<p>
From the limited data I have collected & crunched, doubling your chances for fullpay sounds about right. I estimate that needing significant FA reduces your chances by ( +/-) a third to a half.</p>
<p>Huh, I’ve always thought it would be less. But then there are usually around 50/50 on admits and more people apply for FA than not. So that is logical.</p>
<p>The applicants are generally 60:40 FA:fullpay, but the ratio for the number of slots is the other way around. </p>
<p>I’ve wondered if the yield is higher for FA applicants. If so, then that would drive the admit rate for FA applicants even lower.</p>
<p>In the Exeter online financial aid sessions, we were told 65% of applicants apply for FA. And only 45% of spots are FA. So given tonight’s numbers from Exeter, what does that tell you? </p>
<p>Note that not all that apply for FA are qualified for FA as determined by the school…</p>
<p>Agreed, Benley, but assuming the ratios are the same for academically admissable, it’s 12% for FA and 29% for FP. Even if they are only somewhat close, it’s pretty discouraging for FA applicants. </p>
<p>GMT and I had crunched numbers for Exeter before. 29% seems about right for FP but FA seemed to have a better chance by about 2-3% higher. 2x higher admit rates for FP seemed underestimate though and in reality I think it would be 2.5-3x higher. </p>
<p>There are a few schools that are need-blind, like Harvard, Yale, Amherst, Stanford, Dartmouth etc. But others are need-sensitive, which means applying for FA will diminish your chance.</p>
<p>Something else to consider is that a large portion of FP applicants are internationals, so being a FP domestic applicant is probably the very best pool to be in simply because they are probably the smallest pool of applicants.</p>
<p>Yeah, that seems to be correct.</p>
<p>Haha, I am FP, but then I am a very overrepresented international applicant, so I don’t know.</p>