We wish you in advance nachas from your daughter’s spiritual gains during her studies in whatever fine institution she will attend. The willingness of people like you to part with their children for a while and to spend much hard-earned money has revolutionized our community. We will address both the halachic and moral elements of the question, as Torah institutions should be concerned about both. We will start with institutions’ rationale for this common policy, which is important regarding both elements. (We cannot say anything authoritative without hearing both sides’ claims in beit din.)
Firstly, these institutions incur heavy expenses well before students arrive. These include transportation for recruitment teams and tens of hours of administrative work in addition to various other costs, which, in total, reach tens of thousands of dollars. It is logical that applicants should help defray these costs and that those who complete the process should pay more. However, $1,500 seems too much just to defray costs.
The main logic of the payments’ non-refundable nature is that it is preventative. Often institutions will end up with fewer students (and less money to cover expenses) if students can freely change their minds. In addition, a student’s change of decision can have a domino effect on her friends, which can severely damage an institution. Even if they can be replaced numerically, in the meantime the “top” wait-listed students usually commit elsewhere. Replacing a few top students with others who are marginally suitable can affect the character of a school’s student body and its reputation in the short and even the long term.
The fact that the money is non-refundable also puts the student and parents in a mind-set of certainty about their choice. Then, like an engaged couple, one does not consider changing her mind, unless a serious mistake surfaces. This mind-set usually benefits all concerned. Students remain positive, and seminaries can hire a staff that suits the incoming student body. While $1,500 sounds high (and might be so), were it much lower, it would not sufficiently deter cancellations.
Now we can examine the halachic issues. You hired a seminary to teach your daughter. Usually, an employer can break an employment agreement and not pay the agreed-upon wages, even if a kinyan[1] was done, as long as the worker can find alternative employment (i.e. another student).[2] However, there is a halachic rule that states that conditions that are made to change standard, financial arrangements are binding.[3] You agreed to the stipulation of non-refundable payment and made the agreement final by transferring the money unconditionally.
Your only claim is that an asmachta, an exaggerated obligation that one accepted because he did not think it would come to fruition, is not binding.[4] However, the Shulchan Aruch[5] says that, even regarding asmachta, if one already gave money as a guarantee, he cannot demand it back. Although the Rama[6] argues, one cannot extract money from a muchzak[7] when there is a serious contending position. The seminary may have additional claims to justify its position.[8] At the risk of over-simplifying a complicated matter, it does not appear, based on what we know, that you can halachically demand the money back.
Just as it is a mitzva for you to see the seminary’s side of the matter, so it is for the seminary to see your side. If you can convince the administrators that: 1) you were confident that your daughter would attend, 2) something came up which caused you to change that decision, and 3) it turns out that the seminary was not seriously damaged by the withdrawal, then we hope they will return much of the deposit.