Another Nail in the "Need-Blind" Coffin

Parents Forum
1

<p>The lastest edition of the Williams Alumni Review has an article on admissions by Doug Lederman, editor of Inside Higher Ed., on admissions generally speaking, and on the Williams admission process in particular. While not particularly eye-opening, the article should put to death, forever, the question as to whether Williams (or any other prestigious college for that matter outside of Olin or Cooper Union or the service academies) is actually “need-blind”. </p>

<p>According to the article, students who “hail from obvious modest/low income” backgrounds have “socio-ec” tags placed on their applications. At one point in the considerations, the Dean of Admissions says, “We’re down a little bit on IVITs (those with extraordinary academic depth/talent) from last year, so we may want to a little more there. We’re ahead on socio-ecs, so that’s good.” It is clear that there is a “target” for “socio-ecs” at which the school feels comfortable, which is determined in advance of seeing applications. Now, this can be a good thing – colleges can’t go out of their way to admit low-income candidates unless they’ve labeled who they are. By the same token, the college can use the tag to limit spending on financial if it so chooses. I don’t happen to think it is a bad thing to be doing this (frankly, if I were a college admissions officer, I think it is precisely what I’d do), only that it’s about time we threw away the “need-blind” deception.</p>

<p>Lederman cites a 2004 student of the COFHE schools (33 leading private colleges and universities that do joint surveys for comparative purposes.) From this work, one can break down the family income characteristics of attending students:</p>

<p>• 9% from the bottom two quintiles (income below $40k);
• 17% from the next two quintiles – 40%-80% percentile of the population ($40k –$92k)
• 24% from the next 15% (80-95% percentile of the population ($92k - $155k+)
• 50% from the top 5% of the population ($155k+)</p>

<p>Since the COFHE schools including family income outlyers such as Smith and Mount Holyoke, with well more than 20% of the student body from the bottom two quintiles, it is likely that at many of the schools the income breakdown of the schools would show the student bodies to be even wealthier (and less diverse).</p>

<p>What is missing from the article (as is missing from ALL articles of this type) are the admissions odds and ratios for each economic class.</p>

2

<p>mini,</p>

<p>In your opinion is "need blind" a total myth, even at the Ivys?</p>

3

<p>Why "even at the Ivys"? I would have said "especially at the Ivys". </p>

<p>The bigger question is to ask whom this mythology serves, and how?</p>

4

<p>I'll leave the bigger question for others, but it does seem like an elaborate charade if what you say is true. The conventional wisdom has been saying that it's actually a disadvantage to come from a comfortable background, i.e. in the Hernandez admission book, the former adcom at Dartmouth actually says you should check the "applying for financial aid" box even if you aren't to up your chances and downplay your parent's occupations (say manager instead of CEO, etc.)</p>

5

<p>mini's question about admission odds may relate to audiophile's point. </p>

<p>I imagine that there are relatively few kids applying whose families make <$40K. Perhaps a large percent of them are accepted. So in fact, the Harnandez info may be accurate.</p>

6

<p>The “socio-ec” tag could also mean that the institution recognizes the adversity that these students may have overcome and will consider taking a number of them even if they have lower academic credentials than other students, but only up to a certain limit.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
Lederman cites a 2004 student of the COFHE schools (33 leading private colleges and universities that do joint surveys for comparative purposes.) From this work, one can break down the family income characteristics of attending students:</p>

<p>• 9% from the bottom two quintiles (income below $40k);
• 17% from the next two quintiles – 40%-80% percentile of the population ($40k –$92k)
• 24% from the next 15% (80-95% percentile of the population ($92k - $155k+)
• 50% from the top 5% of the population ($155k+)</p>

<p>Since the COFHE schools including family income outlyers such as Smith and Mount Holyoke, with well more than 20% of the student body from the bottom two quintiles, it is likely that at many of the schools the income breakdown of the schools would show the student bodies to be even wealthier (and less diverse).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>it is interesting to see how an identical - or in my opinion but misquoted- can yield different conclusions. Not having the Lederman artcile, i have to assume that he may quoting the following study, "Affordability: Family Incomes and Net Prices At Highly Selective Private Colleges and Universities BY Hill, Winston, and Boyd" dated January, 2004. </p>

<p>The study uses extensive data from 28 of the 31 to establish the distribution of the income of the families of students at the COFHE schools. the distribution is similar to the numbers quoted by Mini (with the correct quintiles). In addition, the study provides an additional division among the type of cOFHE schools by segregrating the Ivies and noncoed schools. as the title indicates, the study also presents its findings about the Net sticker prices paid by the various income classes. </p>

<p>Despite Mini's speculation that the noncoed schools higher financial aid would somewhat create an even richer environment at other schools, the data of the study simply contradicts this. In fact, the majority of the lower income students fare BETTER at Ivies than at noncoed schools. While the percentage of students receiving financial aid are all in a very narrow range, the amount of financial aid at the Ivies is superior than at the non-coed schools.</p>

8

<p>Other than demographics (speculation on income), if one doesn't check off the financial aid box, how do they know what your income actually is?</p>

