<p>lovecolumbia -- if you need financial aid, apply for it. It won't make that much of a difference. Your SAT scores are more important.</p>
<p>Most of the so called "need blind" schools can afford to make that claim because they are so selective, and rely heavily on SAT scores and also looking at the quality of the students academics. SAT's correlate to income -- the higher the SAT, the less likely it is that the student comes from a financially needy family. Private schools and schools in wealthy districts offer more APs and more advanced courses - so the quality of academics also is income-sensitive.</p>
<p>So bottom line, the schools ARE lying when they claim to be "need-blind" on an overall, statistical basis ... but they probably won't consider financial need in terms of making decisions in individual cases. That is, no ad com is going to ever say, "lovecolumbia needs financial aid, so lets reject him (her?) and pick studentx instead".</p>
<p>As already noted, requiring financial aid covers a lot of ground, from family incomes approaching $0k all the way up to $150k. You can't calculate the odds for each group because you don't know the number of candidates in each group (this is wholly independent of the stats question that Calmom raises so well), but you can calculate the percentage of attendees in each group.</p>
<p>It would not surprise me to find out that the odds at a place like Columbia or Swarthmore, etc. fall out pretty closely to the attendees' stats: i.e. 50% of "no need" candidates get in; 35% of those with family incomes of $100-$150k; 5% of those with family incomes of $40k-$100k; and 10% of those with family incomes below $40k. But no school will release such data, and it is also true that the number of applicants within each income class is heavily affected by where a school chooses to recruit. Within the need categories (below $150k), chances of admission are likely to be affected to a greater extent by need for athletes (or tuba players), URM status, or other characteristics that help the institution meet its particular needs.</p>
<p>I think need "blind" borders on a lie in the region of a deception, but I don't think that should stop you from applying. If you don't apply, I am pretty sure you won't get in. </p>
<p>If a school wanted to be need blind they could avoid all reference to financial aid until after the acceptance. The financial aid form could be held from them electronically on line until an acceptance letter went out. By the time the recipient recieves their letter the financial aid package could be available on line. At the end of the application process the statistics could be easily revealed regarding who was and wasn't accepted.</p>
<p>Consider the ED process....why don't they ask you for your financial information until after you are accepted...you have already agreed to take what they give you.</p>
<p>The above hypothetical statistic:
"50% with family incomes above $150k
35% with family incomes from $100k - $150k.
5% with family incomes from $40k - $100k.
10% with family incomes below $40k."
Why does the 40-100 represent the lowest acceptance rate could these be the families with low EFCs and no or low pell grants.</p>
<p>Pell Grants are so small as to hardly impact. But, the $40k-$100k income level represents the broad swath of the middle class. It might be useful to accept some kids from this class because they are athletes, or desirable URMs, etc., but what possible institutional need (for a "prestige" school) could be served by accepting large numbers from this economic class? On the contrary, (if Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class holds), greater prestige accrues to the institution to the degree that they REJECT middle class students. It increases the schools' panache, and reinforces the middle class' sense of unworthiness as proven by their inability to get in.</p>
<p>But to be fair, the stats. you quoted from me are a relatively accurate portrayal of the entering class, based on real, though extrapolated, data; whether applicant acceptance rates break down that way is more a matter of less-informed speculation.</p>
<p>I believe it is true-my S applied and was accepted ED to Columbia last year (Class of 2009), and he checked "yes" to applying for fin aid, plus submitted the required Need-based app for fin aid, which showed our low income/zero assets/high need. He got in and was given a very decent fin ain package from Columbia. Best of luck to you!</p>
<p>lovecolumbia,
on CC, there are plenty of examples of middle-class kids (and parents with kids) in the same boat as you are. And last year, they probably did better than the 5% you are staring at. Remember, you have current information on all of this, and desire, and enthusiasm. As others have already said, apply to less competitive schools as well - but don't give up on a long shot just because it is a long shot.</p>
<p>In the world of admissions and financial aid there is no such thing as one size fits all. Everyone's situation is different and you will be no exception. Don't let the discussions discourage you from applying to Columbia as we are only discussing this topic so that you and others can have food for thought and make the most informed decision. possible. No matter how much you love a school remember the admissions process is a caricious and arbitrary one. It always helps to have a plan B. All you can do is toss you hat into the race and see how it all plays out.</p>
<p>i hate to discuss this but my situation is more of a one-shot deal, going to college will be me enjoying a free world and society, i come from a place where women already have roles set for them and their lives are usually pre-destined, my parents are very progressive but we still have to go back. i really want my college experience to be an important and life-changing experience. i do have safety schools in mind and cc has made me learn so much, i am so happy i found cc, its like i have an edge :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
A few years ago, the Daily Princetonian had a series of articles about the decline in jewish students at Princeton. The reason appeared to be a decision on the part of Fred Hargadon, admissions dean, to de-emphasize recruiting from more urban schools, focusing instead on more traditional surburban and southern schools.
