<p>Princeton is also loan-free.</p>
<p>But it hasn't resulted in either more low-income folks being accepted, or more of them choosing to attend. (The problem -- if one thinks there is one -- is in the Admissions Office, not the financial aid one.)</p>
<p>You're right, Sybbie. Anyone applying to "reaches/super reaches" should realize that they are just that, and that for this student without SATs/SAT IIs and a completed junior year, there is a lot still to be added to the picture. I like your Plan B, Plan C. Safeties, matches, reaches.</p>
<p>mini - are you serious!? Are you saying that Admission to Princeton University is hardly as need-blind as they claim? That low-income applicants are at a distinct disadvantage? Perhaps the 8% is because of Princeton's preppy image that would put a lot of low-income families off? Combine that with the fact that Princeton accepts about half it's class Early Decision, whilst most LI applicants prefer to wait for Regular Decision to compare aid packages - and Princeton's Regular Admission acceptance rate is a mere 8%. Could that be the cause behind such a low number of LI students?</p>
<p>I am saying a wide combination of factors causes Princeton to have one of the highest "entitlement" indices in the country, and among the lowest in number of Pell Grant recipients. Yes, I am saying - forthrightly and outfront - that they are not "needblind" - and I am saying the same for every top 50 college and university in the country. They don't need to look at your need per se - they can look at your zip code; your ECs; your essays; the schools you attended. They are not needblind when it comes to admissions officer trips and visits and solicitations. They are not needblind when they look at developmental admits and legacies. (nor should they be, in my judgment.) And they don't need to know the financial status of each individual applicant in order to end up with a class, year after year, which looks essentially the same (economically speaking). The chances of that happening statistically, if they were truly "needblind", quickly approach zero, and they know it.</p>
<p>If Princeton has a very small number of low-income students, it is because they CHOOSE to have a very small number of low-income students. They can make other choices if they wish, and they choose not to. Making other choices will cost them time, energy, and money, and a long-term commitment (all of which has to start in the Admissions Office, not the financial aid one). Hey, it's their college, and they are entitled to make any choices they darn please - but let's not make believe that they don't make them.</p>
<p>It might also be mentioned that 47% of this year's class at Princeton is receiving aid and that 55% are from public schools, 35% from private. How does this compare to the other top universities, like Yale and Harvard? Similar, I believe. The top universities are in a position to accept the top students. That we have socio-economic education problems in this country is sad, true, and not only on the shoulders of the top universities to solve, although they are making strides, including major changes in aid policies in recent years. </p>
<p>Gianievve brings up a good point about perceptions, and Princeton seems to be addressing that. The new Dean of Admissions as well as the new Provost (so the administration) both are aiming to reach those who may not know as much about Princeton. Mini's right, it takes commitment. They've got the education to offer and the aid to make it possible. Don't forget that Princeton has a lot of Division I teams for a relatively small school, but they are increasing class size by 125 for four years, starting next year I think, so there will be more "slots" available. I guess we'll have to stay tuned over the next few years, to see who fills them!</p>
<p>"That we have socio-economic education problems in this country is sad, true, and not only on the shoulders of the top universities to solve, although they are making strides, including major changes in aid policies in recent years."</p>
<p>I don't think they should be responsible for solving the socio-economic problems of the country at all! (at least through admissions) But I do think they shortchange the education of their students -- ALL of their students (espeically the rich ones) -- when the student community is so economically undiverse.</p>
<p>Take it as a given that they are not needblind. When's the last time anyone heard the kid of a parent who gave $20 mil being rejected? Once you take that for granted, the rest is just a matter of degree.</p>
<p>It took Amherst a full decade (and millions of dollars, and an entire retraining of their admissions office) to get their percentage of Pell Grant recipients up to 15.6%. Princeton's is roughly half that (Harvard's is lower.) It will take lots of time, energy, and commitment to change that if they choose. To give you a sense of scale, Princeton - with its huge endowment - spent $41 on aid to undergrads last year. Smith, with an endowment less than a tenth the size, and a student about half the size, spent $32 mil (or roughly 80% as much). This is not counting the changes that had to be made in the admissions office. Princeton has simply chosen not to spend much - and that choice is made in the admissions office, not the financial aid one.</p>
<p>Princeton went loan-free, and it hasn't made one iota of difference thus far in who is attending.</p>
<p>It should also be mentioned that providing small amounts of financial to folks at the top end of the economic scale (below the top 5% of the population, but above the 85% line) has no effect whatsoever on the admissions or yield of low-income students. It simply makes a school more competitive for upper income students who might otherwise have better offers elsewhere. It is the Pell Grant number that, in the main, reflects the Admissions Office's commitment to economic diversity.</p>
<p>Anyhow - don't take this as a bashing of Princeton - it is not much different elsewhere. (both Yale and Brown have higher "entitlement" indices.)</p>
