Another Nail in the "Need-Blind" Coffin

Parents Forum
21

<p>NMD, darn, the data is out there: it is called the Common Data Set. Just look at the average Sat scores, the percentage of top 10 percent from high school. </p>

<p>FWIW, I have never said that the lower socio-economic levels prohibit studenst to do well. That has been one of MINI's contentions, not mine -apparently supported by the TCB SAT surveys. I have always contended that the average numbers may be lower, but that there is a percentage of poor students who do very well, just as there is a percentage of rich students who do well. I also have contended that the lower-level income are well represented at the most selective schools. In this case, I stand by the facts I posted earlier in thsi thread and in the past on the financial aid Mt Holyoke discussions. </p>

<p>My current post had one objective: to address the repeated attempts to present the non-coed colleges in a better way than they are. Mini's wants us to believe that the level of education is on par with the Harvard's of the world. Mini wants us to believe that the selectivity and standards are equal. I have frequently conceded that the quality of education is obvious ... you only have to listen to the parent's reports. However, the repeated attempts to show the non-coed schools as offering better financial aid are simply bogus. The related discussions about Pell are more of the same. It does not reflect an institutional largesse as much as following a well-established balance of marketing savvy and admission's reality. And finally, when it comes to selectivity and the potential overlapping of the student body, attempting to elevate ANY of the women's school to the level of Harvard is plain ridiculous. A clear indication is that almost NOBODY is willing to "waste" an ED chance despite admit numbers similar to low level state schools. </p>

<p>As I said many times, everyone recognize that the Women's schools are wonderful. Happy parents and happy students write complimentary posts with vengeance. We are happy to read them. But, why NOT stop there instead of scrutinize arcane reports to find more ways to extol the greatness of the non-coed schools and belittle higher ranked schools? </p>

<p>The schools are what they are, not what some people want them to be to complete their agenda.</p>

22

<p>Xiggi, I don't understand your post 21. Why are the Pell Grant discussions bogus?</p>

<p>What percentage of Harvard students receive Pell grants? What is the percentage at Mt. Holyoke?</p>

<p>Are you saying that Harvard is more generous to poor people than schools like Mt. Holyoke because they give more aid to each poor student than Mt. Holyoke does?</p>

23

<p>Dstark, I invite you to look up the discussions about the financial aid at Mt. Holyoke versus Harvard. It is an easy search using Holyoke. The gist of the discussions was that Mt Holyoke was not offering its level of financial aid because of conscience or generosity, but by OBLIGATION. They would rather not discount their tuition by 45%, but they have to. The reasons behind this strategy is well-documented in the studies available on the MHC website. Further, a comparison between the budgets used for financial aid at H and MHC reveals that the financial aid is more generous at Harvard, especially in net costs. The difference between debt at graduation is quite large. Is the practice of saddling the poorest students with proportionally large debts really THAT charitable? You decide!</p>

<p>As far as the Pell grant comparison, the comparative numbers mean very little. Is there really much to learn from the fact that UC Berkeley and UCLA lead the nation in Pell grants? How do we compare the admissions dynamics and parameters at the California state schools with schools such as HYPS? The first group is irrevocably strangled by a series of compromises and has yet to find a reasonable solution to its dilemma of having a student body that reflects the population distribution of the state or maintaining a more competitive level. At it stands today, the system is cynically gamed by many, both in admissions and financial aid. On the other hand, private schools are free to accept and support financially the candidates at their sole discretion. Given their formidable endowments and budgets, they are able to make their choices with little inner pressure. They also happen to be in a group of schools sharing the highest selectivity. </p>

<p>I find it remarkable that the named schools are, in fact, making such efforts to offer opportunities to students with lower financial possibilities and, in some cases, lower academic records. </p>

<p>Please note that I am not an Ivy League cheerleader, nor a frustrated applicant. I did not apply to a single school of the famed sports' league. However, I find that too much criticism is sent their way. They cannot please everyone as the demands are coming from all venues: Asians claim discrimination despite having an acceptance ratio of 3 to 400% above their population, "representatives" of the poor students claim another kind of discrimination, students with matching qualifications decry the random nature of the system, legacies are probably none too happy to see their numbers dwindle, the middle and upper-middle class is upset because of the absence of merit money, and the list goes on. </p>

<p>Again, I am far from considering the Ivy League schools to be perfect, but I find the constant attacks to be as tiresome as the attempts to paint a few wannabe schools as holier than thou.</p>

