Can Andover be truly need-blind in admission even if it wanted to be?

Prep School Admissions
41

<p>If you call andover they will tell you that there is no culling of the yes pile to whittle it down to a managable $$$ amount.</p>

42

<p>@SharingDonut ~O) </p>

1 Like
43

<p>@straighttalker Thank you for chiming in, and welcome to the boards! You make a valid point, but I have noticed that on this thread–and others like it–people associate inner city and rural with poor. Does this mean that when Andover takes into account an applicant’s lack, they take a look at where the applicant lives? And how do they take this into account if they’re need-blind?</p>

<p>I don’t think Andover is fudging anything, at least not on purpose. I have come into contact with some wonderful people on Team Shuman, some teachers, and I won’t even go into how amazing the students are. But I can’t figure out how they look at an applicant’s disadvantages–if they do–if they are truly need-blind. </p>

44

<p>I’m not debating whether or not Andover is incredibly generous with their financial aid. They are. </p>

<p>I’m not debating whether or not kids get in with Prep For Prep and other similar programs. They do.</p>

<p>I want to know if the kid who doesn’t qualify for any type of program, gets free lunch at public school in a suburban town, and can’t afford exotic extracurriculars really has a chance. If this is taken into account, how can a school be need-BLIND?</p>

<p>I won’t hold it against Andover if they come right out and say that the aforementioned applicant’s chances are one in a gazillion. I just don’t want them to keep hinting that kids like me truly have a chance if they don’t. </p>

<p>Out of curiosity, how exactly do they recruit economically disadvantaged students? I don’t think they get much more economically disadvantaged than $18,000 a year.</p>

45

<p>No, no, no. I’m not saying that my income should earn me a spot. I’m saying that my income reflects a lack of opportunity and the admission officers should know this. </p>

46

<p>@straighttalker, nobody is entitled to a private school education, and these schools can spend their FA dollars however they wish. There is an opportunity gap, yet people in the lowest income bracket are lumped together with people who are middle class as part of the 13% receiving full aid. A school cannot simultaneously be “need blind” and take into account an applicant’s income. How can schools help close this opportunity gap (if they really want to)? In the application ask the questions I posed earlier–did you get help on your essay? did you use a consultant? how much money did your family spend on lessons/ sports/ travel etc? did you take an SSAT prep class? Have all applicants disclose this information–otherwise, how can the AO tell who has been disadvantaged?</p>

47

<p>No one is disputing Andover’s generosity. We are just amazed by the “coincidence” that Andover can have essentially identical FA budget & FA percentage as Exeter, when Exeter is not need blind and Andover touts that it is. </p>

48

<p>Accounting fudge is the best fudge. Yum.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>Thanks, neato; this is where I call BS. If there is no gating anywhere, why doesn’t the FA/FP ratio fluctuate randomly/wildly? Every year there just happens to be a very stable ratio. If the yes pile is produced without bias and that class is just bought outright, you could expect to see some years where there are significantly more FA students than FP, right? Has that happened? I am amazed by the same “coincidence” GMT points out.</p>

<p>@straighttalker: This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with envy or questioning Andover’s generosity. It’s an honest questioning of the stability of a ratio under true need-blind circumstances. I’m hoping SharingGift or GMT or some other analyst will weigh in and tell me where I’m misunderstanding this.</p>

50

<p>Welcome @straighttalker‌! I got the honor of prompting you to write.:slight_smile: And thanks for the new data, which allows me to update my previous table to include the current admission cycle.</p>

<p>Academic year | Completed Applications | Total Admits | FA Admits | % FA Admits/Total Admits | % FA Enrollees/Total Enrolles
2010-11 | 2,844 | 405 | 161 | 40% | 45%
2011-12 | 3,103 | 446 | 169 | 38% | 46%
2012-13 | 3,130 | 442 | 155 | 35% | 46%
2013-14 | 3,029 | 402 | 148 | 37% | 47%
2014-15 | 3,049 | 427 | 153 | 36% | 47%</p>

<p>Notes:

  • Projected % for the 237th Class
  1. These data were captured from “Fun Facts For the ###th Class” published each year after M10 at <a href=“http://www.andover.edu”>www.andover.edu</a>.
  2. These figures can be slightly off from the final stats as the school usually revises these numbers after all dusts settle down. However, the differences have been rounding errors and did not affect the conclusion drawn here.</p>

