<p>Let's drift the topic here over a bit to the issue of what a family can do, if the famlly's reality is that the child has some chance (perhaps not a lock) on admission to some selective college, but the family income is definitely below the median income of all families with children enrolled at the college. What colleges are most helpful to apply to in that situation? What's reasonable or unreasonable to say to colleges as part of the application process in that situation?</p>
<p>not too many people have a "lock" on admission to the elites
these days. If you're a low income fam
you'd better make sure that you have a least 3 public
financial safeties on that list. Your local state college,
just in case the kid has to commute. The state flagship,
and one more state college just in case. Maybe if your
stats are high enough you'll get enough to go without
big loans - say over $25,000. Apply early and if the local
states have an honors program make sure you apply.</p>
<p>If you can stretch it, apply to a couple of other
private financial safeties. For an elite candidate,
on the East Coast, places like Gettysburg, Wooster,
Smith, Union, Allegheny will usually be doable
financially. For someone in the 1300, 3.5 range they'll
be around the same price/loans as the better states.</p>
<p>Also make sure your guidance office knows that you
don't have much dough. They often don't get it
and the implications, but they do have access to
local scholarships that can provide a laptop, a
printer, enough to show up with. </p>
<p>Also make sure you ask when you get the package
what the 4 year loan total will be. Full staffords is
a good deal, but unfortunately full staffords and
a 2 grand Perkins has become the norm - that's
around $27,000 - a little high. Some schools will
gap you a bit say the yearly price increase, that's
an extra $6,000 or so and others expect a $2,000
a year student contribution - Places like Lehigh,
Rochester, will meet full need but you'll get nailed
anyway. Stay away from the "masters" colleges,
places like Villanova, Providence, LaSalle etc.</p>
<p>If you're low income you'd better stick to the
states or become very well informed.</p>
<p>What kind of income range and what kind of high-school-level statistics are you thinking about as you give those very specific suggestions? What courses do you think this student would have taken in high school?</p>
<p>I do not like the notion, visible in some (not necessarily in the posts above) that middle class, top GPA, high scorers do not work their little butts off as hard as students from less wealthy families. It is all very relative. Some families are in lower income brackets because there is a stay at home parent who watches very closely over a childs education. I believe it is much easier to soar in a household like that, than in a household with two very busy working parents.</p>
<p>I'm thinking of families in the 30 to 50 thousand income range.
Below 30 there's probably very few candidates and above
50, efc levels start to kick in pretty good - state flagship
territory.</p>
<p>A borderline low income app for elites is around 3.5 gpa
and 1300 sat with some sort of EC. Students should have
taken some honors courses and if possible a couple of AP's.
They need great recs and to visit. And they need someone
knowledgeable involved in the process, a parent, teacher,
counselor. Chances are still probably slim.</p>
<p>The number of financial safeties is declining (actually
moving towards gapping and higher and higher loans or
becoming more difficult to enter - Dickinson, Skidmore)
A lower level LAC may come on strong, offering a
big upfront scholarship if the student goes ED. Then
of course they are gapped and loaned. For students
in the 1300, 3.5 range there's probably 20 to 25
or so private financial safeties at this time.
Low income students are very wary of loans, and
rightfully so. $25,000 is about 200 a month
after college. The other problem is - difficult to take
on more loans for grad school. That's a selling point
for LACs but a tough one if the average loan is $25,000.</p>
<p>Even at that loan rate the college isn't making a lot
of money, $6,500 a year in loans, $1200 or so in EFC,
maybe a small state grant $1000 or so and work study
another $1500. Theyre taking on that student for
$10,000 a year. For schools without sizeable endowment
income that's a losing proposition.</p>
<p>Of course a year of two from now when the demos
change.....</p>
It is all very relative. Some families are in lower income brackets because there is a stay at home parent who watches very closely over a childs education. I believe it is much easier to soar in a household like that, than in a household with two very busy working parents.
