would students who can pay full tuition be at an advantage? What about at need-blind schools?
Or are students with very high family incomes be at a disadvantage with same scores as it’s assumed they can afford test prep classes and such, so more is expected?
Not an advantage at need blind schools. Not sure it is a disadvantage either. You likely WILL have higher scores and better ECs if you are full pay. You probably went to a better school, got lessons and camps, and didn’t have to work (so had more time for academics).
If your family is rich enough to donate a 20 million dollar new dorm bldg, then that is looked upon very favorably, even at need-blind schools.
From what I have read, it is always an advantage to be full-pay. That being said, at many schools there is no shortage of qualified students who don’t need aid so you have to bring something else to the table.
It might be a disadvantage if people will question accomplishments in light that extra support like tutoring, private counselors, essay help, etc been provided.
It doesn’t matter at need blind schools. However if you had hardships and have high achievement despite that it can impress.
Anyone who thinks that the ability is not an advantage (even at “need blind” schools) is hopelessly naive, in my opinion.
Some of the effect is masked by the fact that high income kids have big inherent advantages in terms of all the conventional admissions factors (test scores, grades, course rigor, extra-curricular activities, etc), but even with all that taken into account, they are still over-represented at the elite schools. About 50% of the kids at the Top 20 schools are from the top 10% of households in terms of family income - I think that’s a pretty clear indication that these schools (most of which are “need blind”) are taking ability to pay into consideration.
Most schools are need blind. And many schools process applications long before FA forms are even filed.
Right there on the application is the check box “Will you be applying for financial aid?”
Even without that pretty big hint, there are all kinds of ways the typical application can offer clues to an applicant’s family income.
“From what I have read, it is always an advantage to be full-pay.”
Can’t be, at a school that doesn’t look at your financial info when making admit decisions.
“Anyone who thinks that the ability is not an advantage (even at “need blind” schools) is hopelessly naive”
The schools that download apps, most of the ones we discuss, can choose to not show the check box on the forms admissions reviewers actually see. I’ve seen this. And even if you try to make some guess from parents’ jobs, it’s an empty attempt. You’d have to stop to parse a bunch of things and still wouldn’t come anywhere near the picture reflected in a finaid app.
And kids from high income families do not always have some better context, they aren’t necessarily smarter or wiser, better coached or tutored, able to write a better essay, etc. CC likes to assume. Adcoms, ime, can only look at what is there.
Yes, but only in extreme cases. It’s only beneficial when you are either filthy rich or dirt poor.
@lookingforward
Well, you can choose to believe whatever you want, but I don’t find your argument very persuasive.
The fact that schools could potentially hide the “Applying for financial aid?” question from adcomms isn’t very persuasive - is there any evidence that they ACTUALLY do this?
I think the idea that you can’t get a rough idea of family income from most applications is just naive. No, you don’t know the exact income, nor are you going to be 100% accurate, but if you give me 100 applications, I’d wager most people would do a pretty good job picking out 20 applications from high income families.
No one (well, at least not me) is saying that ALL high income kids have huge advantages. That’s a straw man. However, as a group, they definitely do better in terms of standard admissions criteria than poorer kids.
You don’t have to believe it. I’m in the environment. When we say need blind, it is genuine, a dictate.
It’s not a straw man to say, “do not always have some better context,” when others continually bring up that wealthy kids do have an assumed advantage with the resources available to them. It assumes those resources make those kids “better” applicants. But they still have an app and supps to complete.
There are times when you see the kid worked in a lab and mom happens to run the lab. Or you can imagine the CEO dad pulled connections or helped make that fundraiser so successful. But you don’t go on guesses. There are so many potential points of failure in an app. The kid is responsible for his own self presentation and the judgment he shows- or not.
@NickFlynn I used to share your view. However, in talking with board of trustee members I am now convinced need based aid and merit are simply viewed as another budget item. Think of it from a practical standpoint a school cannot operate on the basis of all students coming from NJ, Mass, Maryland and Ct. Even if acceptances were based that way, who is to say commitments to attend always follow.
The politics of budgeting are simple. Every college President has a laundry list of reasons to request a big, chunky financial aid budget. If the money does not get spent, what happens next year? Simple, the budget gets reduced, and who wants that?
It is totally illogical for a school to make admissions decisions on whether a student requests financial aid. Quite the contrary, more requests mean bigger budgets. In fact, many schools go out of their way to remind parents to apply for financial aid. They have no idea what your financial aid application will look like when you check the box.
Schools that out of principal don’t offer merit give tons of “Need-Based” money to affluent families as proof.
I agree absolutely. I’m not in admissions, but I’ve worked with them closely at my (non-Ivy, top 20) institution. They’re almost fanatical about being absolutely need-blind and we proudly publish statistics regarding the percentage of our students who receive Pell Grants. We also do separate fundraising to support our up-to-full-cost-of-attendance financial aid program, so there really aren’t huge budgetary pressures. I’m sure huge donors get an advantage everywhere – some things are hard to ignore – but those folks are pretty rare (we only have so many buildings and most of those donors are long gone). I also agree that there is probably some discounting of ECs that are obviously the result of privilege (fancy service trips to foreign countries, research in mom’s lab, etc.)
