<p>Thank you, again, romani. You are so sensible. We sent quite detailed financial documents well above and beyond FAFSA to our need blind/full need schools before admissions decisions. Even the publics do the verification process on the front end.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Logistically, it could be a lot less work if they do not have to look over all the applicants financial information. For a school that accepts a lot less than half of the applicants, they will have a lot less than half the paperwork to go through. I am not accusing the school of anything here but they can do this on a rolling basis as many of them give out acceptance in drips and drab. As you know, when you send in some of these financial info, mine was like almost half a size of a small novel. The amount of paper waste must be incredible.</p>
<p>*<em>Again, a true NEED BLIND (not FULL NEED) school would ask for FA info AFTER they have given you their admissions decision. *</em></p>
<p>It’s not quite as cut-and-dried as that. Just because financial info is sent to a school, doesn’t mean the admissions office views it before making admissions decisions. And if the awarding of merit-based and academic scholarships is entirely under the control of the admissions office, they may do that without looking at a student’s need info, too. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the financial aid office is, yes, evaluating many many students for financial need, some of whom will not wind up being accepted. If we waited until the admissions folks made their decisions, and then only evaluated the students they wanted to accept, there’s no possible way we’d have enough time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not as sensible as one may presume, saint. That sounds like a great solution: need blind schools can look at applications during a period of time as they come in without having to look over financial info as well so that 1. they can make a quicker admissions decision and 2. it ensures they are following their need blind philosophy. But no, they don’t do this and for their own good reasons. They want to see everyone’s info all at once so that they can make the best possible decision for the school first, and the student second. However, I will consent that a school has to have some degree of self obligation so it doesn’t “go out of business”, so-to-speak. IMO, sensible people try to find pragmatic solutions to existing possible problems instead of defending them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean they viewed it, but it leaves that situation in ambiguity now doesn’t it? It’s all about incentive. I do agree, however, that merit aid would be awarded based on non comparison of need because it is harder to cover something like that up and easier for more people to compare with each other and find out if something is amiss as those are based on certain known measurable data - unlike the uniquness of everyone’s financial situations where need comes into play. Besides, the school knows that it can always use that merit award to close the need gap.</p>
<p>romain, sure, UVA.</p>
<p>VADAD1, I find it pretty interesting that you would dredge up an over 3 year old thread and seem to make it your mission to call out the financial aid practices of 2 of the schools that happened to have waitlisted your daughter,Smith and UVa. To use your own phrase, “How convenient.”</p>
<p>Sevmom, I specifically said in this thread that I have no problem with Smith. I didn’t want to name the other school either, but I seemed to be challenged on the fact that I presented.</p>
<p>Yes, I realize that, VADAD1,but I believe you have implied elsewhere that the need for financial aid played a role in the bad luck your daughter has had in admissions. I apologize if I have misinterpreted what you have said. The great majority of kids in the US have to consider finances in making choices of where to apply and then ultimately attend. Good luck with sorting out potential options for your daughter.</p>
<p>“I believe 80% (or more) of the schools that say they are need-blind are not being truthful.”</p>
<p>Is this based on something objective, or is it a feeling?</p>
<p>need blind is completely different from meeting full need. it’s perfectly possible to be need blind than not meet the full need, which is the case at most large state publics, to my understanding. yes, schools can ask for your financial aid information only after the decisions have already been made, but what does that accomplish? whether or not you’re applying for aid is clearly marked on the common app. you’re supplying your zip code and employment situation to admission officers who know the local areas they cover very well. all it does is to delay giving out students their FA offers on time so that they can make their decisions by may 1st.</p>
<p>First of all, most schools are need blind in admissions. They make no pretense or effort in meeting your need and just give you information on federal programs for loans (PLUS, for example) and some sites like Fastweb to look for outside scholarships after they dole out what they have for you.</p>
<p>Mini and I have had a long going banter about whether a number of selective schools that claim they are need blind and meet 100% of need, truly are. He says they are not. I say they are. Where I can see where they can be defined as non need blind is the way that they read applications so that those who are not well to do are intrinsically disadvantaged. But I do believe that a school that says it is need blind does not separate out the applicants by need and make the decisions based on who is in the NEED stack and who is not. </p>
<p>Things like the quality and difficulty of high school curriculum smack those who are in schools that don’t offer top level difficulty course right in the face. If a kid is not in the very top few, maybe even top 1 or 2 people, not percent, that kid is not likely to get into an HPY school, for instance, whereas I see kids who are in the top 10%, which can be a sizeable number of bodies, get accepted at those schools where the kids are pre selected. It makes sense if you think about it. In a school where all of the kids are pre selected to be top students, to eliminate too many of them on class rank makes no sense. The top half might be able to make one of the top kids at a school not so rigorous. So it does mean that a kid going to a school that is not considered one with nearly all top candidates is going to have little leeway for slippage of gpa. </p>
