1) both policies at both schools matter. To suggest otherwise is promoting unethical behavior to potential physicians in a profession that highly values ethics. Simply because you can game a system doesnt mean you should. Besides, the "old" traffic post 4/30 rule of WL school calling accepted school prior to issuing acceptance is still habit amongst some admissions staff.
2) AAMC setup this system solely due to changes in Federal DOE regulations brought about by the last administration under the guise of fair trade practices. The former head of financial aid policy and enforcement was a former higher up of DeVry University (former parent of Ross and AUC) which had been hit by a similar rule affect for-profit schools. This rule was now applied to all schools in what many considered "pay-back." The current CYMS system is disliked by the majority of medical schools which would like to return to the centralized AAMC "report" system of acceptee management.
Please name names.
In a post MAR/NAR world where collusion and lawsuits are a fear, with AAMC going to the trouble of setting up an entirely new system specifically designed to be opaque to the schools, I would seriously question whether anyone at any of the schools would dare take that step. And I say this knowing full well that I am not nearly as plugged into this world as you are.
Bad habits could end up getting some well meaning staffers and their institutions sued under the right set of circumstances. Giving a courtesy call to a competitor in order to potentially limit the freedom of movement of a candidate is exactly the business AAMC chose to remove itself from in 2019.
More power to any renegade old timer at any school who doesn't believe the risk of adverse consequences to them is real, and would casually violate what I am certain is a procedure at all schools not to violate candidates' privacy and share their information with other schools. In the scenario you outlined, I'd be far more worried about unethical conduct leading to an undesired outcome if I were the admissions staff than if I were the candidate.
I have no doubt schools dislike any system that takes away benefits they enjoyed previously. Payback or not, there really is no logical argument to suggest that a system that could be abused by for profits couldn't also be abused by non profits. The schools abuse their "sellers' market" in many ways that adversely impact candidates, such as your widely posted admonition that schools are under no obligation to provide price transparency before requiring a decision, or maybe even a commitment, from an applicant.
As it was explained to me, the worry about the old system was that large institutions, by sharing information, could use it to collude against powerless candidates. Is this really no longer an issue for the pro big business Biden administration??
I honestly don't think you should hold your breath waiting for the system to revert back to what it was pre-2019. I first joined SDN back then, and remember the worries from all the adcoms that all hell was about to break loose without the MAR and NAR to guide them through the cycle. Things were surprisingly orderly that year, and are only getting better each year as adcoms and applicants adjust to the new system.
Of course adcoms miss the ability to predict yield with precision, and to have a view into what everyone's options are before making decisions regarding admission, financial aid, and merit scholarships. Proctor & Gamble, Coke and Exxon would also love to have that kind of information before making decisions that impact their businesses, but there are laws against that!
