A Tale of Two Admission Policies and Three Sets of Ivies

Parents Forum
41

<p>jonri, I completely agree with this: "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." </p>

<p>As to the financial side of ED vs EA - with the Princeton no-loan finaid policy, it is quite safe for low-middle income families to apply ED. So, you'll have to pay those $10,000 EFC plus work-study, nothing more. If the student thinks he would prefer to possibly get full ride somewhere else, he will not apply. But lots and lots of students will prefer Princeton for $10,000 anyway, so why should not they apply?</p>

<p>When applying ED to Middlebury or somewhere else, that may be quite a different story (loans)... If EFC is $30,000 or more - that's definitely a different story. But for low-middle income families (not necessarily Pell-grant-qualified) - I don't see any possible "traps" in applying ED to Princeton.</p>

42

<p>I agree that it is quite safe to apply ED to Princeton from a financial standpoint. ED elsewhere is risky because families and colleges often have a different definition of need.</p>

43

<p>I think that if we want to analyze selectivity we need to take into account that all the class sizes at the ivies are different ranging from an average 1000 person class to a 3000 person class. I decided to analyze how the numbers would look if we made all the class sizes across the ivies the same. I kept the number of applicants, and yield constant. </p>

<p>CURRENT: </p>

<p>SCHOOL APPS ACPT RATE CLASS SIZE YIELD
Cornell 24,444 6384 26.12% 3000 46.99%
Harvard 22,796 2074 9.10% 1650 79.56%
Yale 19,448 1880 9.67% 1325 70.48%
Penn 18,823 3912 20.78% 2450 62.63%
Columbia 18,120 2250 12.42% 1000 44.44%
Brown 16,908 2463 14.57% 1375 55.83%
Princeton 16,516 1807 10.94% 1150 63.64%
Dartmouth 12,615 2149 17.04% 1012 47.09%</p>

<p>WITH SAME SIZE CLASS:</p>

<p>SCHOOL APPS ACPT RATE CLASS SIZE YIELD
Cornell 24,444 2128 8.71% 1000 46.99%
Harvard 22,796 1257 5.51% 1000 79.56%
Yale 19,448 1419 7.30% 1000 70.48%
Penn 18,823 1597 8.48% 1000 62.63%
Columbia 18,120 2250 12.42% 1000 44.44%
Brown 16,908 1791 10.59% 1000 55.83%
Princeton 16,516 1571 9.51% 1000 63.64%
Dartmouth 12,615 2124 16.83% 1000 47.09%</p>

<p>So holding the number of applications and the current yield if the class sizes across the ivy were the same then in order of selectivity the list would look like this:</p>

<p>Harvard 5.51%
Yale 7.30%
Penn 8.48%
Cornell 8.71%
Princeton 9.51%
Brown 10.59%
Columbia 12.42%
Dartmouth 16.83%</p>

44

<p>the only assumption, i guess, would be that if the class sizes were the same the number of applicants at each school would change (i.e. less people would apply to cornell - people apply now because they have a higher admissions rate, if cornell's class was 1000 i dont think that 24000 would apply). So this would greatly affect admission rates.</p>

45

<p>When you read these numbers and understand they therefore couldn't be need blind in the purest sense, you wonder how they conspire to get the aid yield they want.</p>

46

<p>Marmat and Marite, in light of Bird of Prey's thread about need-based aid schools (I know his high school, and the general background of students that he is collecting info to benefit) - do you think your point about Princeton, aid is generous for middle income, no loans, just EFC and work-study out of pocket, is true for HYPSM across the board? </p>

<p>He and his teacher are basically doing talent search in a region and environment where Princeton would be roughly equal to the moon, and only Harvard or Yale would even begin to register on the radar, and few people have a clue about what the real chances of attendance would be. He and his buddy who I think is going to Columbia, are special bright young men, much to be commended.</p>

47

<p>bern:</p>

<p>Cornell is an outlier since the 24k apps include the in-state portion...Ivy League education at SUNY prices!</p>

