<p>DB, if your S is a good enough student to get that scholarship - I know that particular scholarship is very hard to get, very competitive - I can’t believe he isn’t also going to get into Dream school. When does Dream U send out their decisions, BTW? One of D’s friends is waiting to hear from them, it’s her 1st choice too.</p>
<p>End of March. :(</p>
<p>I know of no “need-blind” schools that are cutting their budgets to FA despite heavy cuts elsewhere. In fact, contingency budgets were put in place to cover the anticipated increased aid for this past year at son’s school - over a million dollars with plans to continue this offset by a need aware international policy. So, I do know that international aid is being “tinkered” with, although Dartmouth for one claims it is not. And honestly, while I have heard of no schools who currently have a no-loan policy taking that off the table yet, I feel that going from a no loan policy is not exactly a cut in aid as much as it is an increase to student debt. It’s easy to believe that schools who are taking out bonds to cover cash calls would no longer be in a position to continue funding loans on behalf of their students (Amherst).</p>
<p>I don’t think any schools to which son applied could have known much about our finances beyond we weren’t applying for aid, so unless it’s a “known” development case of a big name monied family, they would have no idea if I am barely covering my light bill or if I was rolling in enough green to fund a new library. Would they?</p>
<p>Dartmouth has publicly announced possible plans to “tinker” with the no-loans portion of their FA packages for families making >75k/year. As someone who falls barely on the wrong side of that cut-off, I’m glad I didn’t apply to Dartmouth thinking it would be among the most generous FA packages.</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com</a> | Administrators eye “no-loan” financial aid](<a href=“The Dartmouth | America's Oldest College Newspaper”>The Dartmouth | America's Oldest College Newspaper)</p>
<p>Penn and Dartmouth are openly considering it Moda, and trust me, none of these schools will do it if their peers don’t. </p>
<p>A quote from President Kim, in today’s Dartmouth paper–very telling:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny thing about that: We’re all supposed to resist peer pressure, but only if you’re not the peer? Ironic. The real issue will be how much of a current aid package will translate into new loans (and if it will only apply to incoming students or to all)? I have never seen a fi-aid package but do current students even know how much of their packages WOULD have been in the form of loans had there not been the no-loan policy?</p>
<p>I imagine the first step will be to move that cut off point (or remove it entirely) for no tuition for families making less than (insert number here). They can still then claim to meet full demonstrated need and be need blind, but are not tied to funding the entire bill. While unfortunate of course, non-profit of not, they still need to pay the light bill just like you and I do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh. I thought that a “mediocre” school would be defined in terms of the education quality. Perhaps I misunderstood.</p>
<p>What caliber of school couldn’t fill a class with full pays if they wanted to? I bet a lot of state u’s couldn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These schools will all still claim to be fully need blind and to meet 100% of need. This goes back to an old debate we’ve had on CC–are the schools truly need blind when they keep coming up with about the same percentage on aid year over year?</p>
<p>There are many ways they can manipulate admissions and still be ‘need blind’ and many ways to meet need. </p>
<p>The problem is many of the schools went too far in who they were offering what. It really was a beautiful idea to make themselves accessible to upper middle class families without causing too much pain, but let’s remember, this has only been going on for a few years. Summers started at Harvard and the pack followed. They were rolling in so much dough they simply didn’t know what to do with it. Summers argued that no loans would allow grads to take a broader spectrum of jobs and do great things in the world which is true.</p>
<p>But the reality is none of them can afford this anymore. Do you lay off profs and cut classes/departments or go back to accepting more who can pay and donate? Which will compromise the institution less?</p>
<p>My guess is that the new policies will not apply to existing students. I do wonder what the fallout will be. Keilexandra’s post above expresses what many will feel. But if a whole line up of schools does this at the same time, will families just accept it or flee to state schools? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, the schools I’m thinking of are LACs and private U’s ranked under 20 or so. Folks who have high EFCs but would stretch uncomfortably to pay in full start to see it as not worth it in this economy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By ranked under, do you mean under as in 30, 40, 50, etc.?</p>
<p>Because if that’s the case, I reject the notion that people would only stretch to pay full pay at LAC’s ranked in the top 20, but not outside that. I think that reflects the typical CC prestige mindset where if something isn’t top 20, it’s sloppy seconds / back up choice. I think there are plenty of LAC’s in the top 20 - 50 range that could easily fill their classes with full pay if such were the case.</p>
<p>
