Daughter got accepted, not sure I can afford it

Parents Forum
261

<p>^I believe that the ED pool, in general, is slightly weaker than the RD pool. I think there may be some statistical evidence to back this up, but I’m not sure. In any case, this is usually explained away by tipped athletes; but that doesn’t explain a higher admit rate for EDII in comparison to RD. </p>

<p>I agree that ED pools will be self-selecting–but in the other direction. More full-pay students because they don’t have to worry about FA, and more borderline students who want the admissions boost. The best student, ranked 8 or 9, are likely to pass up ED at a school like Swarthmore because they want to see admissions results from HYPS (none of which have binding early programs).</p>

<p>So let’s say that the RD median score is 5 and the ED median score is 4. For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to discuss only the EDII pool because this will eliminate most recruited athletes and development admits. The college accepts 6-9, with preference for 7+. (This is exactly the same as your scenario except that I’m playing out the lower ED pool.) 8s and 9s are essentially auto-accepts in the ED pool, but there simply aren’t that many of them who make the early commitment. 7s are also, for the most part, accepted. But I believe that some 6s will be accepted as well–not the ones with low grades, but perhaps with less-than-perfect test scores or “ordinary” ECs or some other not-so-fatal flaw–because the college knows that it has to admit 45-50% total through ED, and let’s take a wild estimate of 20% through EDII (my thread from last year on Swarthmore’s EDII admit rate could be useful, if anyone wants to run real numbers).</p>

<p>The RD admit rate is around 16%, EDII around 25%–but the EDII pool is weaker or at best equal. Wealthy full-pay applicants also tend to be strategic and will apply ED to true reaches (though not high reaches), so I don’t see any reason why the ED pool would be stronger. Hence, admissions has to reach deeper into the EDII pool in order to reach its target “locked” enrollment.</p>

<p>In the RD round, the college focuses on yield by taking interest into account. However, I don’t think that most colleges will reject “overqualified” applicants; instead, they try to woo them. In fact, by admitting half the class through ED, Swarthmore has set itself up to deal with a low RD yield. All the 8s and 9s will still be admitted, but most of them won’t attend. 6s and 7s are more likely to attend–but they aren’t better than the 6s and 7s who were picked up in ED. So instead of admitting borderline cases in RD for yield, the college could (I speculate, of course) choose to admit borderline cases in ED for near-perfect yield and accept a very low RD yield on only highly desired applicants. After all, the final yield rate that matters is not RD, but overall.</p>

<p>Moreover, I believe that ED is an institutional priority because–aside from hedging enrollment variations–it also benefits the college to have a portion of its student body guaranteed to be enthusiastic about attending their first choice. And, knowing that the RD pool will be stronger than the ED pool, if a college accepts as deeply as necessary in order to preserve yield, it can focus on admitting only the applicants that it truly wants during RD.</p>

262

<p>

</p>

<p>This simply isn’t true. Admissions directors get reports from the financial aid office about budgetary issues at every stage in the process. One of the most important “institutional priorities” is keeping the college solvent. </p>

<p><a href=“which,%20magically,%20result%20in%20a%20balanced%20budget”>quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that this sort of magical thinking must explain why so many people were fooled by Bernie Madoff. These things don’t happen by magic, they happen through intentional manipulation by the people who have control. </p>

<p>Even at so-called “need-blind” schools, the admissions director is getting reports back from financial aid as to the state of the budget. I’ve looked at stats from Barnard (supposedly need-blind) that show a significant drop in the percentage of admitted freshman getting need awards after the financial meltdown in 2008. </p>

<p>Example:</p>

<p>Percentage of entering freshman getting Barnard-generated aid & average Barnard grant:</p>

<p>2008-2009: 42% - $27,060<br>
2009-2010: 38% - $26,030</p>

<p>I simply don’t believe that with the economic downturn in the fall of 2008, there were fewer students qualifying for need based aid, who needed less grant money on average, seeking spots in the 2009 entering class, especially since there was a 3% increase in COA from 2008 to 2009. But Barnard has a very small endowment and not much flexibility in its aid practices, and the economic downturn would have increased pressure on the financial aid budget from already-enrolled students. </p>

