<p>Admitted students with demonstrated need met in full 100%
Percent of class receiving financial aid 35.6%</p>
<p>That's just for admitted students... I believe a lower proportion of the student body will be represented by that. I love how your link just proved you wrong, thanks for making our job easier :-)</p>
<p>time to sniff up a new tree.</p>
<p>first, reread the statement:</p>
<p>"Admitted students with demonstrated need met in full 100%
Percent of class receiving financial aid 35.6%"</p>
<p>where do you see anything that states the percent is for admitted students? admitted students who had their need met? 100%. percent of class (NOT ADMITTED STUDENTS) getting aid? 35.6%. this is pretty much confirmed by the usnews link.</p>
<p>finally, you do realize that students who get money from a school are more likely to go there than not? so if the total percent of admitted students was actually 35.6%, the actual class would most likely be higher - in fact, i'd bet on it.</p>
<br>
[QUOTE=""]
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Athletic Scholarships don't count, they're not need based awards. </p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>you're right, they don't. i still don't know why the college board information doesn't resemble the institution's or usnews information. so in essence colgate is <em>only</em> at 44% of the total study body on aid because they are also funding division i athletics.</p>
<p>i'm full of points, you can't seem to grasp them.</p>
<p>colgate isn't doing anything special in determining need. the profile, just like the rest, is being used along with the fafsa. colgate determined need, met it all, and when it was said and done 35.6% of freshman got aid. not 30% being quoted incorrectly. usnews is also correct in noting that 44% of the entire student body is getting need based aid.</p>
<p>don't get mad because someone disagrees with you or has facts that counter your beliefs. it's called learning.</p>
<p>I'm open to learning, just that i've seen institutions such as colgate and wesleyan differ on what the consider to be people who have need and what the need of those families is.
I have the documents in front of me from my aid awards from both the schools with the same school. I never said you were wrong, I just said that the term demonstrated need is very subjective. You seemed to launch an onslaught to that.
I'm open to learning, just seems that you aren't quite sure what a discussion or learning entails.
My entire 'point' was just the subjectivity of the determinations and calculations since all schools don't use the same algorithms.</p>
<p>[so if the total percent of admitted students was actually 35.6%, the actual class would most likely be higher]]</p>
<p>You really don't belong in college. Your reasoning and comprehension is atrocious.
The 35% figure is for <em>enrolled</em> students, That's what the word "enrollment" means. :)</p>
<p>Full-time freshman enrollment: 729
Number who applied for need-based aid: 272
Number who were judged to have need: 219
Number who were offered aid: 219
Number who had full need met: 219</p>
<p>I'm just confused at how these numbers come about. The link you just put in here RLT, it states that the average indebtness is around 14 thousand. Is that because the parents paid a student's way through college?</p>
<p>Is that because the parents paid a student's way through college?]]]</p>
<p>Some of it is that. The figure doesn't count grants, outside scholarships </p>
<p>Also, two colleges may offer two identical aid packages. Whereas one will be 70% loans 30% grants, the other may be 50 % loans the remainder grants. Although the total received is equal, the amount owed at graduation is 20% higher if you were to attend the less generous college. What a student really needs to pay attention to is how much of the aid is made up of loans. But you know that. :)</p>
<p>So for total amount owed, are they just counting loans that need to be paid back? As the other amounts were supposedly payable right there by the family (or were borrowed by outside sources and not counted).</p>
<p>Truth, where did you get the idea that Colgate admit rate was increasing because of accepting a higher number of minorities? According to this article that was posted on the Williams thread, it appears, if anything, the exact opposite is the case. While this isn't all minorities, in the case of black candidates, Colgate's acceptance rate @ 28% is right about where their overall acceptance rate is; however, in the case of Williams & Middlebury, the acceptance rates for black candidates were 50% and 71%, respectively (significantly above their overall acceptance rates - both of which dropped further this past year in spite of the results of this article). So, while I would potentially agree with this argument for Williams & Middlebury (although both of their admit rates actually declined), for Colgate this seems conclusively not the reason for the higher acceptance rate.</p>
<p>i don't think it's conclusive at all. three issues at play here:</p>
