Not per se at colleges that are need blind for individual applicants.
But parent money does buy opportunities, so students from parents with money commonly have more opportunities to show high level achievement. In addition, some admission preferences like legacy and athletic recruiting for preppy sports tips the admission class to higher income backgrounds.
See my post above. Millions earned in licensing fees from drugs developed in a lab on campus. Millions in rent, development fees, even âair rightsâ when a university sells off the space above a two story building to a commercial entity who can then build a 12 story building, depending on the zoning. Universities own a part of the intellectual property developed by its faculty and researchers- so parts of the royalties on books, recurring revenue streams on technology patents or medical devices, etc.
There is a financial aid budget. And that budget has some components of dedicated funds (at my 40th college reunion we specified that our class gift go to create an endowment for financial aid for first gen disadvantaged students). But there are unrestricted funds which support the general operating budget of the U-- snow removal, landscaping, and yes, financial aid.
Right. Maybe the way I phrased it indicated something different, but all I was saying is: there is a certain amount of money that even the most well-endowed colleges want to spend on financial aid. And they have ways to manage to that budget, even under the guise of âneed blind.â
Exactly. Thereâs a difference between need blind and need ignorant. There are plenty of âtellsâ throughout an application that can point pretty firmly in one direction or the other as to whether the person likely applied for FA, even if not definitive.
Schools can and do solicit and accept donations that are specifically earmarked for FA. You can often too get even more specific (e.g. FA for FGLI, FA for a kid from my hometown, my HS, etc.) And of course as @blossom mentioned, there are also âunrestrictedâ or âundirectedâ funds given.
You are correct. But need blind isnât a guise for the âhighly rejectiveâ colleges. There are SO many qualified applicants; there are so many institutional needs. Admitting the class you want which just happens to more or less jive with your financial aid budget is not that hard when you get to reject 94% or so of your applicants. So youâve admitted two lacrosse stars who live in a housing project? Even better. Costs your budget more (so you are over budget by a skootch) but the value to the student body is much higher than admitting the two lacrosse stars from XYZ prep school. Youâve admitted a physics Olympiad winner who turns out needs more aid than average? Itâs all good. The incremental costs of going over budget are miniscule compared to the overall payoff to the U.
If the class agent for my class sent out a mass email to everyone who had contributed to our First Gen endowment fund saying âThe U has just admitted 10 incredibly talented disadvantaged kids who need more aid- what can we doâ the call would be answered in under an hour. I have never donated a penny to one of the many athletic endowments; I really donât care about attracting a world class football coach. But more money for exceptional kids? This I can get behind. And believe me- my little donation is nothing compared to the really successful (and generous) members of my graduating class who have 7 and 8 figure capacity.