Everything we think we know, may be wrong

<p>". Seems a little contradictory to counsel a student to be & sound honest, genuine & natural in an essay, etc., but simultaneously consider how she or he will "look" or "be received" by a college.""</p>

<p>Makes sense to me if a student also has picked a college that is a good match for the student (not one picked simply because of prestige factors). </p>

<p>If the student has selected a college that is a good match, it would make sense for the student to highlight in their essay factors about themselves that would impress the college. This is different than lying about oneself or presenting a distorted picture in order to try to suggest to the college that one's personality and interests differ from what they are.</p>

<p>I agree, NSM, & that's the way we approached it, too (i.e., without deceit). However, if you read the student threads as often as I do, you'll see how much the concepts of distortion, posing, manufacturing, & reinvention surface. They can be as keenly conscious about how their personal attributes will be received, as we parents are about how the family's financial info will be received.</p>

<p>Yes, a successful match discovery can reduce this, but I am sometimes surprised that the contortion attempts are made even when probably not necessary. Often it is indeed because the true fit is NOT there, but I'm dismayed at how often it comes up even for match schools. And I assume it's because of the flood of information that's being fed them as to "what colleges are looking for."</p>

<p>
[quote]
Full freight families do have a greater degree of freedom, but I don't agree with curmudgeon that they have no or few concerns -- esp. when applying to well-endowed schools.

[/quote]
If I said that, and I don't believe I did, I am truly sorry. That wasn't my intent, and please forgive my impreciseness. What I meant to say was full-freight payers can choose to apply anywhere their stats suggest they are in the running for admission. Certainly not that they will always get in.</p>

<p>But that is very different than the other two categories of high stat kids, wouldn't you say?</p>

<p><<i am="" still="" a="" bit="" challeneged="" to="" figure="" out="" which="" schools="" priorities="" are="" where--="" and="" therefore="" what="" "sell"="" whom.="" granted,="" it="" is="" early="" in="" the="" morning="" maybe="" after="" few="" cups="" of="" coffee="" this="" will="" become="" clearer,="" but="" until="" then,="" carolyn="" nedad-="" could="" you="" help="" narrow="" down="" how="" parse="" information="" from="" colleges="" sites,="" or="" enrollment="" sites?="">> </i></p><i am="" still="" a="" bit="" challeneged="" to="" figure="" out="" which="" schools="" priorities="" are="" where--="" and="" therefore="" what="" "sell"="" whom.="" granted,="" it="" is="" early="" in="" the="" morning="" maybe="" after="" few="" cups="" of="" coffee="" this="" will="" become="" clearer,="" but="" until="" then,="" carolyn="" nedad-="" could="" you="" help="" narrow="" down="" how="" parse="" information="" from="" colleges="" sites,="" or="" enrollment="" sites?="">

<p>The answer is simple: think like a marketer yourself. Marketers don't send out mass mailings and advertisements willy nilly without first figuring out who their target market it and what motivates them to buy. Students shouldn't either. I'm running out the door and don't have time to go into detail here, but I just put a long entry on my blog with my thoughts on ways students - and parents - can do this. Anyone interested in reading it can click on my name to your left, then "Visit Carolyn's Homepage."</p>
</i>

<p>Just wanted to quickly add one thing. I agree with ephiphany. Too many students here on CC see this as a game of deceipt and posturing.
I think this is simply because they have NO IDEA what colleges and universities are looking for, or how to figure that out. The other issue is that the vast majority of kids here are not thinking at all about how to match what they have to offer to colleges and universities who need those things - they are only thinking about what a particular name-brand prestige college or colleges have to offer them. In short, they've given up control to the very colleges they idolize simply by putting them on such a lofty pedestal and refusing to look at all of the excellent options out there. </p>

<p>I'm not suggesting that kids and parents become even more devious and deceptive by thinking more like marketers - only that they become more strategic. They should be aware that if they research carefully and evaluate and market themselves honestly they may actually have more, not less, control over the process.</p>

<p>Again, I believe this is a two way street, not a one way street. Figure out what you really want and need (and please don't tell me your only requirement is "prestige"), what you have to offer (and EVERY appplicant has SOMETHING some college somewhere wants/needs) and then target the schools that both (a) have what you want/need and (b) need what you have to offer. Nothing wrong with throwing in a few schools that may not exactly fit a and b together, but don't be overly surprised when things don't work out.</p>

<p>I know some will quibble with my putting it into such mercenary terms, but that really is what this is all about in the end.</p>

<p>cur,
I agree that for the non-super-endowed colleges, high-stat, wealthy students have more options in their lists -- no question. Also (and importantly!), merely the fact that they have a similar freedom to apply ED anywhere (including to colleges with dismal FA histories), gives them more "control" over their list & over the outcome than less wealthy students. It's just that for the very highly endowed schools, I think there is no more predictability to their admission than to a middle-class or low-income student of similar academic & e.c. record. (This recent cycle, in our region, our information is that they had <em>less</em> chance of admission than a very low-income student with equal academic achievement. Those results included wealthy legacies.) Not comprehensive information, just info from all of our known friends & acquaintances. That probably doesn't contradict the info already stated, that, while Ivies & top LAC's do have some concerns about "enrollment management," that is not as great a factor as at some other categories of schools -- or not as determinant, anyway.<br>
:-)</p>

