Ability to Pay and other trends in admissions

Parents Forum
41

<p>It’s overly simplistic to make this an issue between “rich” and “poor.” There’s a vast middle ground, of course. And PizzaGirl, I would argue that this is a really big country, and it still won’t be hard for the “top 50” (not that they’re really top, but you know what I mean) schools to find more full pays. </p>

<p>Someone here talked about the priority some families place on education, and the difference between the wealthy who can just write checks for $50K a year out of their cash flow and those who’ve planned for years for this. We are a full-pay family-- our household income would qualify us for FA, but because my parents put some assets in their grandchildren’s name, the kids are “too rich” to qualify for FA. The income from those assets is about enough to pay for 30-35% per year of a private college, and we’re managing the rest from years of saving and from giving up on the vacations and fancier things we enjoyed when they were in grade school. And we expect our girls to work and contribute, and they do. Selfishly, I hope our full-pay status (earned through hard work and frugality on our part and the part of my parents) helps D2 get into the school of her dreams (not that we know what that is yet-- hopefully after our spring trip).</p>

<p>Not for one minute do I regret the sacrifice for a private-school education, and while it is concerning if schools fill up with indolent, obnoxious rich kids, it’s also important to acknowledge that not all full-pay kids are that. My college sophomore earns all her own spending money and cannot afford to live the high life of some of her classmates, but she’s happy and getting a great education.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>This happened at one of the top prep schools last year to great fury. As a trustee at a private high school, I could understand both sides. The school genuinely needed time to figure out how to handle their endowment crisis and didn’t want to scare off applicants when they did not know for sure what would be necessary. The applicants put time, effort and hope into their application and found out only weeks before letters were sent that it was not a need blind year.</p>

<p>I’ve been following the situation closely at 2 ivies this season. I’ve talked to trustees at both. The schools are making very difficult choices. The bottom line is that all of these schools have the same priority–preserving the strength of the institution.</p>

<p>Figuring out where to cut involves everything from negotiating with unions representing folks who maintain the campus to deciding how many tuition dollars they need. they also needed to see how much endowment recovery would take place.</p>

<p>There will still be many poor kids accepted with their full need met. Should they have discouraged kids from applying?</p>

<p>Again, these schools have always had FA budgets and they have always had many full pays. So they need a few more this year to keep the school strong and to pay for those on aid. When the endowments recover, so will their more generous aid policies. </p>

<p>So yes, it’s probably not the best year to be a middle class/upper middle applicant at top schools. And the last decade was a bad time to be an affluent prep school kid. But nobody (other than Daniel Golden in The Price Of Admission) warned wealthy kids from NYC to not bother applying if they weren’t a development/legacy/athlete. </p>

<p>The schools have always tweaked their policies at someone’s expense.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve joked to my kids that they will be able to identify a '14 by their BMW.</p>

43

<p>

They should tell the truth, and let the kids and their families decide how discouraging the truth is. Skidmore, for instance, was very frank in their info session about their need-blind-but-only-up-to-a-point process, which was not especially encouraging for our son’s prospects–but he liked the place so much that he decided to apply anyway. If he had been lukewarm about Skidmore, or if it had been a high reach, then maybe he wouldn’t have applied, and that would have been appropriate.</p>

44

<p>Colleges are a business and need aware is a fact of life for many of them. Only a very small handful can be need blind.</p>

<p>From a pure business standpoint, for most colleges (exclude the very top ones), they can get more bang from their FA buck by spreading it over more students. So instead of awarding that $40K full ride to someone with no EFC - why not take it and award five $8,000 merit scholarships to students who can pay close to full pay but may head elsewhere without the merit award. A college (again - exclude those at the very high end) can retain more quality students with judicious use of merit funds as compared to fewer but larger need based awards.</p>

45

<p>Schools should be up front about the process because children from poorer families need to understand that they may not get accepted because of their financial situation. Its a harsh reality but hardly one that has just become a factor. Families in that situation need to consider the facts and perhaps not spend the money applying to schools that they would be unlikely to be accepted at. Its really about transparency and giving people the information they need to make the best decision with their money.</p>

46

<p>

</p>

<p>This comment bothers me, but I am unsure of how to respond.</p>

47

<p>^ I think the poster is saying “spread the wealth”</p>

48

<p>Colleges are competing for top students and they need ways to recruit the best and the brightest. On principle, I don’t see anything wrong with giving merit scholarships to kids whose family can easily afford full-pay, if these kids are indeed the best and the brightest. Having high caliber kids on their campuses benefits their entire student bodies and enables them to draw more high caliber kids to their schools. Presumably these kids receive merit aid because they are at the top of the applicant pool. Emotionally, however, I side with kids with fewer financial options, because the high caliber full-pay capable kid will get into a good school in any case.</p>

49

<p>There are quite a few schools who do not offer merit aid of any kind and the ONLY kind of aid is need-based, including athletes. Ivies and NESCAC’s being the primary examples. However, because they have a wider base line of those who qualify for financial aid, it probably works out similarly for those who might otherwise get merit money elsewhere. From our family’s point of view, those who actually <em>need</em> the money to attend college are in the right line to get it. </p>

<p>While I am sincerely happy for friends and acquaintances whose children have earned merit money, I just think it’s ironic how some who get merit aid think of it as a their due or right and end up thinking very little about the kid for whom that amount is the difference between their going to college and not. And yet! It seems we have no problem on CC bashing those where it is often PRESUMED kids get in merely because they are full pay (which is hardly ever the case at the most competitive schools).</p>

