<p>Did anyone see this article on the Scarlet & Black?
In</a> campus-wide email, Kington says College considering changes to need-blind admissions | Scarlet & Black</p>
<p>I wonder what is really prompting this and if this would affect current students at all? Any thoughts on this?</p>
<p>There’s been talk about this, but the students are vehemently opposed.</p>
<p>Also, even if it went through, it wouldn’t affect financial aid. It would affect admissions. Grinnell will continue to meet 100% of need. The discussion is surrounding the need-blind admissions policy.</p>
<p>I think the president stated what’s prompting this - heavy reliance on the endowment for operating costs, increased need on the part of families and an economic outlook that doesn’t guarantee a high rate of growth for the endowment. Grinnell has a large endowment and doesn’t want to squander it.</p>
<p>S was a student when Grinnell had a large jump in tuition (to align itself with peer institutions) and current students were grandfathered in, small annual increases but not the jump that affected incoming freshmen. (not sure how they handled transfers). The discussion then included the option of going tuition free but they ended up raising the tuition by quite a bit and increased aid awards where needed. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s coincidence that Grinnell is seeing increased numbers of international applications. I think schools, especially small LACs, are combing for full pay and by broadening the applicant pool they have a better chance of maintaining academic standards and theynwill of course say that the qualified student with need will still be taken care of, and part ofmthe solution is more full pay students. </p>
<p>I see the need, but also think it’s part of a disturbing trend, that Grinnell, of necessity, is crossing the line that divides rich/poor, have/have not, etc. If they were to institute a no loan policy at the same time, I’d feel better about it. I don’t for a second believe this is evil intentioned, just reality and looking to preserve what Grinnell has and is.</p>
<p>I didn’t interpret any evil intent either. I’m trying for a deeper understanding of the implications for the student body when being able to afford to come becomes an issue. It seems that it’s the “middle class” that is often hit the hardest. Thanks for responding.</p>
<p>I no longer know what people mean when they say “middle class,” if I ever did. Romney’s definition of $250k is higher than mine. I think anyone who can write a check for full tuition at most private colleges is not middle class and that there is a slow recognition that a student graduating with significant loan debt, while s/he may have had the benefit of a superb education, does not have the same freedom of career choices as a student without monthly loan payments. This is the new barrier to equal access.</p>
<p>Absolutely! I’m also a bit confused about “need blind” vs. “meets need with no/minimal loans”. Can someone explain that?</p>
<p>“Need Blind” means the people who decide whether to admit a student do not know whether that student is applying for financial aid. The two processes and the decision-makers are completely separate.</p>
<p>“Meet full need” means a school promises that if they admit you, they will meet your full need, as they determine it.</p>
<p>A school can be one or the other or both. It is possible to be admitted at a need-blind school but not receive FA or enough FA to attend.</p>
<p>A school that promises to meet full need may consider whether an applicant needs FA when making admission decisions.</p>
<p>And maybe there are some schools who do both–I am familiar with prep schools but not colleges at this point, and there are only 2 boarding prep schools in the U.S. who are both need-blind and meet full need.</p>
<p>I think need blind means admissions and financial aid offices operate separately. Admissions admits the students they want, not considering a student’s ability to pay, then aid offers are drawn up. “Meets full demonstrated need” means the aid offer covers a student’s need as determined by institutional formula - maybe it’s the same as the number on the FAFSA, maybe not. </p>
<p>A school can be need blind in admissions but not meet your demonstrated need. A school can meet your full demonstrated need with a combination of grant, work study and loans. Or a school can meet need with grant and work study, eliminating loans. That doesnt preclude a family or student from borrowing to meet the family contribution portion.</p>
<p>Okay I get it. So up until this point Grinnell has been need blind and also has met demonstrated need? Sorry, it’s the learning curve…</p>
<p>Re: “So up until this point Grinnell has been need blind and also has met demonstrated need? Sorry, it’s the learning curve…”</p>
<p>The link which you provided has the full text of the Grinnell email and it says that for 3 decades Grinnell has been need-blind and “promised” to meet full need (I’ve been on the sort end of a school that was “committed” to meeting the financial need of every admitted student, that’s why I used quotation marks).</p>
<p>Contrary to Kudryavka’s post, the email definitely says meeting full need is potentially on the chopping block.</p>
<p>Understandably, need blind admission and meeting full need, both, in a period of economic stasis or decline is pretty much unsustainable, requiring more and more drawdown of the endowment.</p>
<p>grinnell currently has about 85% of its student body receiving Financial Aid. If you compare this with other LACs, this will be among the highest of any. But, as Dr. Kington describes, the drawdown on the endowment is not sustainable, if it is also to maintain the highest quality faculty, ensure resources for the future, etc.</p>
<p>Grinnellians operate as a community, and I think the way the school is going about the decision reflects this reality – laying out the situation and engaging everyone in the discussion. There will be no easy answer, as supporting diversity and access to education is a high priority for the school.</p>
