzyM]

Furthermore, if the school that has you on its waitlist sees that you have been admitted to school X and if that school knows that school X seldom admits someone without a brown-nosing letter of interest, then they may know that you are duplicitous (double dealing).

 

[Zorbonaut]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I did the right thing.

 

[whatever5]

Furthermore, if the school that has you on its waitlist sees that you have been admitted to school X and if that school knows that school X seldom admits someone without a brown-nosing letter of interest, then they may know that you are duplicitous (double dealing).

And here I though LOIs were completely useless...

 

[LizzyM]

And here I though LOIs were completely useless...

Letters of intent are not considered useful because, as we see here, applicants are fickle and will say anything to get an advantage and then back out.
Some schools highly value letters of interest and want to see some indication that you are still interested after the interview.

 

[Narmerguy]

Letters of intent are not considered useful because, as we see here, applicants are fickle and will say anything to get an advantage and then back out.
Some schools highly value letters of interest and want to see some indication that you are still interested after the interview.

There have to be better ways to assess applicant interest without a de facto requirement for a brown-nose letter of interest, don't you think?

 

[235009]

There have to be better ways to assess applicant interest without a de facto requirement for a brown-nose letter of interest, don't you think?

some schools have started measuring oxytocin levels in the blood at the end of interview day

 

[tmn]

some schools have started measuring oxytocin levels in the blood at the end of interview day

This is why I rubbed one out in the bathroom post-interview.

 

[HopefulReapp]

I wrote an intent letter to my top school halfway through the cycle and was accepted with the full intentions of attending (sent the $2,000 non-refundable deposit, told my friends and family all about it, etc). A month and a half/two later I received an interview invitation from another school that I didn't think I had a chance at, and was ultimately accepted to. I would be three thousand miles closer to home, be paying less money, and get a similarly fantastic education.

I don't think that the issue is completely black and white, but like everything else has shades of gray. Ultimately it is an unethical decision to renege on a promise, but it might be the right choice in some situations.

 

[LizzyM]

There have to be better ways to assess applicant interest without a de facto requirement for a brown-nose letter of interest, don't you think?

I'm not endorsing this approach, merely reporting it.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

I wrote an intent letter to my top school halfway through the cycle and was accepted with the full intentions of attending (sent the $2,000 non-refundable deposit, told my friends and family all about it, etc). A month and a half/two later I received an interview invitation from another school that I didn't think I had a chance at, and was ultimately accepted to. I would be three thousand miles closer to home, be paying less money, and get a similarly fantastic education.

I don't think that the issue is completely black and white, but like everything else has shades of gray. Ultimately it is an unethical decision to renege on a promise, but it might be the right choice in some situations.

This is why you should not write these letters until May. It is never the "right choice" to renege on a promise. Don't make the promise in the first place.

 

[LizzyM]

I wrote an intent letter to my top school halfway through the cycle and was accepted with the full intentions of attending (sent the $2,000 non-refundable deposit, told my friends and family all about it, etc). A month and a half/two later I received an interview invitation from another school that I didn't think I had a chance at, and was ultimately accepted to. I would be three thousand miles closer to home, be paying less money, and get a similarly fantastic education.

I don't think that the issue is completely black and white, but like everything else has shades of gray. Ultimately it is an unethical decision to renege on a promise, but it might be the right choice in some situations.

In my opinion, anyone sending a letter of intent should be required to withdraw all other applications upon accepting an offer of admission from the school to which the letter of intent was sent.

 

[xffan624]

I wrote an intent letter to my top school halfway through the cycle and was accepted with the full intentions of attending (sent the $2,000 non-refundable deposit, told my friends and family all about it, etc). A month and a half/two later I received an interview invitation from another school that I didn't think I had a chance at, and was ultimately accepted to. I would be three thousand miles closer to home, be paying less money, and get a similarly fantastic education.

I don't think that the issue is completely black and white, but like everything else has shades of gray. Ultimately it is an unethical decision to renege on a promise, but it might be the right choice in some situations.

It is black and white. If you are still hoping to get interviews or acceptances at places you would rather go then don't send an LOI. Plenty of applicants do take them seriously and don't send them because they know they have a chance someplace else (if you haven't been rejected yet then it's still a chance) they would rather go. You chose to send one to a school even though you knew that you still had a chance at schools that you would rather go to.

