Other than at colleges that are “need blind” do full pay students have an advantage in admissions and how much of an advantage is it?
Colleges aren’t going to tell you that. Some colleges that aren’t need blind are only looking at need for the applicants on the cusp of admission (Carleton would be an example of that - they admit that they are need blind for about 10-15% of their applicant pool). But I’d generally assume it gives a slight bump – but I’m not sure I’d use it to push a school from match to safety, or reach to match – there is too little data.
Piggy-backing on this a bit… What if I want my D to apply for the $5500/$6500/$7500/$7500 but know for a fact that we will not qualify for any other type of financial aid. Do we say “yes” for applying for aid on the application knowing we just want this portion but not any other need-based aid? Or does it all count as the same thing? Or “no” if we wait until sophomore year to get small annual kind of aid knowing we will be full pay (with hopefully some merit). I’ve always also wondered if saying “no aid” is a bump.
Absolutely it’s an advantage! Not sure how much, or how to quantify it, but for NON need blind schools (i.e. most schools) checking the “not applying for FA” box gives an advantage. The ultimate boost comes to those who are ED and are full pay.
Anyone who says otherwise is being disengenous. In order for colleges to provide good FA, they need a majority of their students to be full pay. It’s just math.
Again, with the caveat that we are talking about NOT need blind colleges.
Most colleges are need blind. But most of them do not give good financial aid.
But note that colleges that are need blind for individual applicants can be need aware for the class, so they may use criteria that tip their classes wealthier, such as greater legacy preference, preppy sports, etc…
Not all universities have identical admissions policies. Generalizations don’t apply across the board, but here go some generalizations.
When the FA budget is shot and the class in not full, there are two common courses of action:
1. The strongest student applicants who can pay are offered admission;
2. Some applicants who cannot pay and are stronger candidates may be offered admission with no FA.
It is necessary to manage the class size. This requires that universities estimate the return rates on each group with some accuracy. Usually the university has historical data on the return rates on these groups. In this crazy world of popular opinion, the university which accepts student from the group with the highest return rate looks better to the public as they appear more selective in the “selectivity” ratings.
On the moral side of the ledger it is argued that the better student who could not afford the university should never be rejected for that reason alone, but should be accepted without FA if none is available.
It is also true that pressure can be brought by very influential alumni and/or by offer of a new building. Unfortunately this may not always be in the best interest of the applicant if the university’s academics appear out of reach to the applicant. It is a lot like accepting a star athlete who does not have a snowball’s chance of completing the academic program. At what point is the student being used?
Did you find an answer or would you prefer someone gave a short answer?
The short answer is, we do not know.
Admission that is too expensive = rejection.
However, colleges do not necessarily know what is “too expensive” for each individual applicant. It does not know whether the applicant who appears unlikely to afford the school will earn an outside scholarship. However, it also does not know if such an applicant will unwisely enroll despite unaffordability and later drop out due to inability to pay
I have heard admissions officers from a couple of need aware colleges speak to this directly. They said that being full pay will not get a candidate into a college he/she is not otherwise qualified to attend. However, being full pay can be an advantage for a qualified but borderline acceptable applicant – in that case the school may accept a full pay candidate and reject a similar candidate because they will not provide enough financial aid for the applicant to attend (the school’s resources are limited and merit aid typically goes to very highly qualified candidates). Of course all decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
For need blind colleges being full pay will not influence admissions decisions.
Few schools are truly need blind. It helps at many schools
Could you please give some reference that documents this? And not an article from ten years ago, please.
In the case of ultra selective schools, I am skeptical. Last year we expected very different admissions results for our kid than actually occurred, partly because we assumed full pay would help. (Very, very high stats, 10 APs, etc.)
We’re quite happy with the final college decision, so it worked out, but overall it was a bloodbath. So load up on happy safeties, that’s my advice.
Yes. Being full pay is definitely an advantage, though not much at the super elites (Harvard, Stanford, etc.) which attract plenty full pay applicants.
Ultra Selective Schools often have very substantial endowments leading to hefty financial aid budgets. But the real obstacle in your child’s situation @prodesse was simply the overwhelming number of highly qualified applicants.
Yes, that’s true. Still – find LOTS of happy safeties, everyone!
The fact is all college admissions have a percentage of full pay vs financial aid in mind before the admission cycle. Say school x wants to have 50% of Full Pay and 50% Financial Aid in its freshman class and you have 30000 full pay candidates for the 1000 FP slots and 10000 candidates for 1000 FA slots, it would be much more difficult for FP to gain acceptances. On the other hand, if the school wants 70% FP vs 30% FA and you have 20000 FP vs 20000 FA applicants then the FP would have an advantage.
According to the disclosed data in the lawsuit, it was confirmed that at schools like Harvard, full pay applicants would be at a slight disadvantage.
One of the admission sessions we went to told the group flat out that if they are choosing between a student that is full pay and one that needs significant aid, they would choose the full pay.
But, I have a question. We don’t qualify for aid, but we can’t realistically pay full tuition. We need merit to make it work. If you check off that you are not applying for aid, does that disqualify you from merit?
“One of the admission sessions we went to told the group flat out that if they are choosing between a student that is full pay and one that needs significant aid, they would choose the full pay.”
I would hope that this statement was at least framed in the context of comparably qualified candidates. In any case, the answer only applies to that college or university. Where would you prefer you son or daughter matriculate?
Many universities award “merit” money to both financial need applicants and to no need candidates. Usually either candidate must apply to receive the award. There is no rule against a university sending a merit award to an applicant who has not applied for one.
Many universities offer some explanation of their process if you go to their website and query about merit based awards…
@retiredfarmer Yes, they were comparing 2 qualified applicants.
“Ultra Selective Schools often have very substantial endowments leading to hefty financial aid budgets”
Ultra selective schools are all need blind… the question the OP asked was about colleges that are not need blind.
There are some people who believe that legacy is a proxy for full-pay at the need-blind schools. When a legacy applies ED, there’s a really good chance that student will be full-pay. Schools probably plan to have a certain % of full-pay students each year, and legacy ED becomes a good way to minimize their risk. I believe the legacy ED admit rate at Duke is around 35%. That’s quite a bump.
1 Like