<p>Also, though all of these school are quick to insist that they do not penalize a student who is taking the most difficult curriculum offered, they do not add that such kids who do not also seek other situations putting them neck to neck with kids in more difficulty school are at a disadvantage. If your kid goes to such a school, it truly behooves him to go to a summer program that has top high school student, from top school attending so that a college can see how “that horse runs” in an elite pack. </p>
<p>These selective schools tend to use a grading system for each applicant that includes categories of Sat scores (which have an “A”, “B”, etc range so that a 2400 may not be differentiated from a 2310, for example—they both get the “A” and that is it), grades, difficulty of curriculum (which often includes efforts made for outside challenging academic endeavors such as taking a college (not community college course) or tough summer program that grades), grades and class rank (often adjusted for the type of school), ecs (the ones that benefit that college once the student is there counts the most), Recs and essays. Those kids who go to “feeder type” school for selective colleges have teachers/counselors who know exactly what to write and more importantly, not to write in a rec. A school with just a handful of kids applying to selective schools may not and be writing from outdated, cliched templates. At best a kid with get a “B” from such tired old recs. And some schools starte essay writing clinics in junior year and by the time college apps are due they have a portfolio of essays, corrected, discussed and polished by adults who know what doesn’t work and may have been in selective college admissions themselves. It doesn’t hurt that counselors at schools that send a lot of kids to selective school often personally know the admissions directors and have had them at the high school for information sessions and talks, and may be on first name terms with them, and have off clock talks. Heck, at one of my kids schools, one of the admissions directors at a top 25 school once worked there and was great friends with a lot of the teachers and staff. He’d give talks to the parents every few years and taken to lunch. So do you really think it is coincidental that the high school does well in gaining admissions with that particular highly selective university? </p>
<p>So all of these things make a grade for a very smart kid at a mediocre school whose family is not so well to do and savvy in the elite school game, not as high as a kid, maybe not as smart, with lower SAT scores and grades, going to a top level school where all of the adults know what it takes. That both kids have the same financial need does not mean that one is not going to be at an advantage of the other, but usually the one with the advantage also does not have as much need if any. There is a direct link statistically between educational accomplishment and economic position that is pretty much a constant. </p>
<p>So do I believe that a school that says it is need blind in admissions, truly is? Yes, I do, in that they do not have the two stacks–Need and No Need, but I don’t believe for a moment that they will take into consideration some things that are inherent in an applicant coming from a less well heeled, less college admissions informed environment.</p>
<p>Vonlost, I am glad you asked that question. The answer is both.</p>
<p>First let me clarify my position. I should not have said 80% of schools that are “need blind”. I should have said 80% of schools that are “need blind / meet full need”.</p>
<p>I’ll just make the most obvious point first, and I’m shocked more people do not realize this - Any admissions policy that places legacy status among its most important admissions factors is inherenty contradictory to the concept of “need blind”.</p>
<p>At most schools, the continutation of legacy preference is a financial decision. Some schools are not remotely shy about acknowledging that fact. </p>
<p>If students are having the scales tipped in their favor because thier parents are big donors, there are three truths associated with that.</p>
<ol>
<li>The school believes that admitting those students will bring more money into the University.</li>
<li>Students whose parents are big donors are extremely unlikely to have financial need.</li>
<li>Invariably, the admission of these students will push out qualified students who qualify for financial need.</li>
</ol>
<p>So…that’s the easiest and most obvious point to make.</p>
<p>Though I agree with what you are saying VADad, most schools do not have that many big donors and/or legacies with kids being accepted to be that big of a problem. Though legacy kids may get bumped up in the admissions processes , I’ve yet to see a school that is glutted with legacies. Most colleges do keep a sharp eye on that category. URMS, recruited athletes, development, legacies, celebrity, and other tagged categories can have a big impact on the smaller schools that can’t take that many kids and if the school is a very popular one, it can effect the number of seats available. A school like Williams trying to field full teams of all of those NCAA sports, albeit being D-3, and trying to keep alums happy, wanting some celebrity shine, needing those development dollars and trying not to be vanilla, is going to be seriously more selective than it should be for the true scholar without any hooks. For larger school, though it does affect the numbers, the first wave of the most desired applicant is not going to be affected. </p>
