<p>I completely agree, ccuser. Even at need-blind Ivies, about one third of the student body is full-pay. Conversely, only 3% of Ivy League undergrads are in the bottom quartile of income. SAT prep, good schools, and increased access to extracurriculars open a lot of doors. Moreover, high-income families are, on average, more focused on education and hold higher degrees, and impart these values on their kids.</p>
<p>I needed aid…</p>
<p>I don’t remember the exact stat about Wash U, but definitely over half of students here receive financial aid (I want to say at the chancellor’s convocation during orientation we were told 2/3, but don’t quote me on that). </p>
<p>Here’s my guess on what goes on with Wash U and the financial aid. Compared to the wealth distribution of the US population as a whole, there are proportionally more people applying out of the “wealthy” group than the “non-wealthy” group. Still, I think it’s more than fair to say that in pure absolute numerical terms most of the people applying do require financial aid, simply because there are far more non-wealthy people than wealthy people in this country by a long shot. </p>
<p>I don’t know how exactly Wash U takes into account financial need, but as with any larger represented group, you’re going to see proportionally more non-acceptances than acceptances than that same proportion of decisions from a smaller represented group. For example: if you only had 20 musicians applying, maybe 10 will be accepted because the school needs 10 musicians. But, when you have 5,000 musicians applying, the school still only needs 10 musicians. My assumption is that the financial aid process works the same… I doubt that your own individual income and financial aid requirements is considered, but instead they know that they can budget for a certain numerical amount of people that need money without busting the bank. finally, although Wash U has tons of people here from the east coast, we undoubtedly have more people applying from the midwest and south than do similar schools located on the east coast, and these regions have lower income levels and home prices for equity. Yet, our tuition is the same as private schools on the coasts. So, I think that Wash U’s applicant pool has even more people that need financial aid than other similar schools on the east coast, so it’s going to appear on the surface that it’s tougher to get accepted if you need money, because there are far more people from that pool to choose from. </p>
<p>And, at the end of the day, there are still more people coming here who need money than don’t need money. Not sure if this is the right answer or even if my line of thought is correct, but I think it’s a good way to think about what goes on based on the comments on this thread and the sample of data from decisions so far? If not, I might reconsider my Econ major :)</p>
<p>I didn’t apply for FA and got waitlisted =]</p>
<p>To get an idea of how being need-aware affects WashU admissions, here are some stats on the proportion of students who get aid @ WashU compared to peer schools:</p>
<p>WashU:
36.9% of students on need based aid</p>
<p>UChicago
46.5% of students on need based aid</p>
<p>Dartmouth
53.7% of students on need based aid</p>
<p>Brown
49.1% of students on need based aid</p>
<p>Cornell
51.4% of students on need based aid</p>
<p>(stats from collegeboard)</p>
<p>So I would say that being need aware has an effect on admissions decisions. Even taking into account differences in the applicant pools, the trend shows that in general the peer schools have 10-15% more students on need based aid compared to WashU. This effect is fairly robust. Of course, on the flip side there will be those who applied for aid who get in and those who don’t apply and get rejected. It’s not a “you applied for aid, you’re screwed” situation, but it is an “you applied for aid, your chances are lower” situation. </p>
<p>I’m curious-- do need-aware schools take into account how much aid you applied for, or just whether you applied?</p>
<p>As a current WashU student, I want to congratulate those of you who got in. Welcome to an absolutely amazing community. You’re going to LOVE it here! And to those of you that were waitlisted and rejected- I really am sorry- but I have no doubt that you will all end up satisfied in the end. It’s easy as a high school senior to see college admissions as entirely blown out of proportion, but they really are not so important, and almost everyone really does end up happy, whether it seems like that now or not. </p>
