<p>“You cannot tell from the application alone if someone is PELL eligible. Gotta look at the financial aid info.”</p>
<p>Well, the Dean of Admissions at Williams College clearly disagrees with you, at least as regards “low-income” candidates (he might not know the actual Pell status). He quite literally - with a reporter in the room - COUNTED the number of “socio-ec” candidates accepted as they went through the process. The Presidents of Amherst and Princeton clearly disagree as well - when they make a decision that 50% more low-income candidates will be accepted (and attend!), magically in their “need-blind” process, 50% more low-income candidates attend.</p>
<p>The reverse could be true as well, though no school will ever admit it. If H. decides in its global budgeting that it wants fewer than 6% low-income students (as they consistently have), it’s pretty easily arranged.</p>
<p>“Not to say there are not exceptions, but overall that pool has the lowest test scores. THis is a constant in every educational study done.”</p>
<p>Sorry, but the Gordon Winston study proved the contrary. Not that they had the highest scores. But that within the pool of potential applicants, there were four times as many low-income candidates with scores substantially the same as those accepted as were actually attending. But yes, it is true that low-income candidates have lower scores. A study done by the College Board about 8 years ago for students with M/CR scores above 1,000, found that $100,000/$200,000 in additional family income over $50k was worth about 100/200 points.</p>
<p>“If the school specifically wanted to increase the number of low income admits, it could easily do so without affecting the GPA profile of its admits.”</p>
<p>Precisely.</p>