<p>Sacchi, I suspect that some of these “slightly less qualified” kids HS rank is not so high as they are attending demanding high schools – public or private. Really makes one wonder if they are truly slightly less qualified, or if the college is using social engineering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you even read the website? Scroll to the bottom of this link:</p>
<p>[For</a> Transfer Students | Middlebury](<a href=“Transfer Applicants | Middlebury College”>Transfer Applicants | Middlebury College)</p>
<p>“To the degree that resources permit” doesn’t sound like “need-blind, need-blind, need-blind” to me.</p>
<p>If you want an (unfair?) advantage getting into an elite LAC, move to South Dakota. Those LACs are always looking for a way to say “they have students from all 50 states…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, except most LACs aren’t necessarily looking to admit 1 from each state every year. Read carefully: they usually claim only that their student body includes students from all 50 states (or as close to that number of states as they actually get). But they can accomplish that by admitting one every 4 years.</p>
<p>The Ivies and some other elite universities like to have at least one from each state in each entering class. But that doesn’t necessarily produce a huge admissions advantage, either. For example, Princeton reports that its Class of 2014 includes 1 student from South Dakota. The College Board reports that 22 South Dakotans submitted SAT scores to Princeton that year; we don’t know that all of the 22 actually completed their applications, but the 1 enrolled South Dakotan represents a meager 4.5% of the South Dakotans who sent Princeton their SAT scores (undoubtedly with the intention of applying at the tiem the scores were sent). In contrast, 3,245 New Jerseyans sent their SAT scores to Princeton that same year, of whom 178 ended up in Princeton’s entering class. But those 178 enrolled New Jerseyans represented 5.5% of the New Jersey SAT score-senders. Advantage, New Jersey. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, none of the 15 North Dakotans who submitted SAT scores to Princeton ended up in the entering class. It’s possible, of course, that one or more of the North Dakotans might have been accepted but ended up at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford instead. But I’ve been tracking these numbers for some time now, and there’s absolutely no statistical evidence to back up the claim that applicants from “underrepresented states” enjoy a huge admissions advantage over applicants from “overrepresented” states. Many colleges say they “consider” geographic diversity, but I’ve never seen a single one say it’s an “important” factor in admission decisions. And “considering” geographic diversity seems to mean little more than that they’d like to have one per state per class (if they’re a Princeton-sized university or larger), or at least one in the entire student body (if they’re an LAC). And given the non-trivial number of applicants they get from “underrepresented” states, that may translate to no admissions advantage at all for the South Dakotans.</p>
<p>Though having the money does make a big difference in life, it has not yet come to that point where getting into select college is a direct purchase.</p>
<p>Reminder: “Need Blind” does NOT equal “Meets 100% of Need.” </p>
<p>arcadia, Middlebury can be need-blind in admissions - they can admit everyone they think is qualified. That does NOT mean the same thing as promising to meet 100% of all admitted students’ need. They can admit me and then tell me they can’t give me FA, or can only give me some FA and leave me to decline the offer or figure out alternative financing.</p>
<p>The article this thread is about discusses colleges that claim that they are BOTH need-blind AND meet 100% of need for all accepted students. Again, there are only about 60 of those in the country (quoting earlier posters on the number - don’t know what it is exactly but it’s small).</p>
<p>
“First round” implies Early Decision, not the entire pool of domestic first-year applicants who are “admitted.” (Waitlist students, by definition, are not admitted unless yield is unexpectedly low.)</p>
<p>Lafalum84, Middlebury does meet 100% of need (with a loan cap, as well). But the conventional definition of “need-blind” excludes waitlist and transfer students.</p>
<p>“Need blind” is a term of art. No college is truly “blind” to need – they can’t possibly be, given holistic admission practices and the fact that relative economic status is apparent from multiple other factors in the application. (The high school the student is coming from, their EC’s, the experiences they write about in their essays, their particular talents, other aspects of family background). </p>
<p>The term just means that a college won’t explicitly consider relative need in the course of making an application decision. They aren’t going to reject a student they would be inclined to accept because of need.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, I have. I read this link - where they explain their so-called need blind policy to the public: [Financial</a> Aid | Middlebury](<a href=“Financial Aid | Middlebury College”>Financial Aid | Middlebury College)</p>
<p>They mention that international students are an exception but say nothing about domestic wait list or transfer students. For them it’s all apparently “need-blind, need-blind, need-blind” like other domestic students. You have to dig through the fine print elsewhere to find out the true story, either that or read the Wall Street Journal.</p>
<p>Surprise, surprise…School is, first and foremost, a business. There are the truth for “need-blind” and “need aware”. Need blind for brilliant students from a lower income family will likely to be successful in their future career, and thus having higher chances of giving back to the school? For “average-Joe” type of students, the chances of getting financial return are lower on average. I am sure the decision makers have all these figured out long ago…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Awwww. Did you have to do some research and look at more than one webpage to find the answer to your question? If I was a transfer applicant, I would look at the section of the website that’s called “For Transfer Students.” Perhaps that isn’t clear-cut enough for you. Maybe they should address the financial aid package for transfer students on every single page of their website so you won’t have to read things on the Wall Street Journal. </p>
<p>As for waitlisted students, they technically weren’t admitted to the college during the early decision or regular decision admission cycles. No student is obligated to remain on the waitlist. Students accepted off the waitlist are guaranteed the same financial aid package (100% of need met) as students accepted during early and regular decision. The only difference is that the college may consider whether they need aid when deciding whether to admit them off the waitlist.</p>
<p>“School is, first and foremost, a business.”</p>
<p>Indeed it is, with the first priority being the long term survival of the institution at or above its current level of quality. This mainly involves keeping it attractive to applicants, which then involves current students being successful and happy with the institution.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Which is the very definition of not being “need-blind.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The best definition I’ve seen. Not a “business” in the usual sense.</p>
<p>^^But the college never explicitly claims that it is “need-blind” for students admitted LATER from the waitlist. Whether this is implied, is a matter of clever marketing and ethics.</p>
<p>Keil, I agree. I think the school should refund any application fee paid by students not admitted over money. Oh but wait, then they would draw attention to what they are doing.</p>
<p>
While this is an interesting idea, it doesn’t actually make sense–the goal is arguably already served by low-income fee waivers, which go to the students who truly can’t afford a $50 application fee. Students who are rejected from the need-aware waitlist have already been essentially “rejected” in the RD round, but were offered and chose to accept a position on the waiting list.</p>
<p>I do think that a college should make clear in its waitlist letter that acceptances are decided need-aware. They don’t have an ethical duty to disclose it in giant letters on their website, but they should tell the applicants to whom it will immediately matter. I don’t know whether Middlebury does this.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>By then it’s too late. You will have long ago already applied for financial aid or not. If you have your heart set on Middlebury and want to maximize you chances of getting accepted either in RD or off the waitilist, you may wish to forgo applying for FA. </p>
<p>If the school doesn’t tell you until <em>after</em> you have applied that you just flushed your your waitlist chances down the toilet by checking the FA box, how is that fair? That’s why this little catch should be plainly disclosed everywhere on the website or in print that the school brags about its so-called need-blind policy, and ESPECIALLY in the FA section of the website.</p>
<p>Keli, an acceptance off the waitlist is still an acceptance. So Middlebury needs to make it clear that its not really need blind.</p>
<p>An applicant either needs aid or does not need aid. </p>
<p>For an applicant needing aid, what good does it do to increase chances by not checking the box, being accepted, but not having the money to attend?</p>
<p>For an applicant not needing aid, why lower your chances by checking the box?</p>