[/quote]
Why did he do this? I can see going for southern schools, if they wanted better regional distribution. But is the implication that de-emphasizing urban schools was aimed at reducing Jewish representation at Princeton, specifically from New York City academic magnet schools?</p>
<p>lovecolumbia -- I agree with everybody that you shouldn't worry about this aspect and should apply to the school you love. However, have you talked with your parents about the reality of what they can contribute financially should you get in ED but get a smaller than expected aid package from Columbia? Students whose financial need is the deciding factor in choosing a college usually are better off applying to multiple schools RD so that they can compare aid packages and, perhaps, even bargain with the schools. </p>
<p>ED is one way in which Columbia and other colleges play around with this issue of need blind admissions. It's self-selecting -- the neediest students usually don't want to lock themselves in to the aid package in the ED round and wait to apply RD. Therefore, by taking a large percentage of the class ED, colleges like Columbia assure that they have a large percentage who will not need significant aid. They can then be need blind in the RD round without going over their financial aid budget.</p>
<p>Mini-- shame on you for posting bogus speculation posing as facts.</p>
<p>To the OP-- none of us have any idea of your chances of getting in. If you are first generation college or are from an under-represented minority group, then other things being equal, your chances of admission go up. If you've got a highly desireable skill or talent which is in short supply, then ditto. If you go to an inner city high school which usually doesn't send kids to four year schools, let alone to Columbia, and you've got a solid academic record, then your chances go up.</p>
<p>It is absolutely bogus to claim that kids from families with income in the 150K range have a 50% chance of admission to top schools. Every year we read on the kids board that kids from Great Neck and Winnetka and Wellesley and Menlo Park high schools are anquished over the fact that 20 kids from their school have applied to some uber-admissions school but only one or two are likely to get in. Your average kid from a wealthy town like that with a top public high school and a $150K income doesn't have a rats %^&* of getting in to a top school unless they're a legacy, have cured cancer, and/or played at Carnegie Hall. These are the kids that us old and gray parents keep telling to love thy safety, to take a hard look at Earlham and Rhodes and Grinnell and other places slightly off the beaten track, since lightening will strike the Horace Greely parking lot before 50% of their kids get into their reach schools.</p>
<p>"SAT's correlate to income -- the higher the SAT, the less likely it is that the student comes from a financially needy family. Private schools and schools in wealthy districts offer more APs and more advanced courses - so the quality of academics also is income-sensitive."</p>
<p>The above statement makes me uncomfortable - it sounds as though you are stating that only wealthy families produce smart children. I have to strenuously disagree. We are not a wealthy family and do not live in a wealthy school district. My D is attending a highly selective university and had a high SAT score. There were even several students accepted from her school and they are attending MIT. The perception that only money can buy intelligence is distorted. </p>
<p>Lovescolumbia:
I have real experience with the need blind schools and can tell you that my D was accepted to 6 of them and received packages in excess of $30.000 per year , all need based. They met our EFC in every case. Don't hesitate to apply - I don't hink you will be disappointed.</p>
<p>"Mini-- shame on you for posting bogus speculation posing as facts."</p>
<p>As I wrote (I know you can read well), the breakdown of the student body is based on facts (those provided courtesy of Harvard and Williams) -- half the student body comes from the top 5% of the population economically speaking at Swarthmore, a bit more at Williams (at Columbia, it is 51%) - but the breakdown of the applicant's chances can't be determined from available information. The only available information we have in that regard are the school's admitted preferences for legacies, developmental admits, URMs, athletic tips and tags, and, in a few cases such as Amherst and Williams, their contracts with Questbridge for low-income students. Now mind you, these percentages for attending students only hold true for about three dozen schools, give or take. (We also have some data for admissions from top private school feeders, but not enough to generalize.)</p>
<p>I am delighted to note that my d. broke through the odds at the range of 5% of attending students, and received aid packages in excess of $30k/yr. That's why you have to apply! But do you really believe that, all other things being equal, there being TEN TIMES as many top 5%ers as there are middle income students attending (at Williams and Yale, closer to 12x), the odds are even close to being equal?</p>
<p>The question you raise, though, is an interesting one - it would be fascinating to know if the odds (which we already don't know) change between top 5%ers and top 2%ers.</p>
<p>Note that the references do NOT say the change in recruiting was done to reduce the number of Jewish students. I think they were accidental casualties.</p>
Have you considered applying to women's colleges like Smith or Wellesley? Those schools provide a quality of education on a par with the Ivies, but are easier to get into (smaller applicant pools); some offer merit aid and are may give more generous aid packages; and most educators agree that a woman's college provides more of a sense of empowerment with the education, simply because all student leadership roles in such an environment are occupied by women. So if your goal is to experience women's freedom as much as possible while you are educated in the US, and to return to your home country with as much a sense of personal empowerment as possible.... you should definitely consider those possibilities.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Conversely, wealthy students may be held to a higher standard when evaluating test scores, grades, and EC opportunities.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I think Hernandez states that you should check off the "applying for finaid" box even if you don't think you'll qualify for this reason. So can "no need" actually work against you?</p>