<p>This is just my personal viewpoint, but I believe it has its basis in fact. Just my musings on these hot-button issues. Feel free to correct me on any erroneous statements and voice your opinion. If you're going to make a claim or counterlcaim, please give some facts to support your argument.</p>
<p>Need-Aware Institutions
True, there are some organizations that claim to be "Need-Blind", but there really is no such thing (with the exception of the US Air Force and Armed Forces). Even if colleges do not see how much aid you need, they still no whether or not you need aid when you apply. There is a box on every application or pre-application data sheet that asks, "Will you be applying for financial aid?" It's even on Stanford's application, and they boast about their "completely need-blind financial aid." We'll use Stanford for this example because they're very proud of this fact.</p>
<p>Fact<em>1: 36% of Stanford students for the class of 2009 did not even apply for financial aid, and 53% were judged to not need aid.
Fact</em>2: Combind this with the information in Stanford's financial aid handbook, and you will find that the average Stanford student has an income of well over 115,000USD.
Fact*2: Combined again with the information in the handbook, we learn that the average Stanford applicant who does need aid has an income of roughly $80,000. This places the vast majority of students at Stanford in the ultimate or penultimate US income bracket.
Fact: People from rich families are more likely to be rich later on in life. I have no prevailing statistics for this fact, but I'm sure most of you know this is logically true. Debate it if you want to. This also accounts for the reason some colleges care about Legacy.</p>
<p>So you have extremely qualified applicant A, who does not need financial aid, and extremely qualified applicant B, who needs a substantial amount. The college investment works both ways. You not only invest in the school (both financially and with four years of your life), but the school invests in you. They hope to build up their alumni network with the best on the brightest, who may then donate back to their nourishing mother and increase its endowment and prestige. Do you think the numbers above are coincidence?</p>
<p>Student A is a far more sure investment than Student B. The problem is, there are a handful of highly selective, highly prestigious universities out there. Around 25-30 "Big-Name" colleges all competing for these students. There simply aren't enough qualified and rich students for a single university to meet its admissions goal. Ceteris paribus, why not admit a highly qualified student who you know has a better chance of being successful later in life? Fill up the rest of the class with people who need aid, based on how much their merits are worth. </p>
<p>So yes, statistically, not needing aid is an advantage in the college admissions process. With tuition hikes, these universities accept more students who can pay full tuition so they can spend that money to give half-rides to students who otherwise could not even consider the school. With the growing number of qualified applicants growing, I don't see tuition going down anytime soon. You can't blame a business for trying to ensure its financial security.</p>
<p>*1: <a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3387&profileId=2%5B/url%5D">http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3387&profileId=2</a>
*2: <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/pdf/06FAOhdbook.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/pdf/06FAOhdbook.pdf</a></p>
<p>Affirmative Action
Before I begin, let me just say, whenever I argue the merits of affirmative action, the "they would have gotten in even without it" argument comes up. This puzzles me greatly. Why, then, do they emply affirmative action?*3</p>
<p>Personally, it would be fair if it were done on income and average income of the area of your residence. A white kid from The Bronx is as equally disadvantaged as a black kid from The Bronx, but they don't get the preferential treatment. I find it sad.</p>
<p>But the point I want to make is you have to stop complaining. A university is a business like any other, and they are also subject to lawsuits. Let's say colleges were to drop affirmative action (ie. for the purposes of this example, forbid students to mention their race on the application). Now, assume that black or hispanic admission rates are halved by this. We now have a breeding ground for lawsuits and negative attention that these universities want to avoid. Now, the pecentage decrease in the number of URMs is shocking, but the respective increase in the number of whites/asians/orms is almost negligible. It's a small, small sacrifice for security. It may not be fair, but it works. </p>
<p>*3: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Results%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Results</a></p>
<p>I really wanted to type a lot more, but I'm tired now. Maybe I'll pick up later.</p>