9

<p>Well, you have to write your parents occupations down, so they definitely get a chance.</p>

<p>Also, I think a lot of colleges purchase lists from companies of the incomes for each student's family.</p>

10

<p>what if your child has a huge trust fund that isn't reflected in the parent's income?</p>

11

<p>There is a native american tribe with a casino ( fairly successful I think from the way my mother spends her time) near where we live. I believe that they have a policy of 100% tuition scholarship to any higher ed school that member wants to attend. I get the impression that very few take advantage of this opportunity at the state college level or private college.</p>

<p>? If you throw a lot of $$$ at the disadvantage, how much of that $$$ will be taken and what is the longterm return?<br>
I'm supposing the ans:
[quote]
• 9% from the bottom two quintiles (income below $40k);
• 17% from the next two quintiles – 40%-80% percentile of the population ($40k –$92k)

[/quote]
??</p>

<p>mini answers, "What is missing from the article (as is missing from ALL articles of this type) are the admissions odds and ratios for each economic class."
Maybe the real answer is "we shall never know, ever." because we really don't want to know, ever.</p>

<p>I can guess the shortterm $$ and social return is getting the kids off the streets and employing pH.ds.</p>

12

<p>"Despite Mini's speculation that the noncoed schools higher financial aid would somewhat create an even richer environment at other schools, the data of the study simply contradicts this."</p>

<p>This is an easy one to verify or not - simply take the amount the school distributes in institutional aid per year and divide by the total student body, which would present one with an algorithm that combines both the average aid per student, and the percentage of students receiving it. </p>

<p>What the study shows (page 6) is that at the coed, and especially the Ivy institutions 1) a much larger proportion of the aid goes to high income students ($92k - $160k), and 2) the percentage of full pay students relative to those in the bottom two quintiles is much higher:</p>

<ol>
<li>The ratio of high income students receiving aid relative to low-income ones is:</li>
<li>Ivies - 2.7:1</li>
<li>Coed Colleges - 1.3:1</li>
<li>Women's Colleges - .75:1</li>
</ol>

<p>(note that there is relatively wide variation in all three categories)</p>

<ol>
<li>The ratio of full-pay students to low-income ones is:</li>
<li>Ivies - 5.9/1</li>
<li>Co-ed Colleges - 5.0/1</li>
<li>Women's Colleges - 3.9/1</li>
</ol>

<p>The average net prices per aid student vary very little (page 9 - the Ivies roughly $650 more than the women's colleges.) So the big differences are in the shape of the student bodies themselves.</p>

<p>These numbers have changed since the 2001-2002 period covered by the survey. Aid per student has increased relatively sharply at Princeton (most of it going to folks in the upper quintile, but benefits to low-income students are NOT insubstantial); the percentage of Pell Grant recipients at Amherst and Smith have both increased substantially, and, this year, the percentage of students receiving aid at Williams has expanded sharply. However, I suspect the major beneficiaries of revisions in financial aid policies will not be low- and middle-income students, but those in the top quintile who are now being drawn away to the Vanderbilts of the world by larger offers.</p>

<p>As to social policy, I'm not convinced it makes much difference. The vast majority of students who attend COFHE schools are going to do well wherever they attend. Personally, I care much more about educational opportunities at state colleges and universities for those who have difficulty affording them.</p>

<p>And I applaud colleges for giving up the "need-blind" charade in favor of letting us now that they used need data to shape the classes they admit (and they can use the data either to increase economic diversity, or to ensure a large number of full-pay customers - that's totally up to them.)</p>

13

<p>Mini said: "And I applaud colleges for giving up the "need-blind" charade in favor of letting us know that they used need data to shape the classes they admit (and they can use the data either to increase economic diversity, or to ensure a large number of full-pay customers - that's totally up to them."</p>

<p>yes.....but if a they are a private college they should operate as they please no? Yet there is tremendous pressure from society and inadvertently from the government for private colleges to admit diverse classes. They comply, and in effect institutionalize the entire admissions process.</p>

<p>I know everyone is sick of hearing me say it- but if you truly are a private college then you should not receive government funding nor receive funding through tax deductible contributions. Yet colleges play by different rules- they take government $ through one door then close another door to the ROTC on campus.......</p>

14

<p>Mini, as I said, we look at the same report and end up with different conclusions. </p>

<p>In the past, we have had similar discussions. According to you, Mt Holyoke provides one of the bes, if not the best, financial aid among ALL schools. It was easy to show that it was not true, especially when compared to Harvard. When focusing on non-reimbursable financial aid, the differences were large (in favor of the Ivies.) </p>

<p>We have also discussed ad nauseam WHY there are more lower income students at the non-coed schools: it is ENTIRELY a matter of admission standards and NOT a matter of financial aid. According to you, Ivies "discriminate" against lower income students by NOT accepting them. To support this notion, you DO abandon another of your pet peeves: the fact that lower income students have lower academic and standardized scores. I am afraid that we will go in circles forever. I will continue to use the admission and selectivity standards of Wellesley and Smith to point out that only a very small fraction of their students' population could be interchangeable with the population of HYPS. The overwhelming majority is simply NOT competitive in the HYPS applicants' pool. Having lower stats than the Ivies, it is absolutely normal that the coed schools have a larger number of lower-income students. Further, I also believe that the larger focus on "hooked" students at the Ivies even exacerbates this difference. </p>

