<p>in our case we did exactly opposite to evil_robot. Same place, same offer. We figured, if our son could have shown that we were 'poor', he could have gone to any place. It is not his fault that he was born in a frugal family with old age parents that have saved and don't have that many years to replenish their assets. Why should we deny him the opportunities? Is it worth it? We have no idea and we will never find out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the other hand, there are currently programs disguised as "merit" scholarships that do take in to account the financial need of a student when they claim not to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought that Shapiro's most fascinating pricing structure was one that attempts to predict the likelihood of a high-stat kid enrolling and adjusting the merit discount accordingly. Thus, a high stat kid who has shown a lot of interest (long-distance visits, etc.) will be offered less merit discount than a high-stat kid less likely to enroll without an an inducement. Based on the incredible efficiency of Emory's computer-based contact tracking mechanism, I suspect that they have actually implemented this kind of sophisticated modelling of their applicant pool.</p>
<p>so--- is this a suggestion that demonstrating interest can be counterproductive?</p>
<p>Let's not forget that Evil Robot made his decisions after spending a weekend at Vandy and liking the school very much. The fact that Vandy wanted HIM may have played as much a role as the financial help. He probably would have been extremely happy at Yale, but everything points to the conclusion that he made a wise choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hadn't given much thought to price discounting for those that could afford to pay.
[/quote]
Many years back, I attended an alum session at an elite LAC where a related topic was discussed. The premise was that the actual cost to educate one student at such a college exceeded even the full tuition. Ergo, everyone is being subsidized. The question then was whether to charge the full cost to the select few who could afford it (Mr. and Mrs. GotRocks). The college's conclusion, and I gathered it was the prevailing opinion in many high-endowment colleges and universities, was that the schools are better off offering the subsidy/discount and enticing these families and alums to become major donors.</p>
<p>This is probably an effective strategy for them. Now, the contributions these well-off subsidized or discounted alums make can be used to benefit others just like them in the future, and/or to provide need-based aid. This was, in fact, a need-blind no-gap institution, at least at the time.</p>
<p>Back in the "bad ol' days" (you know, when companies were growing and needed considerably more than just the best and brightest) there was a slogan - "To get a good job get a good education." Education was cheap so the challenge was getting kids to consider college rather than simply going to work after H.S. like their parents and grandparents.</p>
<p>My how times have changed. Colleges and universities who attract top 5% students are considered unworthy by many top 2% high schoolers. Students with 1550 SATs ask "Should I retake them?" Is it any surprise college adminstrators and financial aid officers have gotten caught up in all this? Case Western (I think) offers a full tuition scholarship on the condition that the recipient maintains a 3.5 GPA. No pressure there --- just don't take on anything challenging, because no "A" no scholarship. Is this what we want college to be? And yet I can't blame Case, because they are simply responding to the demands of the market. About the best we consumers can do is figure where the best opportunities are and choose wisely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It won't necessarily help you to be elected in Kansas if you were in Yale's Skull and Bones; it may even lead to reverse discrimination of the kind that overqualified people encounter or that leads Harvard students to mutter that they go to school "in the Boston area."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's something of a myth, marite. HY grads get the top white glove firm offers and tend to be the pillars of society in the midwest. That was my experience sitting on a board in the midwest. However, if a student couldn't get into HY, then, for example, the local law school makes more sense than a 3rd tier law school on either coast. The 'presitge' factor changes for grad school, slightly.</p>
<p>The South and Texas might be different.</p>
<p>Cheers, I have seen this reverse discrimination even on the east coast. It depends on the job at hand and who is hiring. There are some who absolutely do not want an ivy league kid on board for a number of reasons. In some careers it is much better to have gone through a state program--public school teaching is one that comes to mind. In fact, any of the administrative positions with the public schools are heavy with state and loal college graduates. Private school folk need not apply. I have seen a number of them do so and they are very often passed over for the locals.</p>
<p>Interesting....isn't Teach for America loaded with Ivy grads? </p>
<p>I will qualify and say that for law, medicine, science, investment banking, university teaching jobs and architecture--an Ivy/Stanford undergrad or grad degree is a huge asset in the midwest.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.charlotte.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/10876061.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.charlotte.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/10876061.htm</a>
This article is about a show down in the boardroom between brand name school(Stanford, Ivy league of the West) vs non-Ivy(Berkeley).
HP is one of the biggest companies in high tech and this story is very recent.</p>
<p>Cheers:</p>
<p>I said "elected" not hired. In Boston politics, it has been said time and again that it is better to come out of BC Law school than Harvard Law School. I know scholarly organizations that actively seek out people who are not from HYP--just to show they are not elitist. Even in the legal field, it is better to have graduated from the state's law school than from a fancy, out-of-state one, since 95% of cases involve state laws.</p>
<p>We're seeing an alarming trend. Families now have two lists: academic reach/match/safety and financial reach/match/safety. They just pray there are one or two points of intersection. All of this uncertainty is leading to longer lists, more applications, longer waitlists, more anxiety.</p>
<p>My prediction is that mid-to-low-tier colleges are going to start offering guaranteed aid upfront in exchange for an ED commitment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Families now have two lists: academic reach/match/safety and financial reach/match/safety. They just pray there are one or two points of intersection.