<p>Thanks for the input so far. everyone.</p>
<p>So to sum it all up. This seems like the collective opinion of most people who responded: " you dont have a good chance at all and even if u did get in you would not be able to afford it." Did I get that right? I heard Amherst and some other liberal arts schools mentioned, what else would u recommend for me?</p>
<p>"you dont have a good chance at all and even if u did get in you would not be able to afford it"</p>
<p>We are not saying that at all as everyone who applies has a chance. We just want you to be realistic about the fact that 13,000 will apply for 1166 spots, so yes a lot of people are going to walk away disappointed. Go into this with your eyes open that after slots are given to legacies, developmental kids, recruited athletes, and URMs this may make up 40% of the admitted class. Factor in also that almost one half of the class is accepted during ED, where you say if you are admitted you will attend (for the most part, money is not an issue that will keep you from attending)</p>
<p>There are no concrete answers because the schools put to gether a class which changes from year to year and no one has a way of knowing exactly what the admission committees are looking for.</p>
<p>Since you are dealing with hypotheticals, and not facts, no one really has a concrete answer which to give you. All we are saying as parents is that students really need to make informed decisions and do a lot of research (which is why I posted the common data set for you so that you can have a snapshot of the facts as they come from the school not what anyone thinks.) </p>
<p>The reality is that the Ivies cost upward of $40,000 per year and there is no such thing as a "Free-ride". The Ives meet 100% of your demonstrated need as they see it not what you think you and your family can afford to pay.</p>
<p>Your EFC (expected family contribution) will be the amount
of $ which your parents will have to come up with and some money $2-3,000, you will have to earn with a summer job in addition having work study.</p>
<p>for example Princeton's $40,000
may break down as follows</p>
<p>EFC- between $3,000 (10%) and 6000(20%) (based on the $30,000 you stated your mother makes) Your mother will have to come up with this money. If she doesn't have it she will have to take out a PLUS (parent's loan)</p>
<p>$2,000 (summer Earnings) If your don't work, the school is not going to give you the $ to make up the balance.</p>
<p>Your need will be approximately $35000</p>
<p>At Princeton if will be broken down as a combination of Pell grant, scholarship and workstudy. There would be nothing worse than getting into the school of your dreams and even having them meet 100% OF YOUR DEMONSTRATED NEED find that you can not afford to attend. Whether it is princeton or any other school, I beg you to do your homework and research the admissions and Financial aid process.</p>
<p>At the end of the day we wish you and every other applicant well, but we also know that almost 90% of the applicant pool is goign to be rejected (not because the students are not qualified because EVERY student who applies will most likely be qualified) As I said before it would be a disservice if we were less than honest with you or anyone else (Which is the main reason that most of the parents don't want to do chances, because if we are not saying what you want to hearyou think you are being slammed). However we are giving this same talk to our own kids.</p>
<p>My take on the whole thing is if that Princeton is what you really want spend the $65 and go for it. What is the worse that can happen, if you get rejecte, they will not bring you back to publicly stone you.</p>
<p>PandyDandy, Princeton is the type of school that rejects validictorians with 1600 SATs. That's what you're up against. So sure...if Princeton is your dream school, go ahead and apply. But you've got to accept that you're unlikely to be accepted (as is the case for 90% of those who apply) and find some match schools that will make you happy also. I wouldn't put Swat and Amhurst in the match column for you. They're almost as difficult to get into as Princeton. What I find interesting thing your list is that it includes Princeton, Reed and U of Chicago. Princeton is one of the most conservative ivies - always has been. Chicago is known for being intense, serious and intellectual - with nobel prize winners everywhere you turn. Reed also has the reputation for being a very intellectual, rigorous environment that turns out more future PhDs per capita than any college in the U.S. (except CalTech, I think). It's also known for off-beat students and a left-leaning political climate. Every one of these schools is excellent - it's just that they're so different! If you like Princeton, you might like Colgate, Davidson, Dartmouth (reach), Middlebury (reach), Tufts, Hamilton, Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Northwestern. If you like Reed, you might like Oberlin, Grinnell, Macalester, Carleton. Since you're looking for financial aid, you may need to shoot for schools where you will be at the top of the class to get the best award. You've definitely got what it takes to be accepted at a really fine school - and your first year shouldn't hurt you. Good luck.</p>
<p>Thanks. All those colleges sound great! I'll definitely look into every one of them for sure. Also, thank u for begin really honest and realistic with me and for providing me with very thoughtful responses. I greatly appreciate it. :)</p>
<p>Pandy, you may want to investigate some honors programs too, especially if you do really well on your SATs (admission to these often has to do with SAT scores, not that SATs are the only criteria). There is a thread on this forum about honors programs, and you'll probably find others if you search.</p>
<p>"I live in California and Princeton is in New Jersey. never again in my life I do see myself having the opportunity to live outside the state and experience things like walking through snow and what not lol (life's simple pleasers)."</p>