50

<p>This is why you have so many upper-middle class kids at state flagships.</p>

<p>One frequent characteristic of the wealthy is that they know how to value goods and services.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>This is what I meant when I said emotionally I side with them. If we limit ourselves to looking only at kids at the top of the applicant pool then these financially challenged kids will have other options because they have enough academic strength to get in a college with sufficient FA. For these kids, it’s a matter of not able to afford a better school, not a matter of unable to attend college at all, which is what kids in similar SES but at the lower end of the applicant pool face. It is disturbing to see these kids losing a chance at college because the money they need went to people who don’t need the money.</p>

52

<p>To the question of “why not spread the wealth – 5 $8,000 merit scholarships in stead of one $40,000”? the answer is it depends directly on the perceived mission of the college.</p>

<p>If the $8,000 is truly the only outside money received, I’m not sure how different a population it will attract beyond the full-pay students already in their seats since $8,000 in a $50,000 price tag may not be significant financially to swing the decision, although it may be a great ego boast. If the goal is attracting the kid with the higher SAT score for statistical purposes, it may succeed. However, if the goal is to promote true economic diversity, not so much.</p>

<p>Tippy top schools are committed to some measure of economic diversity for a variety of reasons, and only some of them relate to institutional strength and reputation. It seems that need blind schools are committed to a measure of social mobility and do not want their educations available only to the rich.</p>

<p>And I agree with the poster (pizza girl?) who suggested that a top 20 cut-off was much too restrictive for schools seen as desirable enough to cough up full freight, at least in speaking about LAC’s. I would say that any in the top 50 are going to attract enough full-freight kids to fill their seats, though most would not want to go that route.</p>

<p>For example, my D’s school, Barnard, comes in at 27 usually. I encountered no attitudes on the part of parents that they were paying for a “degraded” product. For most women, this had been their first choice.</p>

<p>There are schools, Dickinson and the aforementioned Skidmore, that have always attracted full pay students in sufficient numbers to fill their seats, and I could choose others, too, (Conn Coll) for example. I don’t think FA is merely tuition discounting to keep these institutions afloat. I think it is evidence of some commitment to economic diversity and social mobility or at least evidence of the peer pressure to manifest these these values.</p>

<p>Attending school with only fellow and sister trust funders has become a less attractive prospect for the uber-elite.</p>

53

<p>Isn’t Conn College a NESCAC school? I think their aid is need-based only although there may be some reimbursement or help if you are an RA or hold some other jobs on campus.</p>

<p>but I would agree hugely that economic diversity is an important component to obtaining a realistic world view.</p>

54

<p>mythmom: interesting that you mentioned Dickinson in your post; apparently they were 7% underenrolled last year; yield was apparently not hit…will be curious to see ED admit rates from them this year…but they are under the radar on CC; will check CDS when it comes out…</p>

55

<p>BCEagle’s comment is spot on for our family. </p>

<p>We are a full-pay family, mostly because we’ve had two incomes for most of our marriage and we live below our means. We spend money, but just not to the extent that our salaries would suggest we can. Like BC said, we know how to value goods and services (or like to think we do). We’ll buy a new car every 5-6 years, but it’s a Hyundai, not a Lexus, and we drive it for 10-12 years.</p>

<p>D1’s college choices came down to three schools she liked best. One offered no merit aid (COA = $45K/yr), one offered 16K/year (net COA = $30K/yr), and the third was an OOS flagship (COA = $28/yr). The financials took the 45K/yr school off the table – even though we * could * pay, we didn’t believe that the difference in education/experience/fit was worth $60,000. </p>

<p>D1 is at the school with the merit scholarship. I don’t feel guilty at all for taking the merit scholarship. Presumably the college offered it because they wanted D1 and students like her to attend; not just the poor ones.</p>

56

<p>D attends a top LAC has a decent scholarship and a small grant. She has no problem with wealthy kids with slightly lower stats getting in her school. She recognizes that the full pay kids provide the monies that allow her to attend a school that would have been well beyond our reach, financially. She compares herself to an athlete. In her case, the school was “buying” her SAT, AP scores and ECs. I apologize for the crude analogy with what I know is an emotionally charged subject. This past year, her school increased to aid, the same percentage that the tuition was increased.</p>

57

<p>mrsref, you are exactly right. We will be full pay and though I appreciate that fit is important, so is money. D will pick the school that has the best combination of fit/academics/prestige/price for her.</p>

<p>She had a huge fight with her grandfather last week when he told her that cost should not be a factor in her decision because her parents could well afford any school she gets into.</p>

58

<p>

</p>

<p>After yesterday, I think that concept has been soundly rejected :)</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>First, in my example I used a $40K school , not a $50K one. And quite frankly $8K in merit reducing $40K to $32K can make a huge difference for a great number of people in their decision making. As BC Eagle so astutely pointed out, and as mrsref confirmed, there are tons of families who while being able to afford more, do look at the relative value of what they are purchasing. For many, an $8K difference per year could have a big impact and be the deciding factor in choosing between two colleges.</p>

<p>Second, you will note in my original post - I specifically excluded those very top schools who can afford to buy a greater measure of diversity than everyone else can. So not sure why you would bring your comment about tippy top schools into the mix. Those handful of schools with huge endowments will always be able to do things differently than the other 99% of colleges out there</p>

60

<p>Hm, maybe I forgot to put this link in this thread: </p>

<p>[Maguire</a> Associates - Services - Strategic Financial Aid Modeling](<a href=“http://www.maguireassoc.com/services/financial_aid.html]Maguire”>http://www.maguireassoc.com/services/financial_aid.html)</p>