<p>There is no such thing as a 100% “need-blind” college. ALL colleges accept “development” cases (admits done as a favor for large donors), and there are also other ways that colleges can manipulate their admissions, such as by pulling full-pay students from their waitlist. They can give greater weight in admissions to factors that they know are indications of ability to pay (such as participation in costly EC’s) - or they can target recruiting efforts to higher paying demographics. If the school does not promise to meet need of internationals – and most don’t - then they can also admit more international students. </p>

<p>I have no clue what Barnard did to bring down the financial aid numbers for the 2009 entering class. but I don’t believe that it was “magic”. They did admit a much larger number of students ED – the 2008 admitted class had 186 ED admits (27% of the first year class) - the 2009 number was 212 (31% of the entering class). So perhaps that shift was enough to account for the difference.</p>

263

<p>“Admissions directors get reports from the financial aid office about budgetary issues at every stage in the process. One of the most important “institutional priorities” is keeping the college solvent.”</p>

<p>It works differently at some need-aware schools. The adcom admits need-blind until the FA office says STOP when the aid budget is gone, and then only full list payers are admitted. Solvency is maintained.</p>

264

<p>But, any college has multiple masters to satisfy. As evidenced by the 2400-score kids who didn’t get acepted to Yale and Stanford in ED/EA, there is a complex balance of needs to be fulfilled. Some schools need to put students at the expensive new lab benches or find enough French majors to keep tenured professors active. They may need more gals in the STEM program and more guys in the English dept. Depending on the U’s self-image (and funds already sunk into programs, facilities and professors,) there may be a need for kids likely to pursue a theatre EC, fill out the intramural sports teams or study abroad via a well-funded research program. The list is extensive. It’s all what comprises the notion of students likely to contribute to the vibrancy of the school. Add to that, the desire to have a well-rounded, diverse population- in geographic, income, ethnic, racial and other terms.</p>

<p>So, in considering ED applicants, of course, admitting a large number of full-pays is an advantage. But, the kids who can satisfy multiple institutional needs can have an edge of sorts. In addition to locking in a full-pay, it is advantageous to the school to lock in the science major girl who comes from the opposite side of the country, has always played at orchestra level and indicates she would like to continue in college, and has performed extensively in school plays, held leadership positions in some clubs and won an occasional award, even if minor or as part of a team effort. Let’s also say she has stress-tested herself through rigorous APs. Whatever patchwork image we create, this is just an example of the “holistic” approach adcoms often take. Perhaps this gal is borderline in her stats. Nonetheless, if she presents a picture of likely to “fit and thrive” at that school, engage in campus life, if she meets several needs on the adcoms’ check lists, she may, in fact, be a great admit. </p>

<p>And, if this gal needs financial aid, there is no reason to presuppose the FA folks will gyp her. She’s a good buy. A worthy investment. And, she committed to enroll if the aid is sufficient.</p>

<p>Would she have an equal chance in RD? We can’t pick numbers out of the sky, so let’s use Swarthmore’s. Out of 5575 applications total, 969 were admitted. Of these, 497applied ED and 166 were admitted. That’s an overall rate of 17% versus 33% for ED (from their own CDS records pdf on their web site.) Even if we assume some wildcards/legacies/faculty kids (and those full-pays) in the ED pool, this kid who has committed to matriculate is a good bet. And, on her side, she is not competing against 5077 other RD-ers.</p>

<p>Swat also indicates 277 of the overall admitted applicants asked for aid. Common sense suggests some number were in the ED pool. The college is working to its own advatage when it accepts kids who fit multiple needs of the institution, even if their stats are less strong and even if they require aid.</p>

265

<p>calmom - You misunderstand what I mean by magic. The director of admissions receives reports, I’m sure, and then tells his officers what demographics to emphasize. And voila, like magic, emphasizing those demographics results in less FA spent. It is much less direct than, for example, admitting more black people to raise the African-American percentage. In contrast, need-aware not-full-need schools like Franklin & Marshall will note exactly how much money each student costs, which plays a role in the admissions decisions.</p>

