<p>
</p>
<p>I was just lazy, but you can see in the page 19 of the link @classicalmama posted: <a href=“http://www.wittkieffer.com/file/9491%20Phillips%20Academy%20Andover%20Dean%20of%20Admission_spec.pdf”>http://www.wittkieffer.com/file/9491%20Phillips%20Academy%20Andover%20Dean%20of%20Admission_spec.pdf</a></p>
<p>^^ I noticed that in the document too.</p>
<p>But the problem is getting the in-between years for Exeter. Would be interesting to put those numbers side-by-side with an indication of when Andover adopted the Common App (I dont know when that was) to see how much the Common App did or didnt affect number of applicants.</p>
<p>(And going forward I will be following your example and ignore those without data too.)</p>
<p>@SharingGift Your data and penchant for the admissible proof is astounding. ^:)^ </p>
<p>This thread might have been shorter and resolved by now if no school names had been used. Simply asking how any school that claims to be need blind can produce these stable ratios year after year and using “hypothetical” data from a real source might have stopped the defensiveness (when no attack was intended) and focused thought and discussion on the peculiarity of just the data. It’s too late now, but I can’t help thinking that if this question were framed in that way, it would be easier to see and rationally consider what the data show.</p>
<p>(And, please, I understand that the scenario could only be about a couple of schools, but framing it without names, would have confined the discussion to just the pattern and we might not be on page 19.)</p>
<p>I don’t have a horse in this race other than the fact that I’m an analyst of sorts (not a statistician), and these balanced numbers have always bothered me. I’ve been interested in this discussion to see if someone can provide that “aha” moment that clearly shows where my misinterpretation has been, but I feel no closer to clarity than I was on page one. I’ll keep checking in, though, to see if someone can solve this mystery once and for all. Kudos to those here who continue to press. </p>
<p>@Jersey386 Here are the figures you’re looking for: # of completed apps for Exeter</p>
<p>2008: 2,678
2009: 3,138
2010: ???
2011: ???
2012: 2,600
2013: 2,468
2014: 2,325</p>
<p>@ChoatieMom, I can’t agree more. I simply wasn’t aware of any other need-blind schools and thought A was the only one.</p>
<p>Let me try this way: Comparison of total FA grants to new students for the past three years between two very similar schools. These are real numbers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with ChoatieMom that the question of how the FA budget can stay relatively the same is an interesting one and would love to discuss this without the constant demand for “proof.” </p>
<p>Here’s what I think. The assumption that all, or even most, FA students are, coming in to the process, equivalent to FP students in terms of their qualifications is throwing this whole discussion. When schools look at applicants, they’re considering the academic rigor of their schools, SAT scores, quality e.c./volunteer experiences, sports that fit into the prep school niche (lax and crew, alongside football and basketball), arts training, etc. They’re also interested in geographical representation, including international students (who I think everyone agrees are much more likely to be full pay) and legacies. </p>
<p>If we consider not the whole pool, but the students who, considering the criteria I’ve listed above, are most likely to float to the top 14-20 percent then it seems entirely likely to me that the more affluent FP students will greatly outnumber the FA students. In fact, I think the schools probably look at other stuff as well–the stories that come out in essays and interviews, achievement in a crappy school environment, the grit documented by teachers in recommendations, ethnicity and racial background–when they are determining who to accept. Without those factors, I’d honestly be surprised to see even a 30 percent FA rate.</p>
<p>My point is that admissions is not as simple as “If 55 percent of the students of applicants are applying for FA, then 55 percent of the admits should be FA.” The schools have undoubtedly honed their admissions criteria over the years so that they can attract a diverse class while maintaining their budgets. But I suspect, if anything, that those criteria have opened more doors for FA students than they have closed. </p>
<p>That, in a nutshell, is why I think schools can say they are need blind (like Andover), or need blind to a point (like Exeter) in terms of the admissions process, and still be very much in tune with the true-life, societal conditions that–like it or not–will always distinguish the have’s from the have nots, and which makes them, in another sense not need blind at all. And for my kid’s sake I say thank goodness for that. </p>
<p>@SharingGift - Looks weird without the school names. I prefer the specifcs as it looks more credible and is verifiable. The horse is already out of the barn, so why bother now? It’s obvious who School 1 and School 2 are. And in fact, when you put the names in make for a quite interesting discussion.</p>
<p>Impressive you found the #'s for Exeter.</p>
<p>Question (to anyone): When did Andover adopt the Common App?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Someone needs to define need-blind. Is it not looking at FA papers? Is it leveling the playing field for all applicants? Is it something else?</p></li>
<li><p>Many colleges claim they’re need-blind. Would it be helpful to look at data from a handful of those and see if they follow the same patterns?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>@Stargirl3: need blind means not looking at whether someone has applied for fa when considering whether or not to make an offer of admission. It doesn’t mean anything other than that in terms of admissions–for example, it does not reveal what criteria a school used to admit. The leveling the playing field language comes out in terms like “students from all quarters” or “encouraging diverse applicants.”</p>
<p>The problem with looking at need blind colleges is that most do not also promise to meet full need. It’s easy enough to be need blind if you don’t have to tie reasonable financial aid to your offer of admissions. So unfortunately, I don’t think it would be helpful to make that comparison. And even comparing the need blind/meet full need colleges to prep schools is tricky since the endowments and applicant diversity are so different (in my view).</p>
<p>@stargirl3 - Here’s a definition of sorts. <a href=“Need-blind admission - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission</a></p>
<p>But more importantly, I think your 2nd suggestion to compare Andover’s statistical profile to need-blind colleges is an EXCELLENT idea. There are need-blind colleges who meet full-need (like H, Y, P, and M). And according to the source “Being need-blind is a statutory requirement for institutions to participate in…” so I believe this means that colleges that call themselves “need-blind” will be held highly accountable.</p>
<p>So either of the following pieces of evidence could put this issue to bed
<p>Andover IS the only need blind BS. </p>
<p>@mrnephew SAS as well.</p>
<p>I think SAS dropped need blind last year. @SevenDad? </p>
<p>7Dad already posted about this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, SAS is not need blind anymore.</p>
<p>@SharingGift - Regarding your “School 1” & “School 2” #s. School 1 is A (as I posted those #'s), but I don’t see how School 2 can grant more FA to new students than A.</p>
<p>Since Total FA Granted = (# of Admittees) x (% on FA) x (Size of Avg Grant)</p>
<p>School 2 would need to be >30% higher in one of the three variables. But I don’t see any school that would beat A by 30% on any of those variables. In fact, as I posted previously, boardingschoolreview.com shows the most generous schools to be similar. (And we know that # of Admittees for SAS is significantly less than A & E.)</p>
<p>School | % Students on FA | Avg FA Grant
Andover | 47% | $38,055
Exeter | 45% | $38,430
SAS | 46% | $38,000</p>
<p>Goes back to my request to bring back school names to enable verification and for findings to be built upon.</p>
<p>Confirmed that SAS dropped last year.</p>
<p>Ok, sorry for the misconfusion</p>
<p>@Jersey386 I think you really know this, and there is only one school that can beat the School 1 in total FA grants: School 2. </p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://exeter.edu/news_and_events/news_events_14216.aspx]2012[/url”>http://exeter.edu/news_and_events/news_events_14216.aspx]2012[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://exeter.edu/news_and_events/news_events_15256.aspx]2013[/url”>http://exeter.edu/news_and_events/news_events_15256.aspx]2013[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://exeter.edu/news_and_events/news_events_16462.aspx]2014[/url”>http://exeter.edu/news_and_events/news_events_16462.aspx]2014[/url</a>]</p>