<p>lkf725 has good company. We also didn't fully understand this process and I'm sure many others didn't either. I could have written his/her last several posts myself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
effort should be rewarded in some way.
[/quote]
sometimes you don't know what you don't know.</p>
<p>That's okay, sjmom. I'm probably just a little sensitive because I failed to know things that would have helped my son. Actually, I did read alot of books pertaining mostly to application, essays, visits, what it takes, etc, as well as using the USNWR magazine and the Princeton Review website. I attended the one FA meeting offered by our high school, which mostly involved telling us how to complete the FAFSA. In retrospect, we more than covered the "can I get in" question, but I don't believe that we had a solid plan to get the best FA possible. </p>
<p>As it pertains to the original topic, I don't think that the relevant financial aid/enrollment management information is readily available and I think that many families don't have all of the facts. Maybe that's because schools don't want us to have it?</p>
<p>PS - Thanks andi, that makes me feel a little better! :)</p>
<p>Not only is the real info difficult to ferret out, but it seems to take one session of watching your oldest and friends go through it to actually "get it." I did awesomely for D2 and am sure D3 will also benefit from my great store of knowledge :D mainly attained on CC & the old PR. D1 suffered through the learning curve. It takes a long time to find, learn and understand what we see here in the "great admissions massacre of (name of highly selective school)" and realise how that applies to our wonderful children. Just think how much time some of us spend here!! For me, at least, it was hard to make it real until I saw it happen to real students.</p>
<p>A prime example, many people can read what they believe to be a "great" letter or rec, whilst those who have been around can read between the lines or read what is not stated, it sounds very nice, but is missing pizzazz, many are unaware of the potential for pizzazz!</p>
<p>We made many visits to schools with D1 and they are both realistic, "we turn down 1600s" and simultaneously encouraging. As has been so well stated, while not actually random, the "art" of admissions is not black and white and simply takes experience.</p>
<p>Great point on the FA, lfk. My oldest had a lousy list of apps, waay too many reaches and two matches. One match, I learned on this board in May, is known for changing grants to loans in year three, with 2 more behind #1 I could not risk that, so we had one admissions/FA safety, which is the school we made her add to the list and that is where she is. HS GC did nothing to discuss affordability, options, differences between various private schools, merit aid at "tier II," etc. With D2 we had packages ranging from small to pretty decent to amazing, depending on the school, with 4 being what I considered affordable! That was the real key to having real choices come May....if you're not paying full fare or an obvious 100$ full ride aid....an nobody tells you how it all works, unless you come to CC or Carolyn's site!</p>
<p>lkf -- what can be more difficult than putting our kids up for others to evaluate as worthy or not? It strikes at the most basic emotions any parent feels. The process is so difficult -- finding the money is tough and it can be so frustrating to realize that our kids are not going to get what they deserve after all the work they put in, due to financial limitations. The question raised at the beginning of this thread had to do with the idea that "need-blind admissions" is a myth. I find this to be disappointing, but not too surprising. Given what a labyrinthine process this is, it's amazing it ever works out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
real info difficult to ferret out
[/quote]
exactly. I read the basic college admissions books and went to our public hs college guidance nights and "thought" I understood. After all I've learned here on CC from Carolyn, interesteddad, jonri, mini and many others I look back and feel like I did when I found out there was no tooth fairy. Disappointed and dumb.</p>
<p>So far I have resisted joining in the discussion at it seems to be lively enough without me, but I guess I'll join in the frey.</p>
<p>I can speak to MIT as it is my current experiene (and a bit about less selective colleges if that would help).</p>
<p>Need-blind means what you think it means. At MIT, we are need-blind for admissions. The end. We do not share data about your income with Admissions and they don't want it.</p>
<p>As to whether the Ivys or WCs have better income quintile representation, I will leave that up to them (and COFHE) to ferret out. Our issue isn't that the students from the lowest quintiles aren't chosing to attend if accepted. Our issue is that many of them aren't applying. The data shows that many students in the lowest quintile just don't have the academic preparation for the rigors of the academic pursuit at selective schools. What we all need to do (and many of us are) is focus on the pipeline. How do we make sure that every student in early and secondary education has access to the same resources to make sure that everyone has an equal chance to build the core competencies needed to pursue higher education.</p>
<p>At MIT, we are very proud of our representation in the lower income quintiles. While we do not approach parity (defined as 20% of the student body in each income quintile), we do reach far more than many of our peers. Our figures will be released soon in our annual report to our president (our year ending 06/04 report is here - <a href="http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres04/15.09.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres04/15.09.pdf</a> but it doesn't have this data). Once the current report is public, I will post the link and the information here.</p>
<p>In short, need-blind is not dead. We practice it daily here at MIT.</p>
<p>As a matter of record, I have also worked at several other colleges and never did I see financial aid status, income or assets make their way into the admission decision. What is much more likely (at least at the less selective college level) is using Admissions information to inform the amount of need-based aid awarded (worse packages for worse applicants). This is most definitively NOT the practice at full-need institutions, like MIT.</p>
<p>For admissions purposes, wouldn't the socio-economic background provide evidence about how well the student has made use of available resources?</p>
<p>Barkowitz, I found your post to be rather disengenous, given the fact that even you admit that the low-income students don't have the resources to get the preparation needed for admission to MIT. You set the bar to admission extraordinarily high, then proclaim you are "need-blind"?</p>
<p>It sounds great to make admission easier for students from the lower socio-economic groups. In practice that could lower the academic standards of the school and make it less attractive to highly qualified students. Just as bad, what happens to the poorly prepared student who has little or no chance of success? Perhaps they would have been better with successes at a college that was a better match.</p>
