A Tale of Two Admission Policies and Three Sets of Ivies

Parents Forum
21

<p>First of all, I agree with your last statement, as you know. I believe the actual odds for a full-freight customer at HYP (including the EDs) at roughly 1 in 3 (or 4), for Pell Grantees roughly 1 in 7, and for the broad middle (35-95th percentile in family income) 1 in 20. (Oh - by the way - I don't think there are any victims, only those who go on to do well at other schools, if they choose.)</p>

<p>The circular part is that "their qualifications are what made them the most qualified and that is why they were accepted, and they were accepted because they were the most qualified, based on the qualifications that gained them acceptance." ;)</p>

<p>Anyway, you done good work! A minus!</p>

22

<p>But remember, are we talking applicants or applications...I REALLY want to know, because if the colleges are reporting all their stats on applications and stating how its up 10% from the year before, what are the total number of students involved. This doesn't directly have to do with the ED RD debate, but with the larger picture of competitiveness and selectivity. It is all interconnected. And it feeds the whole cycle of hard to get into, so we need to apply everywhere, everyone is applying everywhere so its harder to get into, more circular logic</p>

23

<p>Well, it's clear enough that among the applications (including a smaller number of distinct students) received by the top schools, there are enough distinct students so that once the students decide where to go, each entering class is filled, often without any recourse to the wait list. I've not heard of any students who go to two highly selective colleges at the same time.</p>

24

<p>There are roughly 28,000 kids out of the 1.4 million who took the SATs last year. What proportion of them applied to Ivy's? Half? Three Quarters? There were 23,000 kids admitted to Ivy's and roughly 60% will enroll. The 40% who don't are probably mostly middle-class kids who cannot afford an Ivy education. It is really not that hard to get into an Ivy provided you are smart and can pay full freight. Additionally if a particular schools scores start to sink they have the option of redefining need and changing how they fullfill it. </p>

<p>The Ivy's are run by an elitist and extremly politically correct crowd which hopes to reshape the American ethos by using its presumed power to grant or deny access to the halls of power. Nothing wrong with that I guess if you can pull it off. Basically they want to empower the traditional outcastes of society - URMs and they want to make the wealthy and upper-middle classes, call them the 10 pecenters to pay for it.</p>

<p>Scrounge those 23,000 admits and tell me how many truck drivers sons and carpenters daughters you find. If those kids score high and have the grades they will not have the ECs or the money. They will be off to the state colleges.</p>

25

<br>


<br>

<p>The issue of what constitutes "qualified" especially as it pertains to ED/EA is a major source of misunderstanding. Avery's study echoes the feeling of most when it suggests that ED/EA have the equivalent of a 100 point advantage on the SAT vs. RD applicants. Yet, year after year, colleges claim that the ED/EA pool is stronger than the RD pool, hence the higher rate of admission. Which is right?
Well, both. Because what makes an applicant qualified in the eyes of a college adcom may not be the same thing as what makes the same applicant qualified in the eyes of others. Hooks and tips count as qualifications for adcoms. If we remember that colleges try to build well-wounded communities rather than communities of well-rounded students, ED/EA is the time when those who have something a college particularly wants have the best chance of admission. It can be sports, it can be a lefthanded oboe d'amore cum viola da gamba player, it can be someone whose parents are prospective endowers of major buildings. </p>

<p>For several years, we've attended free events in Harvard's Arts First program (launched by Harvard alum John Lithgow). Considering the breadth of offerings and the polish of the performances, one has to wonder how much time the students devote to their studies. But it is events like that as much as the courses and the profs that make Harvard what it is. And adcoms know it.</p>

26

<p>It would, I think, be instructive to determine how many of the ED acceptees are athletes. Given that all of the Ivies have comparable athletic offerings, and thus a comparable number of recruited athlete spots, you would expect that smaller schools processing their recruited athletes through the ED/EA process would show a disproportionately high acceptance rate for ED relative to their peers.</p>

<p>It also argues (assuming that, on average, the athletes display poorer SAT's) that there would be a disproportionate advantage during the ED round for high SAT applicants, since the adcoms often publish their SAT stats for the ED pool separately from the the RD pool. And can not, of course, afford to publish a drop in SAT's.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