24

<p>Xiggi, can't Mt. Holyoke fill its class with a wealthier student body if it wants to?</p>

<p>I am not in favor of students graduating with large debts. My problem with schools like Harvard and Princeton is they tout their financial aid packages to poor people, but they don't accept many poor people.</p>

<p>I don't buy the argument that there aren't enough poor people with strong enough academic records to get into the schools.</p>

<p>I also don't buy the argument that you get a better education at an IVY than at a school like MT. Holyoke. I have a friend that went to Mt. Holyoke and transferred to Penn because she felt Mt. Holyoke was too academically rigorous.</p>

<p>My daughter is taking Italian at Michigan and my wife just finished taking Italian at a community college. Same text book. The Michigan course costs $3500 more. </p>

<p>You can get a great education all over the place.</p>

<p>People aren't choosing Harvard over Mt. Holyoke because of academics, but becuase they want to be part of a very exclusive club.</p>

25

<p>"Xiggi, can't Mt. Holyoke fill its class with a wealthier student body if it wants to?"</p>

<p>DS, the answer seems to be NO, but you do not have to take my word for it. Check the reports by the CFO of MHC. She is very upfront about her budgets and the imposed necessities. </p>

<p>I do not disagree with any of your other points. Again, I never said that there are not enough qualified poor students to get into the most selective schools. We have, however, to recognize that a school that accepts students at a single digit rate cannot accept ALL the qualified poor students. While not believing that the TCB data on the correlation of SAT scores/GPA scores and family income has much scientific integrity, it is hard to dismiss entirely. Just as the URM pool of students scoring at the 25% SAT level of HYPS is comparatively smaller, so is the one from the lower socio-economic pool. Again, based on raw numbers and percentage, I believe that our leading schools are doing a remarkable job in reaching for students. </p>

<p>Lastly, allow me to repeat that I also believe that students can get a great education in many, many places. In fact, it is quite silly to devote so much time and energy dissecting the smallest of variances at the schools sharing the so-called pinnacle of higher education. For instance, I find that a possible change from 9% to 15% in Pell grantees at Harvard is not worthy of so much talk. On the other hand, I would find an analysis of the reasons why about 50% of minorities in Texas forego their automatic admission at UT-Austin or Texas A&M more interesting and valuable.</p>

26

<p>Why do you think 50% of minorities forego their automatic admission at UT_austin, or Texas A&M?</p>

<p>If you want to go to a big school, isn't UT one of the best? Isn't Austin a great place to go to school?</p>

27

<p>DS, the list is quite lengthy</p>

<ul>
<li>faulty perceptions</li>
<li>fear of the unknown</li>
<li>fear of academic rigor</li>
<li>family pressure to stay closer to home</li>
<li>family obligations requiring to stay home</li>
<li>inadequate financial aid</li>
<li>lack of understanding of financial aid</li>
<li>fear or being a true minority on campus</li>
</ul>

28

<p>"People aren't choosing Harvard over Mt. Holyoke because of academics, but because they want to be part of a very exclusive club."</p>

<p>Tell me, would that be an assertion limited to Harvard, or would that include all Ivies (or merely, the "top" 3)?</p>

<p>Whether your statement is limited to Harvard or includes other prestigious schools, where would you get information for such a sweeping statement? Have you interviewed exhaustively all applicants to this & other schools? Do you really believe that applicants to Ivies are universally so shallow, superficial, simple-minded & short-sighted? That they have such a narrow range of standards, reasons for those college choices versus those who choose MH, Smith, or the local public U?</p>

<p>I guess it doesn't occur to you that, for example, a girl who's been in an all-female school for many years pre-college might want to meet a guy or 2.</p>

<p>Or perhaps the superior gesture which shows greater virtue would be to decline the Ivy acceptance while also refusing a better aid package than the "less clubby" school.</p>

<p>I'm so glad that the all-knowing Character Police are here to define these important differences.</p>

29

<p>Xiggi,</p>

<p>Understand. </p>

<p>The frustration many of us have with the Ivies is the gap between what they profess to do and what they actually do. The famed legacy bump is a great example. If it is just a gentle thumb on the scale, as some Ivy adcoms have said, it must be one heck of a thumb to lead to the stats that it does.</p>

<p>That said, the ivies are no worse than anyone else. State U? "We have no alcohol problem..." LAC? "We have as many resources as..."</p>

<p>And so forth.</p>

30

<p>Xiggi, in post 27, most of those reasons have nothing to do with the quality of the schools.</p>