<p>This leads me into my main point- stop. step back. breath. relax. and see things for what they are. WashU may have once been a safety school, but it’s not any more. We may not be ranked as high as HYPSM, but that does not mean we are any worse or any better a school. At some point it all becomes about your personal fit and experience, what school offers the specific classes you want, with the professors that will fit you best and offer you the most. There really is no best college. Yes, some colleges may be better than others, but ranking in anything more than broad categories is ridiculous, and to do this and set the Ivies in another category is ridiculous. WashU is a fantastic school academically, and they also give out great financial aid. I, myself, am receiving a significant need-based grant, as are many of my friends here. WashU, and I’m not just saying this to make the school look good…I’m saying it because I truly believe it and have seen this reflected in my experience here, is extremely committed to making it possible for students attend regardless of their financial background. I have many friends, for example, who called, requested more money, and were offered thousands of dollars more on the spot. WashU is not 100% need blind (they are need blind for the majority of applicants and then begin to look at that at the end of the pool), but they certainly are not basing the majority of their decisions on money- just a few. In addition, It’s extremely short-sided to assume that college confidential is a good reflection of applicants. This year WashU had, I’m fairly sure, over 28,000 applicants apply. Even if 2000 of them were to post on this board, which seems like a large overestimate, that is still only 7 percent. How can you possibly draw conclusions form such a small portion of applicants? I have even heard stories of people making up fake accounts and writing down fake profiles for getting into or rejected from schools as a joke. While I believe that most of your profiles are real, it is also important to remember that this is the internet and anyone can post anything- not everything you find on this board is going to be right. Lastly, I beg you all- please give WashU more credit. It is impossible for any school to accept all it’s qualified applicants, and getting in means more than having just stellar academics. Colleges seek to create a community, and that requires diversity. A college has to accept people with diverse interests and talents, and unfortunately, that sometimes means that qualified applicants don’t get it. But that said, it is rude, immature, and judgmental to assume the specific reason you didn’t get in…applying for financial aid, having too high an SAT score, etc. Seriously- none of that matters. Once you get to school, you realize that everyone is smart. Everyone is qualified. There are people here that could be at Harvard or Yale, but chose to come here, because college is more than just a name and for them, they felt that WashU would be a better personal fit. So please, stop insulting WashU on unsubstantiated basis. So please, just step back and try to see this as an outsider and think clearly. I know that many of you are probably upset right now…getting rejected and waitlisted sucks, I’ve been through it, but also please at least try to think clearly and not judge an entire university on what a handful of applicants write on the internet.</p>
<p>^amen to that.</p>
<p>Ditto to indigoblue2’s awesome post, and to add some fact to this discussion, WashU is need-blind until they get to the last 5% of domestic applicants, and then they have to take need into consideration because the money literally runs out. So they’re technically not need blind b/c of these last few students. It’s not that they don’t want you b/c you need financial aid, it’s that there would be no point of admitting you over someone else if you can’t afford to come and they have NO MONEY left to give you. I’m peripherally involved with admissions and I know that it’s a very, very painful thing for them to do. And the administration and students have been working EXTREMELY hard to raise money for those who need it and the school has made socioeconomic diversity a huge point in the past few years. </p>
<p>I also don’t think it’s fair to use those stats about what percentage of the student body gets aid compared to “peer” schools. I think that the range of people from underprivileged backgrounds who apply (not even get in) to WashU is very low b/c the school does a poor job of recruiting people from lower income groups in the first place. Smart kids at bad schools are usually familiar with the concept of the Ivy League - finding out about schools like WashU and LACs takes work if you’re not in a privileged atmosphere IMO. WashU didn’t even bother to come once to my poorer, minority-filled county but went to the richer, whiter county about 30 minutes away multiple times. If they hadn’t randomly sent me a letter giving me a free visit (probably because of National Achievement) or if I weren’t a frequent CC visitor in HS, I would never have applied b/c I never would have known about it. I think that’s a bigger part of the problem - people of higher socioeconomic class apply to WashU, so naturally fewer of them need aid, and as a result our percentage of people on aid is lower than that at other institutions.</p>