<p>Whether or not you get into Princeton, if you choose, you can have the opportunity to live outside of the state and experience snow.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You can look for exchange programs that many colleges have that allow you to spend a semester at a college in another part of the US.</p></li>
<li><p>Regardless of where you go as a freshman in college, you can choose to transfer.</p></li>
<li><p>You can apply to some of the hundreds of schools outside of Calif. where you have good chances of getting accepted. While the odds are overwhelmingly not in your favor for getting into Princeton, there are many schools that could be good match or safety schools for you.</p></li>
<li><p>After graduation, wherever you choose to go to college, you could look for a job out of state.</p></li>
<li><p>You also could plan to apply to graduate school out of state.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In addition, there are plenty of other things you could do to experience snow, etc. Save your $ and travel. Plan to participate in "Teach for Ameria" are just 2 suggestions.</p>
<p>If you think that Princeton is your only hope for realizing your dreams that's because you aren't considering enough options.</p>
<p>Pandy, I did not mean to give the impression that you had a good chance at Swat or no chance at Princeton - for one thing many of your stats are hypotheticals at this point, AND those Cs and Ds are going to be hard to overcome, very few schools ignore freshman grades these days.
My point with Swarthmore was the same as Topcat's - the atmosphere at the schools on your list is very diverse, you need to be thinking about what is important to you in a college, what you priorities are (like going out of state) and you should work to make the best grades you possibly can. I think you can find a school out of state that you can get into and afford - it just probably isn't going to be Princeton, and based on your list, perhaps shouldn't be Princeton.</p>
<p>To the OP, there are so many wonderful schools where you could experience exciting academics and lovely snow; don't get your heart set on one. If, however, you would like facts on the increase in low-income students at Princeton since loans were eliminated from aid packages, take a look at the following links: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/0920/%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/0920/</a>
"The comparisons between this year's entering class and the class of 2001, the last class admitted before Princeton began instituting its recent financial aid improvements, are even more striking. The number of students on financial aid has increased by 176, or 41 percent, from 432 to 608; the percentage of the class on financial aid has increased from 38 percent to 52 percent; and the number of students from low-income families has increased by 73, or 83 percent, from 88 to 161." </p>
<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/aid/stats.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/pr/aid/stats.html</a></p>
<p>Here is a scholarly paper on the subject: <a href="http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/459.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/459.pdf</a></p>
<p>When comparing total aid awarded by various colleges, be careful to pay attention to whether you are looking at financial aid or merit scholarships.</p>
<p>Looks like an iota to me, Mini. I apologize to Princeton for not recognizing its past accomplishments, as much as I lauded its current efforts.</p>
<p>Apologies also to Pandy for the segues this thread has taken when she only wanted to know if she had "a miniscule chance."</p>
<p>Is it really any surprise that the top universities, having to turn away thousands upon thousands of students, would accept many of those (not to be confused with only those) who have had good teaching, academic rigor and opportunities? Whether or not one feels that these universities should be responsible for helping to solve socio-economic problems, kudos to them when they are part of the solution. It seems that Princeton takes its "In the Nation's Service" seriously as noted in post above detailing financial strides, courtesy of Aparent. It might also be noted that to get at the heart of the matter, other efforts are at work as well. For example, The Princeton Prep Program teaches disadvantaged highschoolers for three summers, with supplementary teaching during the school year. Its graduates have gone on to attend Princeton, Rutgers, Columbia, Bryn Mawr, Penn State, Tulane, Vassar. Teach for America, another fine program and one of Northstarmom's good suggestions, was founded by Wendy Kopp while she was a student at Princeton. And as much as we might wish that MORE students could graduate debt-free from Princeton, I'll bet for those who do, it makes an iota of difference and then some.</p>
<p>While I'm here, I guess I'll add that I don't like the suggestion of socio-economic variety to benefit "especially the rich ones." Though they may have a tip factor, students of lower incomes still have to demonstrate that they are extraordinary students. They aren't there for decoration, they're there for an education. If, in the process of getting that education, they add different perspectives and their own talents, then good for the community. All sorts of variety makes for an interesting place.</p>
<p>"Tough they may have a tip factor, students of lower incomes still have to demonstrate that they are extraordinary students. "</p>
<p>The very poor and very disadvantaged students whom I knew that went to my Ivy alma mater were extraordinary people who had excellent grades, scores definitely within the college's range, and also had achievements that were remarkable for anyone. They also were very highly motivated. </p>
<p>They enriched the college, and continue to enrich society as alumni.</p>