^^^^^ I dunno about this. It seems that these classes are perfectly crafted every single year…and during the recent unprecedented recession, you would have expected a LOT more kids needing aid than normal, yet the numbers seemed pretty consistent and predictable as always.
I admit, I’m a conspiracy theorist.
During recession Yale increased their finaid budget. They brought it down just recently. The proportion of full-pays stayed roughly the same. How they maintain this proportion is anyone’s guess.
My kids’ school counselors always told the families not to apply for FA if they could. I was one of those posters who always said it was suspicious that all of those need blind schools could maintain same proportion of full pay vs FA year after year. It is always better not to show your financial statements unless you absolutely have to.
I wonder if the issue is something done within the FA office-? Ie, how borderline cases are decided.
I am probably the most cynical person on cc, but in this case, I actually believe the spin. Admissions as a profession, has a high turnover, at least at the staff level; a lot of recent grads work for a few years and then move on to “real jobs”. OTOH, a lot of senior Admissions Officers “retire” and go write books or become consultants.
If those need-blind schools were fibbing about being need blind, the truth would easily come out.
They do not have to be need-aware on an individual applicant basis to do that. They can instruct the admissions readers to increase or decrease the importance of characteristics that are more highly correlated with high or low SES (e.g. if they want to reduce the financial aid load, emphasize legacy status, achievement in extracurriculars that are expensive or associated with high SES, test scores, etc.; if they want more low SES students and have the financial aid budget, emphasize work experience, first generation status, and overcoming obstacles and disadvantages).
Additionally, the use of CSS Profile with non-custodial parent information automatically shuts out many of the most disadvantaged low SES students (i.e. those from broken families with uncooperative parents).
Well maybe this thread is going the way of so many speculative others.
Need blind does not necessarily mean not knowing your income (range). It means not considering your ability to pay when deciding whether or not to offer admission. In this way, only a very, very, VERY few universities are need-aware.
Top, meet full-need schools want socioeconomic diversity. If it were blind to demographic factors, the vast majority of applicants would almost certainly be upper income individuals across the board as they generally have access to better resources which make for a nicer application. No school that crafts freshmen classes as carefully as top colleges do is ever going to “accidentally” admit all 0-EFC students. Why? Because it’s often obvious which students are coming from low-income or high-income backgrounds.
The schools that are need blind and meet full need (somewhere around a dozen schools) have a bit to lose if they’re lying. Far more to lose, IMO, than the difference in tuition between students with and without need is worth.
I think parents and applicants who are paranoid about this are just grabbing for straws that make it seem like the admissions process is rigged or otherwise shadowed in order to feel better about probable rejections (because the admission rates are so, so, SO low).
Of course, those schools typically do enroll the vast majority from the upper income brackets.
For example, about 44% of Harvard’s students do not get financial aid, meaning that they are in the top few percent of the income range (probably over $250,000 family income). Of those who do get financial aid, they get an average of $47,277 in grants. That seems like a big award, but Harvard’s net price calculator indicate that a student can get that big a grant from Harvard at a family income in the $140,000 range.
Obviously, as you note, access to better resources to make for a nicer application is a huge advantage for those from upper income families applying to most of these schools. The schools do not have to be need-aware when reading individual applications, but the way they design their admission criteria ensures that their admits are mainly from high SES backgrounds, with a small number of middle and low SES super achievers mixed in.
A number of recent treads remind me of that older one claiming you’d be rejected if the adcoms didn’t like your area pro teams or the local pizza. Sorry, but these have sometimes verged on: I don’t get it, so it must be rigged.
You really think they tell reviewers to look for kids involved in yachting, snowboarding, lacrosse? Just griping, folks.
Agree with post #24: To implement such a systematic conspiracy year after year without a scandal of sort coming out is just impossible. Can you imagine every admission season, the director of admissions opens up to their staff with “let’s keep it this room. We are not really need blind. Let’s go over a few tips of guessing the applicants’ income level…” It’s true that the current admissions criteria weighing heavily on ECs, legacy, athletes, special award winning talents etc. favor the well off, but to say they knowingly lie when they say they don’t consider the ability to pay as one of the admission criteria is a stretch. As a matter of fact, HYP etc have been trying reach out to low SES high achieving students and the result of the effort would be they are giving out more not less FA. that said, to “manipulate” % of students on FA and even FA budget is easy. They can simply adjust EFC and make more or fewer families to be eligible for FA. To meet full need is not to meet the need you feel you have but the need the institution determines you have.
They cannot just adjust EFC formulas in the middle of the admissions season because they accepted more low SES students… They start giving out finaid pre-reads in July of the previous year. The also have NPCs posted on their web sites. People would scream.
Remember FA is holistic too. There’s wiggling room in how much they give to each individual based on the evaluation of their circumstances. No change of “formula” is needed. And the holistic review can go both ways, giving more or less than one think one would get (NPC is never meant to be accurate)
Do you have first hand experience with “holistic reviews” when finaid suddenly went down comparing to NPC results without the change in financial circumstances? And according to your conspiracy theory this would happen to around 40% of admitted students?
I suspect that Director of Admissions might get some warning from the finaid office if they are clearly blowing finaid budget…
The most generous schools have huge amounts set aside for aid, based on their past experience, analysis and projection. And fin aid is generally doled out at those after an admit. Adcoms are wrapping up by early March.
Plus, just knowing someone is asking for aid doesn’t tell an adcom how much, just because, say, the kid is first gen.
Well no. The coaches of those sports send Admissions a list of the kids that they need to fill in the team, particularly in the early round. Of course, that doesn’t mean the kids gets in, but Admissions does give those files an extra look or two.
Post #33: My first hand experience is that some colleges offered more than NPC, but they didn’t “have to”, making me believe that if they wanted to they could “manipulate” it to the other direction.
That’s recruiting. The comment was after the notion FA comes and “tells” admissions what to do and adcoms then go looking for signs of privilege and wealth, including high price sports. And athletic tips are something I do disagree with, especially when the kid will struggle academically.
Re: #36
Offering more than the school’s usual level of financial aid may be what is called “preferential packaging” – i.e. offering a merit scholarship hidden in the financial aid rather than explicitly listing it as a merit scholarship.
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/main/admissions/therealdealonfinancialaid/
http://www.thecollegesolution.com/beware-of-preferential-packaging/
Post 38: I don’t think so. It’s not significantly higher to make it a “merit-based scholarship”. As said earlier, NPC is an “estimator”. To me, that colleges with generous FA gives a little more than what NPC estimator says is only normal (and so is it a little lower)