<p>"Barkowitz, I found your post to be rather disengenous, given the fact that even you admit that the low-income students don't have the resources to get the preparation needed for admission to MIT. You set the bar to admission extraordinarily high, then proclaim you are "need-blind"?"</p>
<p>Calmom, I do not see how the statement, "The data shows that many students in the lowest quintile just don't have the academic preparation for the rigors of the academic pursuit at selective schools." is in contradiction to MIT's admission procedures. </p>
<p>MIT is indeed setting the bar very high. As you may remember, we have had long threads about the number of AP and another about summer camps which discussed these "new" de facto standards at elite schools. MIT can do little except selecting the best candidates from the pool, after controlling a number of factors such as socio-economic and race differences. It is, however, not MIT's role to eradicate the imperfections and glaring differences in our K-12, and end up with a perfect distribution among the various income levels.</p>
<p>I'm still confused. If a school is truly "need blind" then how can a school "control for socio-economic differences." Isn't that ultimately a contradiction in terms? We're "need blind" but we control for economic differences.</p>
<p>Calmom,</p>
<p>I think Barkowitz is saying that they are need-blind . . . but often those from the lower end of the socio-economic scale do not apply and those that do are not as well qualified. If they accept these students then they are no longer need blind because they are giving a tip purely for socio-economic reasons. (Basicaly I repeating what Caroyn said)</p>
<p>As Xiggi said, we can not expect MIT so solve the issues within the K-12 world here in the US. However, if a well qualified student does present themselves from that socio-economic class then they would accept them based upon the merits . . . I think.</p>
<p>calmom, remember that MIT sets the bar very high even for the children of CEOs attending tony private schools & getting every test prep course under the sun. Their bar is HIGH. Most ultra-advantaged kids can't make it. </p>
<p>The only solution to get better lowest-quintile representation would be to have a "pre-MIT" program where under-qualified but high-aptitude poor kids could get the skills they need to be ready for MIT.</p>
<p>carolyn, the admission officer knows the difference between neighborhoods, schools, they know where your mom & dad went to college (or didn't.) They read the teacher & GC recs. They see who works every day after school at the family biz and who goes trekking in the Andes.</p>
<p>They can make a decent guess as to socio-economic disadvantages without knowing the extent of financial need.</p>
<p>I'm saying that "need-blind" is a myth because the only private colleges that are "need-blind" are those with admission criteria set so selectively as to effectively exclude the vast majority of needy families. It is the difference between de facto and de jure discrimination -- they call themselves "need-blind" but they are extremely aware of the impact that their admission criteria has on the actual student demographics. </p>
<p>Does anyone know of a single college that claims to be "need blind" and has also gone to a test-optional admissions policy? All you have to do is look on a chart correlating SAT to income levels, and then look at MIT's average test scores for admitted students, and you will see exactly how "need-blind" they are.</p>
<p>How about Bowdoin?</p>
<p>I think posters should lay off MIT. It is far more meritocratic than some of its erstwhile peers, if one considers the ivies in that camp. Consider, for instance, that MIT does not need to fill rosters of Div 1 athletic teams. That alone makes a huge difference.</p>
<p>It is also fair to say that there are a handful of schools in the country that are well enough endowed that they can, truly, be need blind. But not many. Consider, for instance, that Brown, as recently as 2000, was NOT need blind. See this link:</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT can do little except selecting the best candidates from the pool, after controlling a number of factors such as socio-economic and race differences. It is, however, not MIT's role to eradicate the imperfections and glaring differences in our K-12, and end up with a perfect distribution among the various income levels.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, MIT can't eradicate those imperfections and differences, but I'm impressed with what MIT does institutionally to make a big difference:</p>
<p>(A) open courseware---free access to MIT on-line course materials, so that any student with access to the Internet at a public library or school can be inspired and learn at a level far beyond what may be available to them in their local schools</p>
<p>(B) Saturday schools taught by MIT students for students in area K-12 schools, including SAT prep courses for low-income students, but also a wide variety of enrichment classes, at very low cost. (I believe MIT students can get paid via work-study funds for teaching these classes in some cases.)</p>
<p>(C) the summer MITES program for high school students on the MIT campus, formerly just for minority students, but I believe now open to disadvantaged high school students of all races, which provides math & science courses to beef up and supplement what they may have available in their local schools</p>
<p>So, MIT does far more than just bemoan the fact that few low-income students are prepared for the rigors of an MIT education. They seem to me to be an inspiring model of proactive action.</p>
<p>Via their open-courseware, they are literally GIVING away the nuts and bolts of an MIT education for any interested student who is motivated enough to work hard and try to puzzle through what is there. And they are giving it away in a fashion that motivated high school students can pursue at their own pace, in their own time.</p>
<p>Moreover, MIT students seem exceptionally generous and willing to help others learn from what I've seen on these discussion boards and elsewhere. I've heard of MIT students responding helpfully to questions posed by curious students in a variety of fora (e.g., on places like livejournal groups.)</p>
<p>Helping others learn seems to be a huge part of the MIT ethos. So is giving stuff away free (like the whole open-source software movement.)</p>
<p>good points wisteria. Also the MIT admissions officers are very forthcoming & present on CC, to a degree I have not seem from the officers at other elite schools.</p>
<p>My D's high school had one GC who used to work in admissions at some well-known NE schools, one was an LAC which would be quite recognisable. He told me (and it makes sense) that admissions may be need blind, but FA is aware of admissions "wants." The old, A-B-C piles (designated by the adcoms) with A's package being more grants than loans and C's package being more loans than grants.</p>
<p>Obviously that does not happen at all schools, but at an LAC with limited endowment funds, they would put more $ toward the kids admissions wanted more. Our package there was fair, though I don't know if we were an A, B, or C :)</p>