[/quote]
You got it. Some of us even take it a step further and have absolute ,"if I died or became disabled where can my kid go to school?" schools. I don't even know what to call that, catastrophic safety I guess. We have them. I suggest everyone should, no matter their present circumstances. I have found a few schools -none that you would write home about-mostly regional state schools that would give D a full-ride if her current stats were to continue. I think everyone should have one, and apply to it-just in case.</p>
<p>Thanks for the articles, InterestedDad...I've printed them out.</p>
<p>This was an absolutely fascinating thread, starting with the original article.</p>
<p>The article from the guy from Williams was interesting.</p>
<p>My question: if you really had a true liberal "arts" school that only did rudimentary science and cut out all the fancy buildings, couldn't you have vastly reduced tuition which would still allow for all the writing, smallness and close teacher student interaction that is usually what is most touted by the LAC's. It seems that trying to be mini-universities is what makes them so expensive.</p>
<p>The implications of Shapiro's thinking are, of course, rather staggering, and you can actually see them being played out today, in two ways. The first is the implication that you would want as many full-fare (or close to full-fare) customers as possible, only stooping to discounting to the extent that doing so keeps the institution an interesting, exciting place (whether that means better football players, different color faces, or smarter students with higher needs) for the benefit of higher paying customers. This is being played out at Williams and many other Ivies and prestige LACs even as we speak. I am pretty sure that there is a lower percentage of students at Williams receiving need-based financial aid these days than there were 30 years ago, and, of those, a higher proportion receiving small awards. I know that the percentage of Pell Grantees has dropped in the past decade (as it has at HYP).</p>
<p>The second is that the sticker price will be allowed to rise faster than costs so that the "subsidy" for each student is cut. Folks with the dollars seem to be willing to pay full sticker price anyway, and paying a higher price increases, rather than decreases, prestige. There is no evidence that raising sticker prices results in fewer alumni donations down the road (if anything, it is counterintuitive.) And it is obvious that the market will bear it, as folks keep lining up to pay (and, if they opened seats for auction, I'm sure many folks would be happy to pay a premium.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you really had a true liberal "arts" school that only did rudimentary science
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That wouldn't be a liberal arts college.</p>
<p>The term "liberal arts" includes studying math and science. The liberal arts curriculum dates back to the Medieval European universities of the 12th and 13th century. The "liberal" refers to the fact that only free men (members of the elite ruling class) received this type of education. The orginal liberal arts curriculum at these universities consisted of seven core disciplines: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music theory, grammar, logic and rhetoric. It did not include vocational skills because the ruling elite class was not expected to do manual labor. They were ruling elites.</p>
<p>Today, you can't have a liberal arts curriculum without roughly equal components of math/science, social sciences, and humanities. The two defining characteristics are this broad exploration across a wide range of subjects and the lack of specifically "vocational" courses (accounting, business, nursing, etc.). The point is to provide a broad background of knowledge and, more importantly, the skills to study, learn, analyze, and communicate effectively, regardless of the subject.</p>
<br>
<p>if they opened seats for auction, I'm sure many folks would be happy to pay a premium</p>
<br>
<p>I've often thought about this possibility for HYPSM. Suppose that with the application, a parent could submit a sealed bid for the seat. Once the college has made the initial cut, eliminating students who can't handle the academics, it looks at all the qualified candidates, and admits (let's say) the ten students with the highest bids. The remaining 2000 (or however many) seats in the class are allotted need-blind, just as they are now. All the admitted students would receive identical fat envelopes on the same day, and no one but the parent and the admissions office would know that a bid had been accepted. The ten auctioned seats then, in effect, fund a substantial portion of the rest of the class.</p>
<p>I don't expect to ever see this system, but it would make sense in some ways...let the richest families pay as much as it's worth to them.</p>
<p>Hey Mini:</p>
<p>In keeping with your ideas on aid-aware need-blind admissions, I thought you'd get a kick out of this quote from the Williams Admissions Director in the Record this week:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nesbitt said that as Williams is need-blind, the admission staff does not review financial declarations made by families. Instead, they look at zip codes and the level of parental education to estimate socio-economic status of families when making admissions decisions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know how these colleges can keep a straight face, sometimes. Yes, we are need-blind, but we look your zip code demographics before deciding to admit you or not! Oh, an it is just coincidence that the percentance of students qualifying for finanical aid this year is the same as it was last year.....</p>
<p>They don't -- the present system is far less efficient, because there is no quid pro quo. Donors don't get any promises, other than friendly treatment. If their goal in donating is simply to get the kid in the door, then it stands to reason that they'd pay more if they were actually bidding on an available seat than if they're just currying favor in hopes of getting friendly treatment. This would be a hard bargain on the table: if you kid meets XYZ minimum standards, and your bid is highest, the kid gets in.</p>