27

<p>Since, according to the CollegeBoard, money accounts for the higher SATs, it is tautological to argue that the SATs being higher (or the same) in ED round indicates they are better qualified, and that's why they get in.</p>

<p>"Basically they want to empower the traditional outcastes of society - URMs and they want to make the wealthy and upper-middle classes, call them the 10 percenters to pay for it."</p>

<p>Numbers say otherwise - 6.8% of Harvard students are Pell Grants recipients, more than 50% receive no financial aid (at Yale it is 60%), meaning minimum incomes of over $155k, and median of these well into the $200s.</p>

<p>It would be an interesting argument, if it were true.</p>

28

<p>From Harvard website:</p>

<p>Guiding Principles of Admissions and Financial Aid at Harvard College:</p>

<p>All admissions decisions are made without regard to need (i.e., need-blind).
All financial aid awarded by Harvard is need-based, and grant eligibility is determined in the same manner for all students.
Harvard meets the full need of all students applying for financial aid for all four years, based on information that we receive from the family for each year.</p>

<p>Who receives financial aid at Harvard?
Two-thirds of all undergraduates receive some form of financial assistance, including outside awards.
48% receive some amount of need-based Harvard Scholarship aid, totaling almost $80 million.
Almost 20% of the families receiving need-based scholarship assistance from Harvard have incomes above $130,000.
Based on our new aid policy initiated in 2004, parents with total incomes below $40,000 are expected to pay nothing , and those with incomes between $40,000-$60,000 have reduced contributions.
Foreign students have the same access to financial aid funding as U.S. citizens, including the new policy outlined above.
34% take out student loans and 55% work on campus during the academic year, with several hundred other students working off-campus or with Harvard Student Agencies.
Median educational debt for members of the graduating Class of 2004 was $8000.</p>

<p>From Yale website:</p>

<p>Facts and Figures 2004-2005
Total Yale scholarship budget: $48.1 million
Average Yale scholarship per student who qualified for aid: $22,000 per year
Top Yale scholarship: $38,000 per year
Percentage of all undergraduates who receive need-based scholarship aid from Yale: 40.8%
Percentage of undergraduates who work on campus or with participating non-profit agencies during the academic year: 56.5%
Minimum pay rate for on campus employment in 2004-2005 academic year: $10/hour
Percentage of undergraduates with student loans: 31%
Average undergraduate student loan amount for 2003-2004: $4,000 </p>

<p>It would appear that Harvard claims to have at least 66% of its student on some form of financial aid (on the Financial Aid Q&A, it's claimed that the figure is 70%), vs. Yale, 40%.</p>

29

<p>Since according to the CollegeBoard (and everyone else who has ever looked at it), money accounts for higher GPAs, it is tautological to argue that the grades being higher (or the same) in ED round indicates they are better qualified, and that's why they get in.</p>

<p>mini your numbers confirm what I am saying. Ivy freshman classes are composed of the wealthy and the poor with the middle class woefully under-represented. 6.8% Pell Grants 50-60% 0 financial aide because they are from families making north of 155,000. Where does that leave the vast middle classes, the red state riff-raff. I live in a "wealth" but large suburb of a huge east coast city. Iny adcoms are crawling all the private schools and the public magnets and the best public high schools in the western part of the county but they never make it to my working class high school. A kid has a much better chance of making it to the Ivy's from the 'hood if he is smart and has grades (note I am not saying what the chances are of a smart kid having good grades growing up in that environment or even making it to age 18).</p>

30

<p>Nope. Harvard makes no such claim. They say 48% receive need-based aid at Harvard. Harvard only gives "need-based" aid, and 48% are on "Harvard scholarship". That's it. 48%. Hey, it's their money (and their admissions office.) (At MIT, however, it is 72%.) By the way, you can find all of these numbers in the Commond Data Sets.</p>

<p>Yale has fewer (40.8%). Princeton is currently about the same as Harvard's. However, the new aid policy at Princeton (as reported in their CDS has upped their "institutional aid per student" by about $2,000, putting them almost in the top 10. On this metric, neither Harvard nor Yale break the top 20. It is, however, more a metric of whom they accept (folks with dough), than how much money they give.</p>