48

<p>cangel:</p>

<p>Only anecdotal evidence here. I know that in two cases, Princeton gave a more generous offer than Harvard or MIT. Same financial data. In one case the difference between Princeton's and MIT's offer was $7k per year. In the other case, when told of Princeton's offer, both MIT and Harvard upped their offers. Harvard matched, but MIT did not, despite the increase. So I would not say that, across the board, students have the same chance of financial aid at HYPSM.
Harvard's financial aid initiative is targeted at families making less than $40k; Yale's initiative is targeted at families making less than $45k. Neither would truly benefit families making, say, $80k.<br>
On the Harvard website, there are pie-charts and graphs that give examples of the amount of aid families at different income levels could expect to receive. I could not copy them here, but you might find them very helpful.</p>

49

<p>The easiest way for a school to increase their need based grant money, pat them selves on the back, and say "Oh what a fine fellow I am!" Is to arbitrarily up the tuition 5% a year in a 2% inflation economy with no intention of collecting the 3% differential.</p>

<p>Any alumni who thinks they are subsidizing the education of rich or poor kids with their contributions because a Harvard education "costs" more than the list price probably went to Brown where there are no distribution requirements and thus missed intro to economics 101. They should on their next canpus visit pop their head into the econ department and ask the first graduate student they can find how much it "costs" to produce a pound a bacon.</p>

50

<p>cangel:

[quote]
do you think your point about Princeton, aid is generous for middle income, no loans, just EFC and work-study out of pocket, is true for HYPSM across the board?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To tell you the truth, all I know about HYSM finaid comes from this board and from a couple of similar places... I heard that Princeton's finaid formula is the most generous, and I don't know what part of HYSM aid might be loans. So, for those with the income between $45,000 and $80,000 (?) Princeton is, in my opinion, the best bet (financially): pure EFC (which in our case was 3/4 of FAFSA EFC) and maybe work-study, that's it, period. </p>

<p>For families with income less than $40,000 - I don't know. I'd like to hear from somebody what does actually "no money from parents" mean - how much does the student have to pay? I it's Stafford loan+Perkins+work-study, than maybe he would be better off in Princeton than in Harvard, too.</p>

<p>Also, for very, very, very strong applicants the merit aid in Stanford or Caltech or such might come into play...</p>

51

<p>Thanks, that confirms what I suspected, plus I didn't realize that Stanford was like Duke, giving limited merit aid.
The problem with recruiting talented youngsters from typical public high schools around here (like BofP's) is first, the flagship public uni is about 10K-12K per year for everything - tuition, room, board, books, travel - for 15K you can live it up, that means a lot of aid to put a private in the running. Then you have to find kids/families willing to go that far away from home, yada, yada.</p>

<p>Last year I know 2 girls who turned down Harvard, one for Emory Scholars, the other for UVa with a better package - sometimes I wonder how many kids Ivies have to accept here to get 1 to actually come? I think, based on people I've heard about around here, the ratio is much lower this year - I know of 4 going to Ivy plus Stanford, one maybe 2 Duke, that has to be a record.</p>

52

<p>Why do they even apply?</p>

53

<p>"When you read these numbers and understand they therefore couldn't be need blind in the purest sense, you wonder how they conspire to get the aid yield they want."</p>

<p>Why do you think they have to "conspire"? These are solid professionals, with decades of experience and training, doing their jobs and, given clear institutional mandates, doing them well.</p>

<p>"jonri, I completely agree with this: "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."</p>

<p>Nah. All you have to do is recruit 'em. (36% of the student body at Berkeley, 16% at Amherst, 26% at Smith). But certainly better elementary and high school education - and higher taxes to pay for it - would be a great idea!</p>

54

<p>Each of the Ivies has its own idiosyncracies re aid. Princeton reputedly doesn't count home equity or doesn't count it unless it's very high. Yale does. So, if you are a middle income family and own your own home, the package from Princeton will probably be better than the package from Yale.</p>

<p>I live in NYC. Few poor and middle class families own their own homes. They rent. I don't know a single kid whose family rents who didn't get a MUCH better offer from Yale and/or Harvard than Princeton. </p>