[/quote]
Exactly. Most so called 'well off' family are actually double income family, its double edges, and no edge actually benefits the in college eduction for their kids.</p>
<p>speedo says:
"They need great recs and to visit."</p>
<p>That visiting part can be hard, especially if the student is working or volunteering or playing a sport as well as going to school....</p>
<p>Certainly some visits are doable on family vacations if one starts early, but some just get out of reach. If a school really requires demonstrated interest through a visit, I hope they're clear about it. Some are. </p>
<p>Certainly students can demonstrate interest as well through emails, letters or school forums. I think some schools might be trying to judge yield that way.</p>
<p>That is a wrong statement. First of all, how many people actually take advantage of these "advantages"? Second of all, exactly how helpful are they? Especially now that more and more people are getting the Internet, the exclusivity of these so-called "advantages" is diminishing. In America, there is equality of opportunity, but not equality of results. Discrimination in any form that is based on non-academic and non-extracurricular factors is wrong. You can't just punish somebody for not being a "minority" or from a lower income.</p>
<p>we're getting a little off topic but sorry, no, Rhodes
would not be a good financial safety for a borderline
low income elite app. The only schools I can think of
off hand down South are Sewanee and Agnes Scott.
I mentioned other schools, Gettysburg, Wooster, Union,
Smith. Some I'm not so familar with might be - Beloit,
Lake Forest, Muhlenberg, St Olaf, Wabash, frankly it's
a declining list, might not even get to 20.</p>
<p>Rhodes probably belongs in a different thread: LACs that might provide more tuition help than some publics can provide for students at a certain level of stats and finances. I know anecdotal stories, not overall trends.</p>
<p>And Rhodes vs. Agnes Scott? Very different environments, but it looks as if Agnes Scott has had a higher percentage of students who qualify for finaid. Then it gets down to how much money the schools have to give.</p>
<p>For a different thread some time, but quick note to any students: The Southern publics in addition to UNC seem to be working really hard with enticements for smart students, regardless of income, and not just those in the top 1 or 2 percent of stats.</p>
<p>Everyone here knows UNC's rep. and how hard it is for out of state students to get in. Other Southern opportunities exist, as long as students are willing to look at big publics as well as privates. I've seen very recent efforts by those schools to provide enrichment opportunities and financial incentives to compete with the privates. Students should not overlook those opportunities. Many students in the South are not; those usually aren't the kids here on CC.</p>
<p>(UNC still rules, of course, but out of state competition -- and in state -- is mighty tough).</p>
<p>There are desirable character strengths which can not be assessed by numbers or tests: motivation, persistence, work ethic, creativity, resourcefulness, overcoming adversity, sensitivity to the less fortunate, the strength to pick yourself back up after a setback, what they call in the corporate world - the ability get the job done. I've heard more than one employer say they'd rather hire an over-achiever.</p>
<p>So I can understand why an admissions committee might want to give a break to such a candidate. It's not lowering the bar: hard-knocks hurdler vs. SAT's - it's apples and oranges. Socio-economically disadvantaged students who have demonstrated the ability to achieve in spite of adversity might fit into the slot of one type of student the school wishes to blend into their diversity mixture. </p>
<p>This is surely why even the most competative schools seek out high SAT students with extra-curriculars, leadership, and community service - they are looking for something beyond the numbers. </p>
<p>This point made - I don't think a poor student i.e. low parental income - gives a borderline student extra points - like a golf handicap? I believe (intentionally or unintentionally) that there a few freshman seats that the schools want to offer to high-achieving poor/disadvantaged students as part of a strategy for heterogeneous mix. They may even compete for the relatively small pool of students who fit that profile.</p>
<p>At most of the better LACs the true number of low
income students is so small - 25 to 30 a year?
I suspect they're mostly athletic recruits and recruited
urms. Programs like Questbridge are relatively new,
otherwise the colleges really have no way of knowing
who's low income.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the school and what position their current finances puts them in.</p>
<p>If the school has substantial resources and is not worried about finances, it would probably prefer to admit a very poor kid over a very rich kid with the exact same stats, because presumably the poor kid overcame more to achieve the same. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I personally know someone who works in admissions for a private college that is very concerned about finances and specifically attempts to recruit students from well-off families who can pay full freight and possibly donate money to the school. They still accept lots of non-rich kids, they just try to balance it out by heavily recruiting wealthy ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a lot of school's these days are need-blind and give away a lot of grants and financial aid
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is true. Take Stanford University for example. It is need blind and is even paying its students a full ride if they qualify as low-income (lower that $50,000, I believe). I believe that Harvard is doing something similar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They still accept lots of non-rich kids, they just try to balance it out by heavily recruiting wealthy ones.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not believe that this is very common. Many private schools have huge endowments and can afford to pay for their students.</p>