<p>Patuxent - yes, my numbers show the same as your reasoning - but they accept very, VERY few from "the 'hood", and even fewer attend. The richer kids don't subsidize the poorer ones - the funds come from alums like me (we subsidize the rich ones, too, as the cost of education is greater than the tuition - and I don't mind!)</p>

<p>It is true, as pointed out below, that there are likely an overrepresentation of high-income applicants - in the ED round - BUT (big BUT), it is more than offset (as Xiggi's numbers suggest) by their huge overrepresentation in the ED round (i.e., they only apply to ONE place.) Results by individual (as you justly point out) may vary: in aggregate, they never do (or only at the margins). HYP accept basically the same class year over year.</p>

31

<p>I've seen Mini's argument on this point many times, but the argument ignores self-selection of applicants. Many more people apply on a wing and a prayer from higher-income families than from lower-income families to the most expensive list price schools: this thread and many other CC threads reveal that many families still think in terms of list price when comparing colleges. </p>

<p>As to SAT scores reflecting family wealth, that correlation is far from perfect. The middle-class means of my family for generations has been devoted to buying books rather than to buying sports equipment, and sure enough we have nonrich family members who have aced one section or another of the SAT, but no recruited athletes. I would call it a correlation to family "investment strategy" rather than a correlation to wealth as such. Perhaps it is true that the kind of applicant who can play football at an Ivy League level AND score at least at Ivy League SAT minimums is an applicant who needs a certain degree of family wealth just to keep up with a busy high school schedule, but that's not the only kind of family that can make a successful application to an Ivy.</p>

32

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>This is from the Harvard Financial Aid Q&A:
" About 70% of Harvard students receive some form of financial aid-grants, loans and/or part-time work. Our policy of need-based financial aid is designed to meet 100% of a family's demonstrated need. Recent enhancements have made our aid program even more generous by reducing significantly the amounts that students are expected to work or borrow during the academic year, thereby allowing all students to participate fully in the extracurricular life of the College and to minimize their student indebtedness. Our financial aid policies apply equally to international students and to U.S. citizens."</p>

33

<p>Got it . To quote the site:</p>

<p>"Two-thirds of all undergraduates receive some form of financial assistance, including outside awards.
48% receive some amount of need-based Harvard Scholarship aid, totaling almost $80 million."</p>

<p>In other words, 18% of Harvard students receive outside awards, without any need-based award from Harvard whatsoever. (I'm surprised it's so few - I would have figured they'd all have won the $500 from the local Rotary club.) 48% receive "need-based Harvard scholarships".</p>

34

<p>marite:</p>

<p>"about 70%.....loans, and/or part-time work..." </p>

<p>Since every kid, regardless of income, has a personal efc of ~$2,700, woudn't H be able to offer a part-time job to anyone who wanted it (even if they took a job at the Coop for discounts on CDs or clothes) and, therefore, claim those in its 70% number.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
People who expect a full financial aid package -via a ZERO EFC- should not hesitate to apply ED.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I actually don't think that people whose EFC is around, say, $10000 - should hesitate to apply ED either. (well, ED to Princeton, EA to HY). And that is a family with the income in "the broad middle" range defined by mini (35-95th percentile in family income). So, I am at lost: why should 90% of applicnts in ED round be wealthy???</p>

36

<p>I don't know. We did not feel financial aid form, so EFC of zero. S will probably be able to get a paying job if he tries, but priority will be given to kids on work-study because it's cheaper to hire them (Feds pick up 60% of the tab) and they do have priority over kids not on financial aid.</p>

37

<p>marite, I don't think that not getting finaid is equivalent to EFC = zero. I'd say it means that your EFC is equal to the COA (cost of attendance). The kids with EFC = zero come from the poorer end of spectrum.</p>

38

<p>Upfront I'll admit I'm biased in favor of the Ivies and I think some people here are seeing causation where there is merely correlation. </p>