<p>The other point about the endowment, which Dr. Kington immediately focused on with his arrival, is that it has grown principally because of past investment success, whereas institutions with similar sized endowments, eg., Williams, receive a steady influx of revenue from alumni donations. Dr. Kington has been actively working to engage alumni in returning support to the school (although apparently there is a program that had been in place where each year, alumni provide funds for aid for incoming students). </p>
<p>I don’t think that the lack of alumni donations reflects a lack of love for the school, but a variety of other reasons.</p>
<p>I happen to be a Williams alum, and they are the masters of the universe when it comes to outreach for donations…</p>
<p>It’s interesting to think about why some schools are heavily supported financially by alums and others not so much. I have no expertise in any of this (“just” a parent) but two things strike me. One is that schools that have always been co-ed don’t usually end up on the top of the lists of biggest endowments, and the other is that while students come from all over to attend Grinnell, many never return as Iowa is not where they end up.</p>
<p>Many Grinnell alums go into jobs in the public or nonprofit sector and thus don’t have a ton of extra money to make charitable donations. Many are heavily involved in (and thus probably donate to) social justice causes where they perceive a need for donations that is greater than Grinnell’s need. There’s also the perception of “bringing coal to Newcastle” (ie Grinnell is so rich it doesn’t need the money). Given the low-return environment we now live in, this is going to have to change. I hope Grinnell alums (and their families) who have been the beneficiaries of Grinnell’s generous financial aid in the past will step up to the plate and pay it forward, so future students can also benefit.</p>
<p>This was in the college newspaper today:</p>
<p>Despite rumors and misunderstandings, Grinnell is unlikely to change its need-blind admissions policy for domestic students as it addresses a projected budget shortfall.
“We’re not here to get rid of need-blind,” Kington told students, professors and administrators in a town hall meeting Thursday night. -Solomon Miller, Scarlet & Black.</p>
<p>Also, it said later on in the article that they weren’t even considering changing the policy of meeting full financial need for those who are admitted. The options being looked at are giving more loans instead of grants, recruiting from more affluent high schools, increasing yield, and only in the worst case scenario (the example given is if the economy fell into deep recession again) would the college move away from need-blind admissions altogether.</p>
<p>This report from “Inside Higher Ed” focuses on Grinnell here:</p>
<p>[Grinnell</a>, one of the country’s wealthiest colleges, questions sustainability of financial aid | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/01/grinnell-one-countrys-wealthiest-colleges-questions-sustainability-financial-aid]Grinnell”>Grinnell, one of the country's wealthiest colleges, questions sustainability of financial aid)</p>
<p>“The options being looked at are . . . recruiting from more affluent high schools.” This is already true in Connecticut–the only Grinnell college events (school visits, college fairs) are at private prep schools and one public in a very wealthy Fairfield County town. Not sure that it bothers me any less that Grinnell would be consciously recruiting from more affluent schools, and more aggressively reruiting overseas (which it is doing) where there will be more full payers, than going to some kind of need aware rather than need blind system. Just a different way of getting to the same place, a less diverse place economically, or maybe even less diverse economically. Grinnell may have little or no choice on this, I recognize that, but be honest about what you are doing.</p>
<p>President Kington was interviewed by NPR, it aired on All Things Considered last night. I did not catch the entire interview, but he said some pretty interesting things about aid and finances. He said that the full tuition, room and board is $50,000, the actual cost to educate, feed and house is $56,000. According to College Board, Grinnell gives financial aid to 85% of its students, with the average aid package totalling $38,000. My math is that means that the average paid by a student is $17,700 (.15 x 50,000 + .85 x 12,000 = 17,700). This means that Grinnell is covering on average $38,300 of the per student cost to educate, house and feed. Grinnell has an endowment of approximately $1 million per student. Using the 5% rule, that would mean Grinnell has approximately $50,000 per student per year to spend, and certainly less when the financial downturn hit the endowment. Spending $38,300 of $50,000 seems pretty reasonable to me, as I assume the balance gets spent on things that don’t make it in to the per student cost to house, feed and educate. So, it also seems pretty reasonable that Grinnell would be looking at ways to increase revenue. The only specific that Kington gave was possibly increasing the % of international students to something above the current 12 to 15%, because they generally are full payers. So, while maintaining a need blind policy, essentially the goal is to get the percentage of the class that will pay full price tag up from the current 15% by increasing international enrollment. Why not just call yourself need aware, and say that ability to pay will be taken into account with a percentage of the class, say 20%? I think this is what need aware means, and that Macalester, among other schools, does this. This essentially is what Grinnell is doing now by looking at increasing the international enrollment, why not extend it to domestic students as well?</p>