<p>"The schools, for their part, say they aren't lowering admissions standards. Middlebury, which is need-blind for U.S. students, says it will make its first-round decisions for all applicants based on merit alone. If the school is within budget, then it will leave those decisions alone. If not, then it may consider the financial status of wait-list, transfer and international applications, says Robert Clagett, dean of admissions at Middlebury. "Being need-aware usually only influences those decisions at the margins," he says. "It depends on what resources are left."</p>
<p>Many schools begin by admitting part of the class without regard to the ability to pay, but start to consider it when the financial-aid budget runs thin. For the first time since 2005, the University of Rochester doesn't expect it will be completely need-blind when it comes time to admitting students off the wait list this year. "This year, we had a bigger early decision group and a slightly needier one," says Jonathan Burdick, dean of admissions and financial aid. "I'm certain we will be 95% need-blind. That last 5% is in jeopardy."</p>
<p>Schools also are tinkering with their aid formulas in ways that would require affluent families to pay more. At Stanford, students are being asked to contribute an additional $250 toward their education expenses for the current academic year and another $250 next year, bringing their total responsibility to $5,000. Meanwhile, families making more than $120,000 with more than one family member in college also may pay more under the school's new calculations.</p>
<p>"Our endowment was impacted by the downturn, so we're still struggling with the results of that," says Karen Cooper, Stanford's financial-aid director."</p>
<p>I don’t know why this is even news. As early as 2007/08, GCs at our kids’ school have been telling parents not to apply for FA if they didn’t absolutely have to. I have always posted here - if you are only to get few thousand $$ in aid or are borderline, it’s not worth it to apply for FA.</p>
<p>If you are in the known, you could get info on how much donation it would take to get into some of those top tier schools. There is a big spread between Yale and Cornell.</p>
<p>I don’t know why this is news either. Is it a surprise to anyone that students who can pay full-fare have an admissions advantage over those who can’t?</p>
<p>I take offense at the author’s title, “Buying your way into college.” I’d call it “Paying full price.” Colleges are selling a product: an educational experience. They put a price on that product. Sometimes they sell it for less than that price, that’s financial aid. But people paying full price are not “buying their way into college.” They’re just paying full price.</p>
<p>I’d equate donating large sums of money in exchange for admittance to be “buying your way into college.”</p>
<p>Sort of like “buying your way into first class”. I’ve never wanted to pay for a first class ticket, but my D got to fly first class after she got bumped from a few other seats.</p>
<p>I agree completely with Lafalum84. Universities aren’t going to run without money. Why should someone be ashamed that his/her parents worked hard and saved money for college? Lots of students are worthy of an education, and their parents can’t afford it, but those parents who have planned for their children’s futures should not in any way feel ashamed.</p>
<p>I think the story is resurfacing because as little as 5 years ago endowments were making money, people were making money and life was good. Colleges were courting families that would not be able to pay full price with tuition discounts. Granted private institutions had lofty goals of education for all regardless of financial circumstances which is on surface an admirable goal. Now even the most wealthy are weighing carefully the benefits of paying a quarter of a million dollars for an undergraduate degree and the business model that many privates have moved toward in the last decade is simply not a sustainable model.</p>
<p>Well, no, they’re not “just” paying full price; not if they’re at need-aware schools. We’re “just” paying full price for my D1’s college education; but she was admitted to a need-blind LAC, where she enjoyed no advantage in the admissions process from our full-pay status. But we were perfectly well aware when she was applying to colleges that one option would be to apply some need-aware schools, where our full-pay status would be more than just a matter for the FA office; it would be, in effect, an additional admissions credential that would give D1 an admissions edge over otherwise similarly-credentialed candidates with financial need. And frankly that did feel to us a little like “buying one’s way in,” though we would not have been above doing so if it came to that. Fortunately it didn’t, as D1 was admitted ED to her first-choice school.</p>
<p>In a way there’s nothing new here; the number of truly need-blind, meets-full-financial- need schools has always been very small. What is new is that many previously need-blind schools are becoming partially need-aware, or taking other steps to retreat from their previous generous FA commitments. In the aggregate, it could represent a pretty significant rollback in academic opportunities for those with financial need; and at the same time, a non-trivial expansion of academic opportunities for the most affluent families.</p>
<p>It’s not “buying your way in” in the sense of the applicant offering bribes, but it kinda is in the sense of a full-pay applicant getting an admissions boost over a finaid applicant with similar academic qualifications. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It is if you were expecting the college to live up to its “need-blind” hype. The title in the print version of the article is “Buying Your Way Into Elite Colleges.” Which is perhaps a bit more newsworthy, since so many elite colleges claim to be “need-blind.”</p>
<p>Here is the typical “need-blind” verbiage from Middlebury’s website:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our “need-blind” admissions policy</p>
<p>The College follows a need-blind admission policy for domestic students, which means that a student’s financial status does not influence the admission decision. Middlebury makes every effort to help all candidates obtain the financial aid they need in the form of grants, loans, and work/study jobs. In the case of international students, Middlebury follows a need-aware admissions policy."
[end quote]</p>
<p>Okay, but that’s not quite the whole story. You’d have to read the WSJ article to find out that even for domestic applicants need-blind stuff extends only to the first round of decision making. After that it’s need-aware. I’d say that’s a newsworthy piece of information.</p>
<p>Maybe they feel they are letting themselves off the hook by putting quotation marks around “need-blind” - perhaps implying “need-blind but not really.”</p>
<p>I think that many of the people who post, or read here, are more aware than average person. And as courer said, the nuances of “need blind” should be told. Ideally the schools would be transparent. </p>
<p>The article ended with state schools focusing more on out of state kids. I hope state legislatures demand whether the OOS kids will get a SAT/ACT boost.</p>
<p>Not an admission officer,but if 2 applicants are equal,i’m taking the full pay…Not that being full pay should be an advantage,but schools need a certain percentage of full pays,not unlike the demographics they use to fill the student body…</p>
<p>I don’t understand the objection here. Do you think “need-aware” schools are need aware because they’re mean? Would you prefer that they be need blind, but not fully meet the need?</p>
<p>Of course, if you want a school that’s really and truly need-blind, you can always seek admission to one of the military academies.</p>