It's not the right choice to renege on your word, but it was the most convenient for you.

 

[tmn]

In my opinion, anyone sending a letter of intent should be required to withdraw all other applications upon receiving an offer of admission from the school to which the letter of intent was sent.

Fixed it

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

As usual, another letter of intent "dilemma" that isn't.

 

[Narmerguy]

I'm not endorsing this approach, merely reporting it.

Ah certainly, I understood that you were merely reporting. But from your perspective, I'm curious if this tactic (unstated requirement for love letters) seems as unnecessary as it does to many applicants? In much the same way that I would never send a letter of intent to a school until I was sure I would absolutely go, I would not want to send a love letter of interest to a school when I am truly interested in multiple schools. This behaviour only encourages applicants to send these kinds of letters to all their schools, which defeats the purpose and could harm applicants who show restraint from vomiting letters to anyone who will give them a boost.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Ah certainly, I understood that you were merely reporting. But from your perspective, I'm curious if this tactic (unstated requirement for love letters) seems as unnecessary as it does to many applicants? In much the same way that I would never send a letter of intent to a school until I was sure I would absolutely go, I would not want to send a love letter of interest to a school when I am truly interested in multiple schools. This behaviour only encourages applicants to send these kinds of letters to all their schools, which defeats the purpose and could harm applicants who show restraint from vomiting letters to anyone who will give them a boost.

Some people have a clear number one choice.

 

[Narmerguy]

Some people have a clear number one choice.

And many people don't, at least not before acceptances/financial aid packages come out.

 

[LizzyM]

Ah certainly, I understood that you were merely reporting. But from your perspective, I'm curious if this tactic (unstated requirement for love letters) seems as unnecessary as it does to many applicants? In much the same way that I would never send a letter of intent to a school until I was sure I would absolutely go, I would not want to send a love letter of interest to a school when I am truly interested in multiple schools. This behaviour only encourages applicants to send these kinds of letters to all their schools, which defeats the purpose and could harm applicants who show restraint from vomiting letters to anyone who will give them a boost.

After the interview (first date), are you still interested? Some people would like to know before they make a fool of themselves and propose marriage. You can do many interviews and be interested in many suitors but in the end, you must choose one. Until May 15th it is ok to play the field and letting schools know that you are still interested in their attention is ok in my book and even more important after May 15th when schools on the rebound might be looking for someone after being dumped.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

And many people don't, at least not before acceptances/financial aid packages come out.

So what? Do you think schools should ban letters of interest/intent just because some shady applicants might try to brownnose several different schools at once?

 

[LizzyM]

So what? Do you think schools should ban letters of interest/intent just because some shady applicants might try to brownnose several different schools at once?

I certainly don't believe that applicants should be prohibited from writing a thank you letter after an interview, updating their file at any time, or otherwise letting a school know that they are still interested.

Letters of intent should be treated like letters of interest.

 

[Goro]

Unless the school specifically states that they welcome LOI, Deans consider them to be worthless. Case in point, OP

Letters of intent are not considered useful because, as we see here, applicants are fickle and will say anything to get an advantage and then back out.
Some schools highly value letters of interest and want to see some indication that you are still interested after the interview.

 

[masaraksh]

I think the obvious solution is that if you write an LOI, get accepted, but then want to go against your word, the school should make you eat a poop hotdog.

 

[Narmerguy]

So what? Do you think schools should ban letters of interest/intent just because some shady applicants might try to brownnose several different schools at once?

Did you read the thread? I was talking about schools that have a tacit expectation for applicants to send them gushy letters of interest/intent, as per LizzyM's comment below (and from anecdotal hearsay that I've heard personally).

Furthermore, if the school that has you on its waitlist sees that you have been admitted to school X and if that school knows that school X seldom admits someone without a brown-nosing letter of interest, then they may know that you are duplicitous (double dealing).

My point is that it's excessive and unfortunate that some schools have these sorts of expectations that applicants send them profusive letters of interest as a way to feel confident that an applicant is seriously considering the school. Applicants can write whatever they like, no one has to read/accept it. Expecting these letters is another matter. It encourages applicants to send these letters to multiple schools so that not sending one isn't held against them, and thus defeats the purpose of the letters. Similarly, it disadvantages applicants who show restraint in not sending letters out to schools because they genuinely believe they could see themselves happily at multiple schools.