<p>A caveat for this year’s figure: 36% FA Admits/Total Admits is inferred based on the historical observation that almost all FA Admits decide to enroll. (Who can refuse?) % FA Admits/Total Admits for other years, however, are based on Andover’s own publication.</p>

<p>In short, this year’s stats are consistent with historical stats.</p>

51

<p>@straighttalker, let’s follow your line of reasoning for a sec. </p>

<p>1) I agree with you that it’s valid to say that AOs know what they’e doing, and that we while we can speculate about their choices, we probably don’t know enough about their process to dispute it. </p>

<p>2) However, I also think that it’s unfair to say that people are “taking up a cause under false pretense.” Using @stargirl3 as an example, the fact that she was WL by <em>several</em> schools, and not outright rejected, very much indicates that she is a fantastic candidate, and her main barrier for admission was financial. It’s a fairly valid assumption based on the information we have. If she were more lacking, she would have had more rejections. There’s no false pretense. So the objection to policies that purport to discount that barrier, when they in fact don’t, is worthy of discussion.</p>

<p>3) No ONE, including @stargirl3 herself is saying that someone <em>deserves</em> a spot at the top because of low income. That’s a false equivalency, and a knee-jerk argument people use in conversations about equal opportunity and affirmative action a lot. And it drives me insane. Getting a seat at the table can only be a fair contest when the starting line is equitable. If we run a 50-yard dash and you start halfway there, did you really “win”? Maybe, and maybe not, but you’ll still get the medal. Bottom line is that it is roughly twice as difficult for a FA candidate to be admitted to these schools as a FP candidate, with the same qualifications. It just is. </p>

<p>4) What we are arguing in this thread (or at least I am, I won’t speak for others) is the validity of the claim of “need blind” admissions. A candidate who is equal in all ways to other candidates <em>except</em> for financially should be able to discount the financial inequity as a factor at a school that is “need-blind” if it was TRULY need-blind. I can’t see how true need-blind circumstances can really exist. Otherwise, as @choatiemom said, their ratios of FP/FA would fluctuate more widely year to year (or at a minimum, I would think, be more consistent with the ratio of FP/FA applicants?)</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>OK please go on.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You berate the statistics posted by others. What is your source of this information?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Giving FA is not being “need blind.” All schools give FA.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You know you are behind the false screen as well?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If this is your opinion of CC posters, you are wasting your time on being here on CC.</p>

<p>Last but not least, outreach is one word.</p>

53

<p>^^I was torn between “Like” and “Helpful”, rosie19. ;-)</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>This comment actually hurts me. =(( As I explained in OP, I got these figures from Andover itself. To its credit, Andover is more transparent about its admission stats than many other schools (in part reflecting its pride, no doubt) and publishes these “Fun Facts” every year after M10, and I simply trust them at face value. </p>

<p>For example, below is what it published after M10, 2012 (red highlights are mine, and those figures were used in my analysis):</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you think I made it up, I can’t help you. Just print this out and ask your favorite Andover AO for verification
 My only concern is such an inquiry might prompt Andover to stop publishing these “Fun Facts.”</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe that the ratio can remain stable year in and year out, as long as the society and economy stay stable, although we did have a serious and sustained repression starting around late 2008. I’m repeating this again, but I don’t doubt Andover’s need-blind policy; it’s just that its admission metrics still favor the haves over the haves-not. IMO, the Brown student newspaper article that @neatoburrito‌ forwarded explains the best: <a href=“The Illusion of Need-Blind Admission | HuffPost College”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;

1 Like
56

<p>The SSAT and SAT scores all correlate with family income. A “true need blind” school would not ask for these numbers. The problem of comparing GPAs across different schools would be difficult. Andover maintains a high average SSAT score for admitted students. Even the programs that help disadvantaged students(ABC) include test prep. </p>

57

<p>@grx567 Yes, yes, and more yes. This pretty much proves that a school really can’t be need-blind. </p>

58

<p>@boredr Where did you find that the correlation is that small?</p>

59

<p>And while you’re at it, what’s the reasoning behind the rest of it?</p>

60

<p>

</p>

<p>So you are saying schools are not truly need-blind?</p>