<p>

OK. There’s no such thing as “100% need-blind,” but there IS just plain regular “need-blind.” All of the methods you’ve mentioned are indirect ways to control financial aid, which is important for any college; but “need-blind” implies that a given applicant is not rejected because s/he has too-high need (and is not extremely desirable for other reasons), and that remains an important distinction to make.</p>

266

<p>It’s a zero sum game. If the spot is gone because the need-aware school has run out of aid dollars, or if the spot is gone because at the need-blind school because the director of admission decided to increase marketing efforts at elite prep schools and increase ED the number of ED slots by 10%… the spot is still gone.</p>

267

<p>^Ah, but if ED slots are increased by 10%, that makes room for the borderline high-need student as well as the borderline full-pay student–especially if the high-need student doesn’t fit stereotypical demographics for high-need (e.g. not first-gen or living in a “poor” zip code).</p>

268

<p>Sorry, I just don’t buy into the concept that any unhooked “borderline” students are being admitted ED. ED is a program utilized by a richer demographic to start with – students attending private high schools or highly competitive public magnets, or students who have private counselors. It’s not even on the radar for most kids attending public high schools – certainly their counselors are not steering them in that direction.</p>

269

<p>Here’s another option to consider: have your D defer enrollment for 1 year. In this year, she would need to work a job or jobs and apply all earnings toward her educational costs. Frankly, I think she needs to understand how hard it is to earn $48,000 ** after taxes ** to pay that college.</p>

<p>Also during this year, formulate another list of colleges to apply to. This time with more emphasis on affordability, but also retaining high quality. There are huge lists of schools on this forum which offer merit scholarships. Sometimes these are large dollar amounts (range of $25,000/year). Make sure she visits these potential affordable schools, to have a basis for selecting whether the original Dream School is really any better and also whether it’s worth the additional cost. After next years acceptance results come in, then make the decision about the Dream School vs the affordable options.</p>

<p>There is no reason she could not attend an Ivy for grad school by going the affordable route.</p>

<p>It would not be suprising if after working some jobs for a year that her outlook on her major changes.</p>

<p>We all learn by going through this process. In retrospect, it would have been better if she had some merit scholarship private schools on her list this year.</p>

270

<p>^^What does public/private have to do with borderline admits? I agree that ED trends private/selective public, and upper-income in general. But private schools have their share of borderline unhooked students. Scholarship students, for example. And at selective public magnets, there are a surprising number of lower/middle-middle income students who would receive significant financial aid, along with the savvy counseling that might lead them to apply ED. Not THAT many, of course–not enough to change the general trend of the ED pool–which is why ED benefits the few who do apply and need FA, because they are then treated as if they were full-pay.</p>

271

<p>My point it that the ED pools are stronger because the vast majority of of kids at regular public schools have no clue what ED is and do not have college advisors even suggesting the idea to them. So they don’t use ED strategically to improve chances to get into better schools – they simply submit their applications in the RD round. Further, because of weaker or nonexistent college advising, they tend to misjudge their competitive chances. They often make choices simply based on info in college viewbooks and brochures, so the top colleges are going to get a significant number of applicants who simply aren’t in the running during the RD rounds, especially given the ease of submitting multiple applications via the common app. That’s why I think that RD pools are probably weaker as a whole than ED pools. </p>

<p>Here’s what I don’t get. I’m assuming that you had a strong high school academic record – your SAT scores were well within range for Swarthmore – pretty much right at the median. So obviously YOU weren’t a “borderline” applicant — you clearly had the right stuff to be admitted. Do you know how many students applied ED II? I think you’ve posted that ED II at your school had a 20-25% acceptance rate, compared to maybe a 16% RD rate. If hypothetically there were 100 students applying ED II, then the marginal difference in acceptance rate would mean that perhaps 7 kids are getting in ED II when statistically they wouldn’t get in competing in the larger RD pool. (The other 16 would be accepted either way). </p>

