We’re all told that college admissions is need-blind and that everyone has an equal opportunity to get in (equal is a relative term because, obviously, there will be different levels of qualified applicants). What I can’t get out of my head is that maybe income of applicants does play a role later on in the admissions process–whether it be in RD or when admissions officers try to fill up the last 10-20% of seats.
Let’s say Applicant A has a 300k income in his household while Applicant B has a 50k income. Now most likely, in an early admissions process, Applicant B might have the better chance considering both A and B had similar stats because B has gotten these stats in harsher circumstances while Applicant A had the resources but only managed to get stats a student like B had gotten.
But let’s fast forward to A and B competing in the later stages of the admissions process. Colleges need to meet a financial criteria in order to function. With applicant B, financial aid must be given (unless it’s one of the schools that says it does not have to meet financial aid each year, which proves the point I’m try to make that colleges need to prioritize money. Everyone knows this, I’m not saying anything groundbreaking yet haha). But with applicant A, no financial aid must be given and the school will receive 30-60k a year (depending on the college) from said applicant. Thus, income may create a sort of bias in certain schools.
Then again, this is just my hypothesis. Any thoughts?
Interesting idea…I have heard folks on here say things like, internationals are beloved for their full pay status at these needs met schools. I would imagine if they can’t look at need with US, internationals are their only source of ensured $$ full pay.
I don’t see a problem with a need blind school reserving x% for full pay. It’s no different than reserving for athletes or development admits. They do have a budget to consider. Maybe if some did that, the “need met” would be better for each FA app, rather than giving all less FA?
I never believe when people vow financial aid don’t see the application until the student is admitted. Maybe not. But I’m sure they do train adcoms to recognize high income activities. Soccer is mostly for the poor or middle class. Horseback riding is for the rich. Ask Bill Gate and you’ll find out how much it cost. One of his kids is a rider.
It could possibly be a factor, but generally when colleges say they’re need blind I tend to believe them because they usually have such large endowments that they can afford to admit a large amount of low income students. I mean if you look at the average amount of grants given by some universities to their students, some total above $30,000, and that’s average. So for the most part I don’t think that need blind colleges actually take finances into consideration when admitting a student.
It really depends on the college. You can’t generalize. And not all colleges are need-blind.
Also, someone could be poor and pursue equestrian sports thanks to financial support from rich patrons. In an ED thread, that was the case with one girl. She got denied (possibly because that school doesn’t sponsor equestrian as either a varsity or club sport; you could argue that she was not smart with her ED strategy).
Most colleges and universities are need-blind for admission. However, very few promise to meet a student’s full financial need. This means that while a student may well be admitted to his/her dream college, there is no guarantee that his/her family will find it even remotely affordable. In the end, what your family can afford after any aid is offered to you will determine where you actually attend.
@SouthFloridaMom9, I can’t say I understand how you came to that conclusion.
If the kid has a clear number 1 (or a school they would be happy to attend with no regrets off forgoing other schools), I don’t see how giving up ED (which at some schools could give a big bump, though again, that varies by school) is beneficial.
@PurpleTitan - it’s not a conclusion, just a question. Maybe I misunderstood the original premise.
I guess I had the impression that top qualified applicants would be selected in the ED process, regardless of need (and many colleges say they are “need blind” in the admissions process anyway). But hypothetically, if you are a full pay student with acceptable credentials (maybe not the creme-de-la-creme of the applicant pool but still decent) and the school reaches the RD round and says “hey, we need some full pay students in here” would you then have a better chance applying RD because you can pay sticker price?
I’m finding it hard to believe that would be the case myself, was just trying to tease out any further thoughts on the matter.
@SouthFloridaMom9, there is one school I know of that is need-blind & meet-full-need in ED but not in RD: CMU.
Tufts and maybe a few others (GWU?) are need-blind for most admits, but not the last few spots. That’s probably true for some other privates in that range of wealth/endowment (Miami?)
At those elites with big endowments, being full-pay almost certainly won’t be an advantage (so you really should ED).
Do look to see what the admit rate is for ED and RD as well. If the admit rate is twice as high for ED as for RD, I really doubt that waiting until RD would be more advantageous to you even if you are full-pay.
@PurpleTitan , I don’t know about some of the other schools, but the Tufts approach to need-awareness I believe really hits non-hooked applicants who need financial aid. They rank applicants in 4 groups, consider all the applicants in the top two groups (at least half), dole out financial aid to the hooked students to meet their athletic and student-mix needs, and only then consider other applicants needing financial aid. At least that is my best understanding.
I definitely agree with the OP - I think that is basically how it works at almost all “need blind” schools. I think they are TRULY need blind in the ED/EA round of admissions, but after that, “ability to pay” definitely becomes a factor.
I’ve spend a lot of time looking at the financial aid data on IPEDS, and for most schools the amount of institutional aid is remarkably consistent year to year - both in the number of incoming students receiving aid and the total amount awarded. And when you do see a change, that change tends to carry over into succeeding years. There is basically no way that happens so consistently if the admissions committee isn’t considering ability to pay as a criteria at some stage.
Actually I think it is the opposite. I think most colleges are need-aware. Need-sensitive is another term I have heard used (by admissions counselors). Of course in the admissions process I doubt that admissions knows precise figures, like X student will need X amount of $. Some schools are said to have a certain number of spots for high performing kids, then successful candidates from the remaining pool would be prioritized according to whether they apply for financial aid. And even zip codes and which high schools are attended can give an idea of an income bracket.
An above point was made that just bc you are offered admission does not mean you are given 100% aid of demonstrated need…or that the school defines “need” in a way that is still affordable to your family without loans, etc.
I have no idea how this relates to athletics, but if you are a top student with high stats and severe need, it is a good idea to form a strategy where you mix more selective, need-blind schools which meet 100% need with schools where you are in the top quarter of applicants and you have a chance at a nice merit aid package.