<p>Smart kid in my neighborhood got into MIT and Harvard. Dad could pay--but won't. Dad lives in Europe. Mom has done everything humanly possible to collect child support from Dad. He won't pay. She's got judgments against him, but he never sets foot in the US. Dad would not fill out financial aid forms. Harvard said..go jump in a lake. MIT said..we're convinced, we'll base financial aid on mom's income only. No aid at Harvard. Over $20,000 a year at MIT. </p>

<p>The public U's don't use Profile and thus, when parents are divorced, only the custodial parent's income counts. So, given a divorce situation, it's probable that a public U like UVa will be more generous than Harvard if dad has the money to pay. </p>

<p>My point is simply that you can't generalize. That's why folks don't like to apply ED.</p>

55

<br>


<br>

<p>No really, Suze, I don't it was a coincidence that both applied to Harvard - both were vals, one a URM, the other (who I know a little better) the type of kid who never makes less than a 98, and freaked at a B on one test in the fabled hardest senior class. Their parents/friends/teachers/Sunday school teacher/aunt/whoever said, oh you are so smart, you should apply to Harvard. Around here it is always Harvard, occasionally Yale, rarely MIT. NO ONE ever says to a bright kid, gee, you should apply to Brown or Penn or Swarthmore. Stanford - well, so and so was always a little odd. Duke, now Duke everybody understands. "Our little Nancy is off to Duke", aahh the friends and relatives say, "We knew she was bright, we knew she would go far."</p>

<p>It is the everybody has heard of Harvard syndrome.</p>

56

<p>"When applying ED to Middlebury or somewhere else, that may be quite a different story (loans)... If EFC is $30,000 or more - that's definitely a different story. But for low-middle income families (not necessarily Pell-grant-qualified) - I don't see any possible "traps" in applying ED to Princeton."</p>

<p>There might or might not be any. In the case of Pell grantees, it is often the case that they are working now to help support their families. So it can be a problem taking away some of the breadwinning capacity. That's why Ruth Simmons at Brown got it right when she stopped requiring first year's to work on campus to pay for tuition (many still work - but they send the money home.) Princeton's policy doesn't address that, but rather addresses concerns more in line with middle class families. The first set of data out of Princeton since initiating the no-loan policy finds their institutional aid per student has gone up about $2k (roughly 20%), bringing them to the bottom of the top 10 or so, but hasn't resulted in more "poor" students. </p>

<p>Still, I can't help but wonder about the degree of animosity toward low-income students. Only 6.8% of students at Harvard (just for example) are low-income; 41.2% are middle-income (35-95%tile); 52% are top 5%ers. Any significant change would have to mean an end to affirmative action for rich (usually white) folks.</p>

<p>In my community (where rich folks are few and far between), the only Yalie I've heard of was a female track star. Harvard gets a few (but they lose a good share of those to Brigham Young). Mostly athletes to Stanford, too. I think we have a local gymnast who will go to Brown next year.</p>

57

<p>mini - if we could solve our educational problems at the elementary and high scholl leveks simply by raising taxes and throwing money at them we wouldn't have any problems. </p>

<p>I live in a county the spends a lot on education and constantly touts that it spends the same amount on kids in all schools in the county. Unfortunately the same dollars spent on kids in a school in a wealthy part of the county with intact stable two parent families yields radically different results than the same money spent in a school where 30 different languages are spoken in the homes and the parent or parents are working two jobs to keep a roof over everyones head and MS13 is prowling the streets and the malls.</p>

<p>But we are progressive we spend exactly the same amount on everyone and we love or public employee unions (which can do a marvelous job of raising money and turning out "volunteers" for elections) especially the NES. Oh I forgot they are not a labor union. They are a professional organization. But the important thing to remember is their contract prevent management from moving the best teachers to the schools with the neediest students. So we have first year teachers being mentored by second years teachers in the highest ed load school in the county.</p>

<p>The problems with our elementary and high schools run much deeper than the money we spend on them and are rooted in cultural, family, psychological, and value differences. Unless those root causes are addressed changes in funding are only going to result in throwing money down a black hole.</p>

58

<p>So when they apply, do they have any intention of going? Is it purely a money issue? Do they go to local State and tell people Harvard wanted them for the rest of their lives? Do they wonder what if??</p>