<p>You seem to think those 7 are “borderline” kids who wouldn’t have as strong a chance of admission RD. I don’t think an elite school like Swarthmore has to accept any borderline students, ever – I think they might take someone who is underqualified academically because of a hook (recruited athlete, wealthy donor parents) – but among unhooked applicants, they have more than enough to choose from at any stage. While I am sure that there probably are many borderline applicants in the ED pool, I don’t think that number in any way approaches 75% – which is what it would have to be, because the ad com is NOT going to pass over a well-qualified applicant in the ED pool to take in a less qualified applicant. I mean… why on earth would they do that? They still have a limited number of spots.</p>

<p>That’s why I think ED favors the strong but unremarkable student, and not the “borderline” student. By “unremarkable” I simply mean that the application is unremarkable – nothing in the essay or LOR’s or list of EC’s to make the applicant stand out from the pack. Those are the applicants who have the most to gain by a statistically less selective process.</p>

272

<p>“That’s why I think ED favors the strong but unremarkable student, and not the “borderline” student.”</p>

<p>Strong, unremarkable, borderline. I think we’re over-analyzing the issue now. If any adcoms are listening, they must be chuckling! :)</p>

273

<p>Just tossing this in… Friends son was a legacy at Stanford.(But no real donations not even $500 here an there) played water polo (father played for Stanford) but was not recruited by the coach, as in couch did not give him an early read envelope(pink btw) He intended to apply EA, but once coach saw his stats/ec’s etc. fall of senior year he told him no way he would be admitted EA- that was the strongest pool or recruited athletes (early read, not just coach interested, but not willing to use his # of early read recruits) He told him his only chance would be RD perhaps he could talk to admission then. So for Stanford EA is the best/brightest and most talented, even for Stanford.</p>

274

<p>Vossron, I think there’s a reason the finaid officer who pops up periodically on CC to offer legit clarification, has remained silent on this thread.</p>

<p>Anyone can suggest a hypothetical rating system and argue within its tenets. It’s selective reasoning- a legit philosophical exercise, but not necessarily of any real world value.</p>

<p>Swat’s web site includes it’s response to the common data set questionnaire for 2009-2010. 497 ED apps, 166 admitted. That’s 33% versus 17.4 overall. One can argue that 7 or 17 or 27 were borderline. And, that the bulk were rich kids with super GCs or athletes, URMs, legacies or development favors. But, we do not know.</p>

275

<p>Calmom - “Borderline” and “unremarkable” are one and the same for me. Perhaps the borderline student has a 1400 SAT, but a real passion for [fill in the blank]. Perhaps the borderline student has 1550 SATs but only founded one club and didn’t do anything else outside of school.</p>

<p>The vast majority of kids at regular public schools aren’t going to apply to Swarthmore. They don’t know about liberal arts colleges. And of the few who do, I believe that a not-insignificant minority will throw in an ED app just because it’s their favorite school–without, unfortunately, carefully researching the financial side other than maybe calling the college’s FA office. Then there are a bunch of polished private-school apps–the just-below-top students who aren’t aiming for Ivies, but whose counselors tell them that they just might have a shot at top LAC X or private university Y if they apply ED. Some of these kids will need aid; they can’t ALL be full-pay, just as most all of the top private high schools have SOME scholarship students.</p>

<p>For Swarthmore, using mostly 2013 stats:
EDI - 41-44%
EDII - 20-25%
RD - (969-165)/(5575-493) = 16%
Overall - 17%</p>

<p>Sources:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/swarthmore/831548-historical-edi-edii-stats.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/swarthmore/831548-historical-edi-edii-stats.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/documents/admissions/CLASS2013.pdf[/url]”>http://www.swarthmore.edu/documents/admissions/CLASS2013.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
[Class</a> of 2013 Starts to Take Shape :: The Daily Gazette](<a href=“daily.swarthmore.edu domain has changed”>daily.swarthmore.edu domain has changed)</p>

<p>For the class of 2013, 191 students applied EDII to Swarthmore. In the same year, 20.4% of EDII applicants were accepted, versus 15.8% of RD applicants. And most of the athletes would have applied during EDI, which has a commensurately higher acceptance rate.</p>

<p>OlympicLady - EA is a different beast altogether, since it binds only the college, not the applicant. The strongest students will usually apply EA to Stanford or Yale (not both, because of SCEA) if either school is in serious consideration.</p>