<p>So, just a few points. One, Avery's study is out of date.Lots of poor and middle income families won't let their kids apply early decision because they want to be able to see competing aid offers. The data he uses come from a time when Stanford and Yale were both ED. Princeton is still ED. Brown has SWITCHED to ED from EA. Each of these changes has changed things for many people. Yale had a huge increase in applications last year when it switched to EA, and many of those additional kids were kids eligible for financial aid. Doing things like saying nobody with a family income below $40,000 or $45,000 has to pay for Harvard or Yale also changes the dynamics. These changes aren't really that great if you looked at the actual contributions which were expected from families in those categories before, but in terms of public relations headline stories across the nation about them will probably lead some Pell Grant -eligible kids to apply in the future who wouldn't have in the past. </p>

<p>If that's not clear---there's a difference between who applies early decision and who applies early action. When Yale and Stanford switched, the pool of applicants changed. The median family income level of the applicant pool is quite different at early ACTION and early DECISION schools. When a school is early DECISION, the applicants in the early pool will have higher median family incomes than when a school is early ACTION. So, when the schools changed, Avery's study is no longer an accurate study of admissions results, IMO. (Moreover, applying early ACTION usually helps you less than applying early DECISION. It still helps, but not as much.)</p>

<p>I know a lot of poor and middle class kids who are current students at or recent grads of Harvard and Yale. I think the reason I know so many is that I live in NYC and my kids went to public magnets. In most areas of the US, the quality of the high school you attend depends upon your family income. The kinds of high schools most poor kids attend are truly awful and the kind most middle class kids attend aren't as good as the New Triers, Newton Souths, and Scarsdales. The kids who go to lousy high schools might not survive at a HYP, even if they are smart enough. They simply aren't prepared. (Stanford takes half its transfer students from community colleges in part because after two years at community college it's easier to figure out which kids can make it. )</p>

<p>It's not some giant conspiracy by the Ivies. It's just the truth that most kids--not all, but most--who are poor and attend lousy high schools aren't prepared to do the work required to get through a college which gives essay rather than multiple choice tests,where you are expected to read 1,000 or so pages a week as a humanities major, and at which students are required to write lots of papers. Many of the kids who are doing this are also playing in the student orchestra, or are varsity athletes, or spend 40 hours a week on the campus newspaper. (One of the biggest differences between state U's and the Ivies is the percentage of undergraduats who spend substantial amounts of time on ECs. At some very, very good public U's, fewer than 20%of the students are involved in any EC other than Greek life.) </p>

<p>But when poor or middle class kids go to the Stuyvesant, Boston Latin, Illinois Math & Science, Arkansas Math & Science, North Carolina's boarding school, Texas Math and Science, or get scholarships to go to Exeter, Andover, Deerfield, etc. and do well in high school, the colleges fall over themselves trying to enroll them. </p>

<p>If you really want to see more Pell -grant recipients at top colleges, the only way to do it is to give the kids a better elementary and high school education. If they are prepared well for college, they will get in.</p>

39

<p>Marmat:</p>

<p>Got you. I expect our EFC is the entire $40k+. But I don't think that would give my S an edge over a kid on finaid when trying for work-study (and I'd hate to edge out a kid who really needs the money).</p>

40

<p>KateLewis - I think you are on to something with the high stats vs athletes, but the situation is a little more complicated. I know 4 students attending Dartmouth from our state (4 is probably everyone who will attend, 4 is actually a big number). DD was admitted in the ED round with academics as a strong suit. At the Alumni Christmas party she met a young man from upstate who had also been admitted ED and was a football player - it was not clear that he was going to play college ball or if it was an EC. Then in Feb, around national signing time, 2 other young men in our area committed to D to play football, definite recruits. One of them, I know was being recruited by a couple of other Ivies, not sure about the other boy.
My point is, before Feb, I kind of assumed recruited athletes went early and high stat kids were taken early both to balance any lower stats of the athletes, artistes, etc, and to provide a foundation for the scores of the whole class. But that only goes so far, because obviously some of the real football recruits are signed about the time of other D-I signees.</p>

<p>Another take home message to me is if you have a tenuous hook - geography in DD's instance - play it in the ED round where it may have more clout (Yeah, Mini, another example where those who can't afford to take a chance on FA lose - did I ever mention I think the whole system should go to one acceptance round held in Feb?). After those 3 players were accepted, her home state would have been less interesting in the RD. Of course I could be totally off-base, and it might have been something else in her app that was great - who knows.</p>