First of all, the vast majority of the schools in this country could not fill a freshman class if they weren’t need blind. There just aren’t enough people who can afford to pay full freight. Once we start talking about the top 20 or 30 schools, however, the picture changes considerably - there are plenty of potential full-pay qualified applicants in the pool, and many people with insider information do believe that “ability to pay” is a definite hook at these schools.
Moreover, my own research indicates that this is readily apparent even in the publicly available data. I believe upper class kids are over-represented in the enrolled population, even when you control for the inherent advantages they have in terms of test scores. Again, I’ll repeat the stat I gave above - roughly 50% of the students at the top 20 schools are from the top 10% of the income distribution.
Logically, I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t think this is true - financial aid offices have budgets and they have targets to meet. Given two equally qualified applicants, the idea that the one who can afford to attend without substantial aid is not more attractive to a school is just silly.
Lastly, you seem pretty insistent on the pushing back against the idea that wealthy kids (as a group) may have some inherent advantages in the admissions process. Frankly, I just don’t understand this mindset at all - with the exception of a few categories (URM status, first gen, recruited athlete), I can’t see any part of the application process that doesn’t offer at least some advantage to a high income applicant. Yes, every applicant individually succeeds or fails by the particulars of their application, but that in no way precludes acknowledging those advantages.
Even if dad is a CEO, you don’t know his income or full picture.
You seem to be assuming the % of wealthy kids in a need-blind school’s class is a matter of consciously picking (some number of) kids based on who can full-pay. The whole holistic set of expectations is bigger than that, much bigger. And nothing says the wealthy kid, with his stats and lacrosse can think, ever stretched, can write a relevant essay or explain his interests. The top schools don’t need “seat fillers.”
“Given two equally qualified applicants, the idea that the one who can afford to attend without substantial aid is not more attractive to a school is just silly.”
You really need to maybe start by considering what admissions is really looking for- at the top schools, a level of thinking and action, well beyond just the same old stats and rigor, some mindless club titles or perfunctory (and random) community service. Kids need to be able to think and process. Can’t buy that. You’re discounting my insider view.
FA budges at top schools are far bigger than their initial need. They run analyses and earmark a large number with a large reserve. 2008 showed how many schools could quickly provide additional dollars or first time aid, when families suffered.
“Again, I’ll repeat the stat I gave above - roughly 50% of the students at the top 20 schools are from the top 10% of the income distribution.”
This proves nothing. It reminds me of the argument as to why Colgate, a top school, has less than 3% Asian students. Is it because Colgate keeps them out or they simply don’t apply?
You will find that in your example it has nothing to do with the schools, rather where students apply. This can be due to many factors.
In the top schools, they even bring kids in all expenses paid knowing they are low income, obviously. And these kids know before anyone else if they get accepted.
You seem to assume most parents really know the process well. If you asked a room full of parents which schools are cheaper, the answer without question would be state schools, and that is not the case often. If you asked those same parents, do you qualify for financial aid. The answer is usually “probably not”, either from ignorance or pride.
A NJ family earning $125k will get nothing from Rutgers but probably a 50% package at any number of private schools. How many parents even are aware of this?
“I can’t see any part of the application process that doesn’t offer at least some advantage to a high income applicant.” You are not seeing the entirely of what is expected and what it takes. You seem to be assuming a wealthy admit at a need-blind still must be an admit based on that wealth. It is no easier for a wealthy kid.
If anyone has some natural advantage, it’s kids of savvy parents, who assume less, learn more, and understand strategy. Those who quit fussing about inequities, how the kid should only pursue passions or just “be a kid” or etc, and get their kids appropriately involved. And many lower SES kids are out there doing far more than their wealthy peers, in terms of real responsibilities and impact, balancing school and community, being leadership models for peers, able to write about more than winning the swim meet or their coat drive.
@turnerT Which group of parents has a better understand of the workings of the financial aid systems at the elite schools? Pell grant eligible families or high income?
What are the primary admissions criteria at elite schools:
Standardized Test Scores
GPA
Course rigor
Recommendations
Extra-curricular activities
Personal statement / essays
Is there anything on that list that doesn’t convey an inherent advantage to a kid from a wealthier background?
The simple fact is that the more demanding the admissions requirements are at a school, the more the student body is going to be tilted towards higher income students. That is not the fault of the schools, it’s more a reflection of the inequalities of our society.
However, that’s not really the point that I am trying to make (although, if you aren’t willing to concede the truth of that, I don’t really think there is any point in arguing.) The real issue is whether high income students have an advantage that extends BEYOND those “natural” advantages - whether colleges show a preference for full pay applicants. I think that they do, and I think that it makes logical sense that they would (to the degree that they can meet their other institutional goals).