<p>My alma mater does give legacy preference. It says so directly. However, I know many, many legacies whose kids were accepted to like schools were not accepted at the alma mater. Basically, the legacies might get a point or two added to the decision matrix totals, but it isn’t going to make the deal otherwise. Development is a whole other issue that is not discussed, but I can tell you that certain NY tycoons’ kids who were strong candidates for elite schools were not accepted when given their academic stats, it would have been no surprise if they were accepted. It wasn’t enough to get them into the schools, though the schools do give legacy preference and the legacy pool does have slightly lower stats than the average school stats. In some schools like H and Y, the legacy pool has had higher stats than whole school averages, and though the pool is sizable and significant, IMO, it is going to take a lot more than legacy to get your kid in those schools.</p>
<p>Everything you point out is true…I was stating my opinion that there is a fundamentally contradictory nature in admission policies that place legacy status among their most important factors and claim to be need blind.</p>
<p>Your point about very small schools having most of thier spots taken by factors other than acadmic is also an excellent point.</p>
<p>I would not say “most” of the spots, but I would say a “significant number” and it would affect admissions of those who are pretty much purely academic in their profiles. The most selective and desirable schools do practice this “diverse, balanced” community practice, and kids tend to want to go to schools that do this as well, so the practice does increase the selectivity of the schools. Can’t blame them for doing this.</p>
<p>But yes, they are need blind in that they do not look at whether a student is applying for financial aid or not when they are assessing them. But kids who come from very top high schools tend to come from well heeled families. Kids with great ECs tend to come from well heeled families. Kids with teachers/counselors that know how to write the recs and help package the apps tend to come from well heeled families. Kids that get essay help from people who really know what they are doing tend to come from well heeled families. You kind of get the drift here. All of those criterion, which are considered need blind really are not. And yes, legacies, tend to be from families that are better off and less likely to need aid than those who are not when we are talking about the more selective schools. Development cases by definition are usually economically up there,as are the celebrtiy category. And though certain sports have a lot of low income family applicants, taken as a whole, high school athletes tend to be well funded by their families who have to have the money for the kids to develop to the level of being able to compete at that level. Believe me, as a mom of a son who was in that category, any athletic scholarship he was offered probably did not cover the payments we made over the years to get him to that level where colleges were interested in his prowess. </p>
<p>For out of staters, legacy gives the applicant the same consideration as an in state applicant for UVA and some other selective state schools. How much of a boost it gives an in stater in their formulas, I don’t know. That it is one of their most important factors can mean it gets the most percentage boost in the matrix used to determine where the kid is, but may not be that big of boost. I do feel that state schools should not have a legacy preference, however, That is a whole other issue.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, I do think that…at the two schools my daughter wanted to attend the most, Wellesley and Smith, there is very small number of spots for those who have purely academic profiles.</p>
<p>And…let me add…I don’t blame those schools for that at all. It’s a reality of the numbers and the goals of the school.</p>
<p>“Any admissions policy that places legacy status among its most important admissions factors …”</p>
<p>Is there evidence of any school anywhere doing this? I haven’t seen it. It does seem to be a common tipping factor.</p>
<p>The other thing I do want to say, is that need blind admissions and meeting need are both variable factors. These days with so many applications at some of these schools, it is getting the admissions committees jumpy. It’s not that there are that many more applicants, but more applications per applicant which is skewing historical data tremendously to the point where it is useless. Until after the fact, we won’t know which schools started practicing what is euphemistically called “enrollment management” and need is often a factor taken into consideration when that happens. If too many students do accept the admissions offer with need and the school goes over budget for that reason, someone’s head is likely to roll. That is just a fact of life. I saw two colleges whose admissions directors at times have insisted that need was fully met or that their schools were need blind, did not meet those standards last year. The use of the waitlist is a way to control yield and costs, and most schools, including those that are need blind and guarantee to meet need, do not extend those policies to waitlisted students. Take a look at the ridiculously large waitlists that are generated these days and the paltry number often taken from them. If that is not a “cheat”, I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being NEED BLIND for admissions has virtually nothing to do with “support”. All this means is that your financial need is NOT considered when your application for admission is reviewed.</p>
<p>Schools that MEET FULL NEED FOR ALL STUDENTS…have endowments large enough to support the financial need of all accepted students.</p>
<p>Some schools that are NEED BLIND for admissions are also schools that MEET FULL NEED for all accepted students.</p>
<p>These two terms are NOT interchangable.</p>
<p>“Take a look at the ridiculously large waitlists that are generated these days and the paltry number often taken from them.”</p>
<p>One reason for this is “crafting a class” requiring deep waitlists so that when too many, e.g., oboe players decline the RD invitation, there is a pool available because few on the waitlists will actually accept the late invitation. It’s part of kids’ applying to so many schools these days.</p>