After the interview (first date), are you still interested? Some people would like to know before they make a fool of themselves and propose marriage. You can do many interviews and be interested in many suitors but in the end, you must choose one. Until May 15th it is ok to play the field and letting schools know that you are still interested in their attention is ok in my book and even more important after May 15th when schools on the rebound might be looking for someone after being dumped.

It's reasonable to want to know if an applicant is interested, but this gets at my original point: is expecting letters of interest really the best way to assess if an applicant is interested? Let's also not ignore that the applicant to this point has already spent considerable time and effort filling out essays, researching the school, paying to attend the interview, etc etc.

 

[LizzyM]

It's reasonable to want to know if an applicant is interested, but this gets at my original point: is expecting letters of interest really the best way to assess if an applicant is interested? Let's also not ignore that the applicant to this point has already spent considerable time and effort filling out essays, researching the school, paying to attend the interview, etc etc.

Some schools get a lot of applicants and interview a lot of applicants and have some very specific quirks to their school, curriculum, philosophy, etc. After you've seen and heard about the school in person, the school would like to know that you are still interested and they do think that letters of interest are a good way to assess that someone is still interested.

That is the school's choice. If you don't want to express your genuine interest in the school because you feel that just staying awake during the interview is enough of a demonstration of your interest, then good luck to you at schools that like a follow-up communication from candidates after the interview.

 

[shhimnothere]

..

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Did you read the thread? I was talking about schools that have a tacit expectation for applicants to send them gushy letters of interest/intent, as per LizzyM's comment below (and from anecdotal hearsay that I've heard personally).


My point is that it's excessive and unfortunate that some schools have these sorts of expectations that applicants send them profusive letters of interest as a way to feel confident that an applicant is seriously considering the school. Applicants can write whatever they like, no one has to read/accept it. Expecting these letters is another matter. It encourages applicants to send these letters to multiple schools so that not sending one isn't held against them, and thus defeats the purpose of the letters. Similarly, it disadvantages applicants who show restraint in not sending letters out to schools because they genuinely believe they could see themselves happily at multiple schools.


It's reasonable to want to know if an applicant is interested, but this gets at my original point: is expecting letters of interest really the best way to assess if an applicant is interested? Let's also not ignore that the applicant to this point has already spent considerable time and effort filling out essays, researching the school, paying to attend the interview, etc etc.

Why would anyone send a gushing letter if they weren't seriously interested in the school? Just to rack up more acceptances? Personally I am way too lazy to bother with that. I bet its the same for most applicants.

 

[Narmerguy]

Some schools get a lot of applicants and interview a lot of applicants and have some very specific quirks to their school, curriculum, philosophy, etc. After you've seen and heard about the school in person, the school would like to know that you are still interested and they do think that letters of interest are a good way to assess that someone is still interested.

That is the school's choice. If you don't want to express your genuine interest in the school because you feel that just staying awake during the interview is enough of a demonstration of your interest, then good luck to you at schools that like a follow-up communication from candidates after the interview.

Yes but how is an applicant supposed to speculate which schools want follow-up communication and which don't? This is my point, the only way an applicant can then be safe is to simply send a letter to all schools that they want to get into. Does this really tell the schools what they want to know? Further, if an applicant is not aware that the school wants a follow-up message (which is not standard practice since the majority of schools accept applicants without this), they are disadvantaged at that school. After the thousands of dollars, altered schedules, and hours spent pouring into the applications, I think applicants deserve better than that.

Why would anyone send a gushing letter if they weren't seriously interested in the school? Just to rack up more acceptances? Personally I am way too lazy to bother with that. I bet its the same for most applicants.

?? You can't know which schools will accept you ahead of time so you can't tailor your letters only to schools that will accept you. If you were a borderline applicant or even unsure if you will get into any of the top schools on your list, why would an applicant not send a gushing letter? If the difference between them being accepted and not was simply sending in the letter, it makes sense to send the letter. And since an applicant can't know which schools they're in the running at, they are best suited sending a letter to all of them. If you only send the letter to one school that ends up rejecting you anyway, and then another school that would have accepted you doesn't because you didn't follow up enough, you're SOL. It is pretty rational in this circumstance to send as many letters as possible unless you're just a super awesome applicant who knows that she/he will have her/his pick of top schools at the end of the cycle.