<p>first, there are more minorities than just blacks to consider. find a place with those stats (i don't think one exists) for a better understanding.</p>
<p>second, colgate's overall historical acceptance rate must be taken into consideration as well. the past 10 years have seen colgate's acceptance rate drop significantly. if there were a way to compare the two, we'd be in business as i think you'd see the ratio increasing over time.</p>
<p>third, size is an issue and colgate is a victim of its size. colgate is attracting more applicants than middlebury or williams - about 2,500 more the past two years. in sheer numbers, we're second in applicants only to wesleyan who is historical known for its diversity. if we had lower application numbers we'd most likely still accept the same number of blacks therefore increasing the percentage.</p>
<p>i do think that comparing the black acceptance rate to the overall acceptance rate is skewed imo. you'd have to historically compare it to whites alone since the total acceptance rate includes all groups, and i think you'd have to compare aid and non-aid separately. if you could do that, i believe you'd see an increase in the acceptance rate for minorities.</p>
<p>First of all, since Colgate is 76% white it's not that much different using the all white admit rate compared to the overall admit rate. Secondly, the decline in acceptance rate of blacks (one of the largest groups of minorities) to Colgate has mirrored the drop of the overall acceptance rate, but has been even more pronounced over, at least, the last five years (45% for blacks vs 43% overall in 1999, 30% for blacks vs 31% overall in 2003 & 28% for blacks vs 33% for whites in 2004). I do see that Colgate gets many more black applicants than do Williams or Middlebury, so can afford to reject more, but that's apparently not your argument. I don't see how you you can say Colgate is accepting more minorities and that is the reason its test scores fell and admit rate rose. What do your consider minorities? I would be curious to see what other evidence you have. </p>
<p>Also, I don't follow your size argument. Wouldn't Colgate's larger size make it easier to have increases in minority admit rate not affect the overall admit rate, not harder? Also, I'm not sure if you meant overall applicants or minority applicants, but Colgate has had more total applicants than Wesleyan for the last two years, and your comment that if Colgate had "lower application numbers we'd most likely still accept the same number of blacks therefore increasing the percentage" doesn't matter because they don't have lower application numbers, so I don't understand what the point of that statement is in light of the reported figures.</p>
<p>Fact of the matter is that the student body at wesleyan is much more open to diversity and thought than those at colgate. When i was visiting colgate i was appaled by the seeming self segregating races at the school. I didn't see much, if any, interracial interraction and that bothered me. The white students seemed to stay together and there was an occaision asian in the mix, and all the black students tended to stick together.
There didn't seem to be any of this at wesleyan, i saw kids of all races talking, hanging out, dancing and drinking together, and even talking philosophy together. It just felt awesome being a part of something like this.
This might be due to the fact that as a whole, colgate seems to have a more conservative appeal to it whereas that of wesleyan is more liberal and open. It just felt like Wesleyan was a more open place.
That entire colgate smile tradition is complete crap too, i tried it when I was there, and I was met with awkward looks and scowls and looks of uncaring apathetic students.
It was just awkward. The tour guide seemed not to care, and the other students on the tour had an almost holier than thou vibe and barely talked to each other.
While there's a chance that I might be at colgate next year, I hope that if i do go, then my visit was not in any way an accurate representation of the colgate student body.
It was a depressing day...</p>
<p>I remember not liking my Senior spring of hs visit nearly as much as being there in the Fall. The 'hello' tradition definitely was a reality when I was there, although I don't recall knowing about it or trying to employ it as a visiting prospective.</p>
<p>I read about it after I got back. I just randomly go around talking to people wherever I am, and I thought the student body would be more responsive. I tried the same thing at wes and I ended up talking to a buncha people there.
Oh well :-)</p>
<p>Of course, it is possible that your own preference for Wes was showing in ways you did not realize while at Colgate, or that you were more outgoing at Wes....or maybe you are just better suited for and a better fit at Wes.</p>
<p>My D had been set on Wes for a long time but after her visit was surprised by her feeling that many of the kids at Wes were going too far out of their way to show their "individuality" and quirkiness: wearing it on their sleeves as it were.</p>
<p>As someone here else (incorrectly) said, "chacon a sont gout" or "de gustibus non disputandem est"</p>