276

<p>

</p>

<p>RD also sweeps up all the applicants who just didn’t have things together enough to submit an app by Nov 1. Many, many students, especially those who have poor college advising, are still putting together a list of schools at that point. They haven’t spent the summer brainstorming essay topics, they haven’t set up Common App accounts, and they’re still trying to schedule SAT sittings. Even some excellent students who are strong contenders at top colleges get hit by procrastination. </p>

<p>On the other hand, there are students, both weak and strong, who submit applications to tippy-top schools that offer no EA or ED option. Anyone who is hoping for Princeton or Harvard can’t use ED. Some of those applicants will be weak, of course, but the ones who have a real shot are very appealing candidates. I have no idea if one of these forces overwhelms the others, making the RD pool weaker or stronger than the ED pool, or if they pretty much counterbalance. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How about this: In RD, admissions decisions might reach the point near the end where the class is almost filled. There are perhaps a few handfuls of spots left–5, 10, 20–but there are twice as many applicants–10,20,40–where the admissions people just can’t make a final decision. They can only admit half of that small number of students who are academically qualified, who seem to be a good fit, but who don’t have strong enough applications to be easily admitted. Half will get in; the other half won’t. In ED, they’d have a better shot.</p>

277

<p>The ED “slots” run out a lot sooner; there are many more RD slots to hand out.</p>

<p>In other words, by the time Swarthmore gets to those last 10 RD spots --they’ve already admitted roughly 800 RD students – more than triple the total number of ED admits. If a hypothetical college accepts 200 students during ED, and 800 students RD – then each ED applicant is hoping to be selected for 1 of 200 spots, whereas each RD student is aiming for 1 of 800.</p>

278

<p>Using my numbers from the web, close to K’s, also from the web:
1 slot out of 166 available, when 497 applied ED is better than 1 out of 803, when 5575 applied RD.<br>
Nearly five times more kids get in RD. But roughly 11 times more kids are competing.</p>

<p>Again, not suggesting Swat or any good school takes “unremarkable” students. Just suggesting many factors determine what makes a kid worthy. Much more than fitting the high end of average stats.</p>

279

<p>hello everyone, posted on Dec 10 that daughter was accepted ed to first choice, but not to first choice program, so have lots of time to weigh the offers of the other 10 colleges. We chose to submit everything at the same time, meeting the ED decision deadline - so all 11 colleges got the common app at the same time. I think it was very wise. The First choice wanted all the Financial aid/CSS info by Nov 15 (using 2009). She’s received nice packages from at least 3 right off the bat without reviewing FAFSA or CSS. we’ve received letters from others in the top five requesting “more information” so they want our fafsa/css profile too - i guess i will check if they can accept the 2009 numbers with an estimate of 2010 or if i have to get my W2s in a hurry and go with those. In any case, the #1 choice gave her a package and it’s decent, but isn’t a full 4-year scholarship offer - and it’s the most expensive tuition-wise. A highly selective Eastern LAC is one that’s asked for this info and a copy of our 2009 tax return and W2s. I sent those immediately. D is chomping at the bit for to commit to the first choice school and I’m just gritting my teeth. Here’s my thought: i think the other schools that have already committed to her with $ guaranteed for 4 years really want her. I think the LAC is also interested. I think #1 choice doesn’t have to do anything - it gets 10s of thousands of apps per year from families with plenty of $. I’m thinking my D needs to understand this point. How much does the first choice school want her - not enough to commit to 4 years. Food for thought</p>

280

<p>Are you kidding me? You call $32,000 workable? Multiplied by 4 years…a grand total of $128,000, giving up your home, no job, no winning lottery ticket, and you say that your daughter’s prospects for making a grandiose income will not be forthcoming. You are lucky you have good health. I believe you do what you can afford to do. I let my high school seniors (twins) know early on that our State schools provide affordable education. Though I did let my daughter apply to my alma mater which is a $50,000 price tag today and it is ideally her “dream school” she is perfectly aware that even with legacy and merit money it most likely will be out of reach financially. Plug in your coffee pot and wake up!</p>