This came up in a conversation with a friend (also parent of a HS senior) yesterday. She had recently spoken with an acquaintance who is an admissions staffer at a top 50 private university with an officially need-blind policy. The staffer said that while the policy still holds and application readers don’t see the financial data, they are increasingly employing the de facto need-aware technique of giving preference to candidates whose applications include clues suggesting affluence: wealthy zip codes, expensive ECs, etc.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - But would such LACs be able to fill their class with statistically equivalent full-pays? (I don’t actually know the answer to that question.) Outside of CC, I know many parents who would be full pay at an Ivy or T10 LAC (not even T20) but require their kids to get significant merit aid otherwise, or else attend the state U. It’s not an unusual prestige-driven mindset. The typical surburban parent around here cares a lot more about finances than about “fit” (a quintessentially CC idea).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a shame that this is happening. If they don’t intend to accept poor kids, they should just make it known in their admissions policy. Publicly declaring need-blind admissions and then practice need-aware admissions behind closed doors is sickening. JHU came out openly about its inability to stay 100% need-blind and admitted to altering a few decisions last year. I respect that. People still appreciate honesty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that the typical suburban parent cares more about finances than fit – which is why it’s common around here that they just “offer” whatever the state flagship costs and won’t pay above that. The more well-to-do people who can afford full-pay? I guess I know a different set of well-to-do people than you must, who value fit and experience and would just as easily pay full pay for a Top 30 LAC as for a Top 10 university. That doesn’t extend all the way down the ladder, certainly, but it’s broader than just Top 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, I missed this part. Do they necessarily care if those kids are statistically equivalent, though? I think grades and scores are so skewed towards higher income (for a number of reasons) that I think you could find either statistically equivalent, or just a bit below. I don’t think this means that, say, Oberlin would have to start taking in a couple hundred straight C students.</p>
<p>I think given your east coast location, you’re also unaware of the many, many smart kids from well-to-do families who just go to state flagships because it’s easy and pleasant enough to do. Those kids could “transfer” to LAC’s at full pay and not hurt the stats any. Youo’re assuming that all kids who are “LAC-worthy” are already in the application pool.</p>
<p>I agree, PaperChaserPop. As others have said here, colleges can’t print money, so I understand why they feel they have no choice but to go need-aware. But it would be nice if they were honest about it so that less affluent kids who want to apply to that school know what they’re up against. (I am not naming the school because this is secondhand information and I have no direct evidence for it–but I don’t know of any reason to doubt it, either.)</p>
<p>What I have noted is that some parents won’t pay about the state sticker because they have boats and cars and vacations and condos. In some cases it’s not about money per say but about a different set of values and where education falls on that continuum. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, but getting merit aid they don’t really need but want is also contributing to those “poor” kids not getting in. Obviously, if merit aid is going to a kid who for all intents and purposes doesn’t need it, then someone else ISNT getting aid. It seems we are all very quick to point out how schools bend to the wealthy, but the middle class isn’t guilt free in this situation. Obviously if the school is going to write you a check, who is going to turn it down? Right? But at the same time, there is some other kid that even with loans and other financial aid, isn’t going to be able to attend. And to the further point, not all merit aid is based on academic merit alone. All of this to say, the system isn’t perfect, but what kind of system ever is?</p>
<p>^^^What do transfers have to do with anything? I think hmom was talking about first-year admits, not transfers or WL or spring/Feb admits or guaranteed transfer or anything other method of getting around USNWR stats reporting.</p>
<p>If you’re referring to metaphorical transfers–what incentive would those kids have to “transfer” to a more expensive school, if they wouldn’t have chosen that school BEFORE the economic meltdown?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have to remember these are businesses and it’s cyclical. When I worked in admissions 30 years ago, ECs like traveling the world made a candidate worldly and attractive. When my oldest 2 did not get into their top choices I hired a counselor and the first thing she told me is that the mistake we made was listing ECs that painted the kids as affluent. So now affluence is in again…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, many of the schools fitting this description raised the financial aid budgets last year to increase merit aid to the upper middle class to not lose students to state schools. I could be wrong, but it seems to me they did this because they were worried about filling the class with people who could at least pay a substantial amount.</p>
<p>This article was in the Washington Post on Sunday. It mentions a number of schools that are popular among our CC community:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803584.html]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803584.html]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you have to signal it subtly, though. And frankly, I think that not checking the FA box is all the signal that you need.</p>