59

<p>Jonri, bravo on your analysis. I often wish that the indignation on this board re: the admissions policies of Harvard and Williams et al could be poured into indignation about the abysmal quality of our K-12 school system. I really don't cry into my tea cup over a needy kid who got a better package from Amherst than Princeton so boo hoo, off to Amherst he goes. He's beat the odds of where he comes from... and more power to him. It's the 1299 kids in his high school class he's left behind that I'd like us to worry about... 20% of whom have probably dropped out already, some are incarcerated, and a huge number of whom are reading at a 5th grade level.</p>

<p>Mini-- you can't really think that throwing taxes at the problem is the solution! Great analysis about a month ago in the WSJ on why teachers in the US don't make more money... and the author concluded that the unions made a strategic decision a generation ago that more union members (i.e. more teachers) was a better method of self-preservation than fewer, higher paid members.... so the unions lobbied for smaller class sizes and claimed a direct correlation with "Better education".</p>

<p>Result? We have more teachers who are poorly prepared (the author quoted the stats on why by and large, new teachers are the bottom of the barrel compared with their peers of a generation ago) and whose salaries have not risen in real terms. We also haven't seen any increase in the quality of Education... since the link was a dubious one to begin with, but the Unions love having more members which creates a stronger voting bloc and a more influential lobbying base. It was a scary, scary article.</p>

<p>Jonri for president. Better high schools, and don't get me started on how public U's have been eviscerated, both intellectually and financially by the demons of PC-land.</p>

60

<p>"Mini-- you can't really think that throwing taxes at the problem is the solution! Great analysis about a month ago in the WSJ on why teachers in the US don't make more money... and the author concluded that the unions made a strategic decision a generation ago that more union members (i.e. more teachers) was a better method of self-preservation than fewer, higher paid members.... so the unions lobbied for smaller class sizes and claimed a direct correlation with "Better education".</p>

<p>I think it would be easy to test the hypothesis. For three generations, spending on public education in high income areas has outstripped those in low-income areas roughly two-to-one. (You want me to pull out the Williams v. California lawsuit again?) To test the hypothesis that money doesn't matter, simply reverse that for three generations, with schools in low-income areas getting twice the amount of funds that those in high-income areas do. And don't let the high-income folks escape to private schools.</p>

<p>At the end of three generations, see where you end up. It's easy to test. Want to volunteer? Ready to send your children, your grandchildren, and your great grandchildren to the schools named in the Williams v. California lawsuit? To refresh your memory: A class action suit (Williams v. California) was filed on on behalf of 100 public school parents from 46 schools, argued that students – the overwhelming majority of whom were racial and ethnic minorities (or, it should be said, majorities) -- were “educationally disadvantaged” when they were confined to schools with rat, mouse, and cockroach infestations. Schools with leaky roofs and broken and boarded-up windows, and peeling lead-based paints. Schools where the windows can’t be opened at all, and the temperatures often hit 120 degrees, or where heating systems don’t work and students wear coats, hats, and gloves throughout the entire school day to fight off the chill. Schools with defective and dangerous electrical systems. Schools with toilets that don’t work, with floors wet and sticky and smelling of human waste, and with unsafe drinking water, or without any drinking water at all. Schools without textbooks, or with three or four students per book, or where several classes share textbooks so that students can alternate doing homework. Schools where some classes have no formal, long-term teacher for the entire year, only a series of substitutes, some for as little as a single day. Schools so overcrowded that they’ve adopted multi-track schedules in which teachers and students take turns using two sets of classrooms, cutting the school year short by nearly four weeks of instruction. Schools where classrooms have 30 desks and 65 students, leaving students to perch on counters or simply stand in the back of the room, or rotate their seating. (In settling the case, the Governor and State Board of Education admitted to all the charges.)</p>

<p>Any three-generation takers out there? Money doesn't matter. Come on. Volunteer your children, and your grandchildren, and your great grandchildren - there are plenty of schools waiting. Step up to the plate. Forget PC - put all conservative teachers in these schools, if you can get them to come. Money doesn't matter.</p>