<p>Anyhow, here are a few numbers to chew on:</p>

<p>Definition of Quintiles - 5 categories of students RECEIVING Aid:
Qs Highest Family Income
Q1 $24,001
Q2 $41,001
Q3 $61,379
Q4 $91,701
Q5 $160,250
NA Non-Aided students</p>

<p>Number of students receiving aid versus full pay
Qs Women Ivy U
Q1 - 532 -- 2,079
Q2 - 641 -- 2,290
Q3 - 752 -- 3,130
Q4 - 962 -- 4,747
Q5 - 884 -- 7,020
NA 4,631 - 25,850</p>

<p>*Percent of Total Enrollment *<br>
Qs Women Ivy U
Q1 06% -- 05%
Q2 07% -- 05%
Q3 09% -- 07%
Q4 11% -- 10%
Q5 10% -- 15%
NA 54% -- 57%</p>

<p>** Average Tuition Real Costs **
QS Women Ivy U
Q1 $ 7,863 - $ 8,169
Q2 $ 9,676 - $ 9,200
Q3 $13,134 - $11,893
Q4 $18,297 - $16,499
Q5 $25,663 - $23,949
NA $33,708 - $34,508 </p>

<p>*Net Price/Sticker Price *
QS Women Ivy U
Q1 23% - 24%
Q2 29% - 27%
Q3 39% - 34%
Q4 54% - 48%
Q5 76% - 69%
NA 100% 100%</p>

<p>So, is there SUCH a difference between full-pay students: 54% at Women colleges versus 57% at the Ivies? </p>

<p>So, is there SUCH a difference between the NET costs for students from the lowest quintile: $7,863 at Women colleges versus $8,169 at the Ivies? </p>

<p>So, is there SUCH a difference between the NET percentage over full tuition costs for students from the lowest quintile: 23% at Women colleges versus 24% at the Ivies? </p>

<p>On the other hand, the figures for the Q2 through Q5 are illustrating that the situation for the majority of students receiving aid is BETTER at the Ivies. In addition, when factoring the percentage of grants versus loans, the difference becomes even very larger in favor of the Ivies. </p>

<p>The smoking gun is filled with wet cartridges!</p>

15

<p>Xiggi, If UCLA has 20,000 applicants a year with gpas over 4.0 and 35% of them are Pell Grant eligible, that gives me 7,000 low income applicants with gpas over 4.0. How many can do well at the Ivies? </p>

<p>In my daughter's class of 300, Penn and Columbia both took students that were around 75 in the class.</p>

<p>Did they take them because their academic records were so strong, and much stronger than the many low income students out there or did they take them because they were members of a crew team?</p>

<p>I have a hard time with the idea that low income students aren't as strong academically as students that are accepted into the ivies. Harvard, and Princeton send reps to my kid's high school. I don't think they send reps to the high school with poorer students a few miles away. Yale doesn't send reps to either school.</p>

<p>Have you seen JO play? My son plays like him.</p>

16

<p>Re: UCLA's 20,000 applicants with gpas over 4.0</p>

<p>California high schools are rife with grade inflation. There are exceptions, and the colleges know which schools are the exceptions. But by itself, a 4.0 means nothing.</p>

17

<p>Well, the kid's at my son's Calif. public school with 4.0s go to the IVYs, Stanford, CalTech, the UCs, and they do just fine.</p>

<p>My nephew, who was a 4.0 at a crummy high school, is at Stanford and his grades have dropped. He only has a 3.9 :(</p>

<p>The 3.6 gpa kids that go to the Ivies because of sports like Crew...they do fine too.</p>

18

<p>While you guys are arguing about financial aid, I think it's more interesting that a highly academic college admits to having a quota for highly academic admits.</p>

19

<p>I'm sure the 4.0's do fine. Mine was a 3.7 uw who did fine at Stanford. That wasn't my point about grade inflation. Remember that all the top colleges are quick to point out that they reject many, many "qualified" applicants. "Qualified" means they would do fine. "Doing fine" is as much a function of supply and demand as anything else. Regardless of gpa, if there are fewer spots than qualified applicants, everyone should do fine; if there are more spots than qualified applicants, some will not do fine. As one of my high school teachers said back in 1970, "if I grade on a curve, an A could mean an A or it could mean the best of the lousies."</p>

20

<p>"t is ENTIRELY a matter of admission standards and NOT a matter of financial aid."</p>

<p>Xiggi,</p>

<p>I would LOVE to see the data to back up this statement. I think you are out on a theoretical limb here. </p>

<p>Given the small slice of students the ivies take (how many times have we seen the statement that they could fill many equally fine classes with their rejects?) there is no way Harvard and Yale deplete the pool such that Holyoke is stuck with the leftovers.</p>