This practice pretty clearly encourages applicants to send mass letters to schools to stay in the running at all of the ones they want to have a chance at (which for the majority of applicants is obviously all of them--no one wants to prematurely shut the door on a school before they know they're in somewhere).

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Yes but how is an applicant supposed to speculate which schools want follow-up communication and which don't? This is my point, the only way an applicant can then be safe is to simply send a letter to all schools that they want to get into. Does this really tell the schools what they want to know? Further, if an applicant is not aware that the school wants a follow-up message (which is not standard practice since the majority of schools accept applicants without this), they are disadvantaged at that school. After the thousands of dollars, altered schedules, and hours spent pouring into the applications, I think applicants deserve better than that.



?? You can't know which schools will accept you ahead of time so you can't tailor your letters only to schools that will accept you. If you were a borderline applicant or even unsure if you will get into any of the top schools on your list, why would an applicant not send a gushing letter? If the difference between them being accepted and not was simply sending in the letter, it makes sense to send the letter. And since an applicant can't know which schools they're in the running at, they are best suited sending a letter to all of them. If you only send the letter to one school that ends up rejecting you anyway, and then another school that would have accepted you doesn't because you didn't follow up enough, you're SOL. It is pretty rational in this circumstance to send as many letters as possible unless you're just a super awesome applicant who knows that she/he will have her/his pick of top schools at the end of the cycle.

This practice pretty clearly encourages applicants to send mass letters to schools to stay in the running at all of the ones they want to have a chance at (which for the majority of applicants is obviously all of them--no one wants to prematurely shut the door on a school before they know they're in somewhere).

I thought we were discussing Letters of Intent in this thread. These letters are usually sent after an applicant has been waitlisted at his/her top choice (and has been accepted at other schools). If an applicant has no acceptances, an LOI is useless and this entire discussion is moot.

No, I don't think it is rational to send a LOI to every school where one has been waitlisted. It makes sense to send a LOI to your favorite school.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't like to acronym LOI because it is hard to know if one means Interest or Intent.

A letter of interest is like an update to one's file. At interview, a school should tell you if they are open to those after the interview and from those on the waitlist or if they are not open to these messages.

Frankly, if people would withdraw from schools they would not attend if offered, we'd be much better off. As it is now, we are just days away from the annual, "does it look bad if I refuse an offer and reapply" thread.

A letter of intent means that you pledge to enroll in that school and withdraw all other applications (although most people don't follow through with the withdrawals).

 

[tantacles]

As it is now, we are just days away from the annual, "does it look bad if I refuse an offer and reapply" .

Zing.

 

[PreMedOrDead]

I hate to say it but OP should do what is best for them, regardless of what is 'right.' It will not harm the school nearly as much as it will impact his/her life if staying with school #2 is the wrong choice. This application process is one of those few things you absolutely should be selfish about, because quality of life does matter, both to the applicant and the school.

Letters of intent are not considered useful because, as we see here, applicants are fickle and will say anything to get an advantage and then back out.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. If the process wasn't so ambiguous, fickle, and frankly, cutthroat, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But it is an issue, and it's not the applicant's fault. In this case, OP made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Thankfully (or not, depending on your viewpoint), he's not obligated to accept by any binding contract, and the schools was completely aware of this when extending the offer.

You can... be interested in many suitors but in the end, you must choose one.

Well I'm going to consider this a confirmation that you're not on UoUtah's admissions committee.

 

[LizzyM]

I hate to say it but OP should do what is best for them, regardless of what is 'right.' It will not harm the school nearly as much as it will impact his/her life if staying with school #2 is the wrong choice. This application process is one of those few things you absolutely should be selfish about, because quality of life does matter, both to the applicant and the school.



Don't hate the player, hate the game. If the process wasn't so ambiguous, fickle, and frankly, cutthroat, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But it is an issue, and it's not the applicant's fault. In this case, OP made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Thankfully (or not, depending on your viewpoint), he's not obligated to accept by any binding contract, and the schools was completely aware of this when extending the offer.