31

<p>This is why we need more low-income students at the top schools. Some leaders are just clueless and can use a little more interaction with people from different socio-economic classes.</p>

<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/45361205391129315140;_ylt=Alfz5q0ngbSdSmQUhWpKo.QDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/45361205391129315140;_ylt=Alfz5q0ngbSdSmQUhWpKo.QDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

32

<p>I really haven't studied this topic at all, but my own thoughts are this:</p>

<p>My guess is that many academically qualified lower income students do not even apply to these schools. They may not know what financial aid is available and just hear from "knowledgeable" adults and parents that "oh, those schools are too expensive" and then not look into it any further.
I would LOVE to see statistics on how many lower income students apply in comparison with how many are accepted. And likewise with students from wealthy families.</p>

33

<p>Okay, I'll be the apologists for the Ivies. They are need blind. </p>

<p>That doesn't mean that the Ivies aren't skewed in favor of the top income groups. Why? One reason is sports. Not a lot of poor kids are recruited athletes for the fencing, sailing, polo, water polo, gymnastics, squash, field hockey, and equestrian teams. Even the swimmers, skiers, and ice hockey players tend to be rich kids. Add up all the kids who are recruited to play these sports and you are close to 8% of the class. These kids don't get into the Ivies because their parents can pay the sticker price; they get in because they excel in these sports and are recruited athletes. If poor kids excel in these sports, they have just as good a chance of being admitted. (About 10 years ago, some young Ivy alums started a program called "Street Squash." The purpose was to teach inner city kids in Boston and NYC the rudiments of the sport. The best players got scholarships to attend top boarding schools. Some of the kids excelled and the first wave has hit the Ivies. Believe me, the acceptance rate for these kids--especially URM kids who are dirt poor-- is off the wall high. It's not the ability to pay that's the ticket--it's the ability to play one of the sports which historically has been played mostly by the most affluent. )</p>

<p>The women's colleges don't put as much emphasis on athletic recruiting--even for women--as the Ivies do. Mt. Holyoke's equestrian facilities are well-known, but I don't think it has many recruited athletes. Indeed, as a big fan of the Olympics, I've noted lots of Olympians who attend Ivies. (Ski events always have kids from Dartmouth; women's sailing had kids from Yale; women's ice hockey has been dominated by Brown; Brown also had a woman on the US Olympic equestrian team. ) I've never heard of a single Olympian in the last 3-4 Olympic games who went to MHC or Smith. Not a one. </p>

<p>While some poor kids are extraordinarily good musicians, given the same level of aptitude and work ethic, kids with wealthier parents are more likely to get good instructors, attend good summer programs, and have the money to produce a good CD. Again, these kids get in because their musical ability is validated, not because mom and dad can pay for it. The idea that the student orchestras at MHC or Smith are comparable to those at Harvard or Yale is ludicrous. If you were a female Yo-Yo Ma ( a Harvard grad) I honestly don't think you'd even consider going to MHC or Smith. </p>

<p>While I know that there has been a thread on this site about Intel winners, I've never heard of an Intel winner who went to MHC or Smith. While many choose to go to MIT or CalTech, there are LOTS of Intel winners at HYP. </p>

<p>About 10 years ago, MHC's acceptance rate was well over 50%. As a result, its US News rating plummeted. To boost it, MHC spent a LOT of $ for PR to increase the # of applicants. Part of the PR campaign was to tout how generous MHC was with financial aid. Another part of the strategy was to increase the percentage of internationals, because the SAT scores of internationals weren't included in those used by US News to rank colleges. When that didn't get the boost in ratings MHC wanted, it announced that the SAT was "optional." Ya know..there are many reasons I think it should be, but the real reason MHC made it optional was that doing so increased its US News ranking. </p>

<p>Look, I think MHC is a good college. But lets be real. While the girls I know at MHC and Smith are genuinely nice kids..the majority of them went to those schools because they were the best schools that admitted them. If HYP had admitted them, they would never have gone to Smith or MHC or ..for that matter Bryn Mawr or Barnard. These girls didn't get rejected because their parents were poor. They got rejected because, while they were bright enough to do the work if admitted to HYP, they weren't good enough to play sports at HYP, play in the student orchestra at HYP, act in a major dramatic production at HYP, make the debate or mock trial team at HYP, or end up as an editor of the campus newspaper at HYP.</p>