This is not a "don't hate the player..." moment. It is a demonstration of the lack of morals that some applicants have. Cutthroat, selfish, going back on their word when it is convenient.... frankly, the school they dump is lucky to be rid of them.

Well I'm going to consider this a confirmation that you're not on UoUtah's admissions committee.

It is big of me not to have you banned for that remark.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

It is big of me not to have you banned for that remark.

Polygamy jokes are off-limits on SDN?

 

[LizzyM]

Polygamy jokes are off-limits on SDN?

No, but speculating as to my location is. You'll forgive me for finding the polygamy pun irresistible.

 

[Goro]

One can simply ask the Admissions dean or his/her minions if the school accepts LOI. Sometimes this info is stated on the schools website. And how else would you interpret a non-binding contract from a desperate candidate?

?? You can't know which schools will accept you ahead of time so you can't tailor your letters only to schools that will accept you. If you were a borderline applicant or even unsure if you will get into any of the top schools on your list, why would an applicant not send a gushing letter?

An LOI is NOT going to get someone pulled off of a wait list. Everyone at the schools know that you want to come there. Your app is what gets you accepted.

If the difference between them being accepted and not was simply sending in the letter, it makes sense to send the letter. And since an applicant can't know which schools they're in the running at, they are best suited sending a letter to all of them. If you only send the letter to one school that ends up rejecting you anyway, and then another school that would have accepted you doesn't because you didn't follow up enough, you're SOL. It is pretty rational in this circumstance to send as many letters as possible unless you're just a super awesome applicant who knows that she/he will have her/his pick of top schools at the end of the cycle.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

An LOI is NOT going to get someone pulled off of a wait list. Everyone at the schools know that you want to come there. Your app is what gets you accepted.

How does a school "know you want to come there?" If you are accepted at school A, B, and C, and waitlisted at D, E, F, and F is your first choice, how in hell does F know you really want them, unless you send them a letter stating so?

 

[Goro]

Because you interviewed there. Obviously my take on this is different from my learned colleague's. If F is Harvard, and A, B and C are the Drexel triplets in Philly, well, you can surmise what Harvard would think.

Again, my advice is to always make sure that the school welcomes LOI. If they do, great, send them a letter. If not, accept the hand life has dealt you. As my Arabic friends say "In'shah'Allah" ["Fate" or "God's will"]

How does a school "know you want to come there?" If you are accepted at school A, B, and C, and waitlisted at D, E, F, and F is your first choice -- how in hell does F know you really want them, unless you send them a letter stating so?

 

[PreMedOrDead]

This is not a "don't hate the player..." moment. It is a demonstration of the lack of morals that some applicants have. Cutthroat, selfish, going back on their word when it is convenient.... frankly, the school they dump is lucky to be rid of them.

At the time OP sent the letter, that was his/her intent and he/she voiced it because it is what the [informal] admissions process dictates one should do when you are interested in a specific school. After he/she received an offer (which may or may not have been impacted by the letter) his/her opinion changed. I find it unlikely that the school will take it personally/be significantly impacted if the OP withdraws because their heart is somewhere else. It would be fine if OP attended that school on their word, but if they would truly be upset attending that institution it hurts not only them but the school, as someone else may have performed better if they were happy there and ultimately better reflecting upon that school. While I agree it is wrong to go back on your word, schools are well aware that these letters are not binding agreements and they have far more experience with this than applicants. For that reason, I sincerely doubt that the school's admissions committee took it as more than a LoInterest, and if they did they are well aware applicants can back out. You yourself said that unless a formal agreement is made in the admissions process where LoIntents actually mean exactly that, they should all be treated as LoInterests.

Don't get me wrong, I frown upon the choices of OP. I also think you're being too harsh - this was a lack of maturity and not malicious intent by OP (e.g. sending a multitude of LoIntents to all their schools to rack in acceptances is corrupt, but that is not this case). I certainly don't deem them morally reprehensible because they made a mistake they didn't know they were making at the time they made it. We're all human and make mistakes, but if OP has the decision to make both parties happier/better off then maybe that decision is the best one to make, even if it is 'wrong.'

It is big of me not to have you banned for that remark.

That would be silly. It was clearly in jest and was not speculation as to your location or identity.