<p>As mean as I may "sound," while I think that at least the top half of the class at MHC or Smith could make it through an Ivy, I suspect that if the students at MHC or Smith were switched with the female students at HYP, it wouldn't be all that long before someone noticed that something was "wrong."</p>

34

<p>I think the schools misrepresent themselves to inflate their applications, in an effort to drive up their rankings. Why do you think they require a financial profile for ED? It must stick in some people's throats that some wealthy kids are accepted over middle class kids because of the money and not talent.</p>

35

<p>Here's a link to an interesting article about Harvard and the Return of COFHE which also has a link to the COFHE website which is for members only.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001972.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001972.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>For those who don't know what the COFHE schools are, they're as follows:</p>

<p>Amherst
Barnard
Brown
Bryn Mawr
Carleton
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Duke
Georgetown
Harvard
JHU
MIT
Mt. Holyoke
Northwestern
Oberlin
Pomona
Princeton
Rice
Smith
Stanford
Swarthmore
Trinity
U Chicago
U Penn
U Rochester
WUSTL
Wellesley
Wesleyan
Williams
Yale</p>

<p>Surprised to see among the missing (either by choice or omission):</p>

<p>Bowdoin
Cal Tech
Claremont/McKenna (Claremont Schools all represented by Pomona?)
Colgate
Davidson
Emory
Haverford
Holy Cross
Kenyon
Middlebury
Notre Dame
Tufts
Vassar
Washington & Lee</p>

36

<p>collegeparent, I'm not sure I'm convinced. Students going to Harvard have high expectations, much higher than many of the other schools on that list. Clearly the students' rankings are primarily a reflection of their satisfaction RELATIVE to their expectations. We also have the unknown factor of how harsh of graders the students are (& I would think that students from the top schools would be the most critical).</p>

<p>Now I don't have any proof of this, and for all I know Harvard may not be very fun, but I think it's impossible for students to rate their satisfaction values w/ any validity -- at least in the context of other schools.</p>

37

<p>This article had been batted around on these forums over and over again. Hypotheses ranging from greater student openness (less need to prove your school is really great relative to others), higher expectations, greater propensity to critique, or just plain lower quality of student life, are often put forth. Of note, the data is from 2002, and the noted differences are very small, nevertheless, Harvard has since taken a number of initiatives to address these issues. While completely anecdotal of course, I cannot resist reporting that my son is absolutely having the experience of a lifetime already, --he says his biggest problem is trying to balance academics with all the fantastic diversions. Also, prior to coming, he couldn't find one person he knew there who wasn't happy with their overall college experience. ....</p>

<p>Now, lets let this thread go back to its original topic.</p>

38

<p>New book coming out called Aiding Students, Buying Students about the history of financial aid and current uses of financial aid leveraging. Here's an interview with the author: <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/14/wilkinson%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/14/wilkinson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As I've said before, anyone who doesn't believe that financial aid (and merit money at many schools) is leveraged to "buy" the student body a school wants, needs to read the above and then do a google search using the terms "financial aid leveraging" and "enrollment management." You'll be surprised at what turns up, especially if you use then use the same terms at individual college websites. It's very possible to be "need blind" and still leverage financial aid packaging to direct the enrollment a school wants/needs. </p>

<p>This is common practice and anyone who believes otherwise is laboring under a false assumption. While we would all like to believe that colleges and universities - especially the top colleges and universities - are above this sort of thing, the truth is very different once you dig down below the glossy claims of being "need blind." Some of the schools screaming the loudest about the inequity of financial aid are the ones with the dirtiest hands.</p>

39

<p>..for that link. As often as you and Mini patiently explain that the definition of "need-blind" in the adcoms' minds does not jibe with what high school students think it means, STILL parents and kids post asking "which schools are need blind."</p>

<p>No matter how often you point this out, it still needs to be said repeatedly.</p>

40

<p>Nedad, I respecffully disagree with the ''patiently explaining'' on the part of Mini. In my opinion, the repetitive peppering of the same list of unproven and unverifiable facts does not constitute patient explaining but the relentless pursuit of an obviously personal agenda. </p>

<p>As far as schools misrepresenting financial aid, I beg to differ. The fact that families do not make the necessary efforts to read WIDELY available information is a poor excuse. The date is available on the website of most schools. </p>

<p>As I said before, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile the demands of everyone when it comes to availability and net costs of higher education. No matter how much money private schools spend on scholarships and financial aid, some people will be disappointed. As long as so many people will apply to the same few schools, there will be disappointment.</p>