<p>As always, beware. The plural of anecdotes is not evidence. ;) (Look to the data when you can find it.)</p>

<p>As I've pointed out before, the little data that is out there suggests that it is extremely difficult for a student with family income between $40k-$100k to get in to HYPSAWS (and many other places). There accept, in fact, very, very few students percentagewise in that category, and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the few that exist are athletes. From the college's point of view, what's in it for them? They add little "perceived" economic diversity, they cost a lot, they do nothing for prestige, they don't make the college more desirable for the higher income folks they want to attract, and, with the exception of diversity, they can add all of that, at much less cost, by offering small tuition discounts to folks in the $100k-$150k range. In short, the true American middle class (between $40k-$100k) are not particularly desirable, unless they have quite specific characteristics that the college feels it needs.</p>

<p>One last thing that everyone should read:
An article at the Noel-Levitz site giving advice to colleges about financial aid leveraging:
<a href="http://www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/F492732C-8E7D-4B7E-B978-F043D73EED9B/0/ProperMix.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/F492732C-8E7D-4B7E-B978-F043D73EED9B/0/ProperMix.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
In short, the true American middle class (between $40k-$100k) are not particularly desirable, unless they have quite specific characteristics that the college feels it needs.

[/quote]

Well thank goodness for state schools. While many here look at them as a grim fate, at least those of us in the middle can usually afford them!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well thank goodness for state schools. While many here look at them as a grim fate, at least those of us in the middle can usually afford them!

[/quote]

D applied to 4 public schools( one out of state) & 1 private-
If she hadn't been accepted to private ( which guaranteed to meet 100% need) she would have been happy at most of her other choices.
Our EFC was roughly the cost of what the public schools would be, so it was basically the same out of pocket whether she went to instate public or private. Certainly we prefered the private as we felt it was a better fit- but the public schools were affordable.</p>

<p>Lfk,
Just keep in mind that public schools are also playing the enrollment management game as well. A surprising number of people assume "public is always cheaper" when the truth, for some kids at some schools, is very different when you sit financial aid and merit packages side by side.</p>

<p>Mini said: "As I've pointed out before, the little data that is out there suggests that it is extremely difficult for a student with family income between $40k-$100k to get in to HYPSAWS (and many other places). There accept, in fact, very, very few students percentagewise in that category, and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the few that exist are athletes."</p>

<p>You might better have said that it is extremely difficult for anyone to get into HYPSAWS, which is glaringy evident from looking at the percentages admitted.</p>

<p>However, I believe you are wrong to suggest that it is rare for middle-class kids to get in. In fact, you are really doing these kids a disservice because if this is where a student wants to go and he does get in, the aid can be better for him at some of these schools than at a lot of "next rung" schools and even state schools.</p>

<p>Princeton, class of 2009, has 1229 students. Over 600 (so that's nearly half) are from families with under $100,000 income, and they are receiving grants averaging from $26,000 to $38,9000. </p>

<p>You really think these are all athletes? (As you have said, a lot of the Ivy league athletic teams are fielded by prep-school kids who have had access to fencing and squash and equestrian and the like.) </p>

<p>But, you do have a point with the colleges filling a need. Don't most kids fill a niche or slot of some sort? Some are flat-out brilliant and will contribute in their fields of knowledge, some are athletes, some are women in engineering, whatever. Certainly, in asking what's in it for the college, you don't mean to suggest that middle-class kids can't be brilliant, can't be oboe players, can't be female engineers, or fill any number of other "needs" at a college?</p>

<p>Caroline is right to encourage students to find places where their needs will meet those of the colleges. The more open one is to explore possibiliites, and the more aware of them, the more potentially successful the college search is. We can agree on that, right?</p>

<p>It does not appear to be necessary to admit based on income if the early marketing has skewed the distribution of applicants to those who can afford admission. None of the need blind admissions schools claims to be need blind in their marketing, as far as I know.</p>

<p>Cricket - thanks for the data - can you point me to the source? (I have the Harvard data, and they are as I portrayed. But I haven't seen the new Princeton data.) What I thought was true at Princeton was that half received financial aid (which would have been roughly the same as Harvard; but of Harvard's financial aid students, more than 70% were in the $100-$150k range.)</p>

<p>I have seen the institutional aid per student rankings, and (as I previously reported) Princeton had inched its way to the bottom of the top 10 or close to it.</p>

<p>One needs to distinguish between Merit $$ and financial aid. Many receive $$ not listed as financial aid.</p>

<p>At UChicago the vast majority of aid applicants who make under $116,000 receive financial aid. Further, 29% of students who make over that amount receive aid (<a href="http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=68)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=68)&lt;/a>. </p>

<p>Families making under $100,000 represent 52% of the student body. 56% of all students receive financial aid, and there are no athletic scholarships (<a href="http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2005/04/12/higher_tuition_coinc.php)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2005/04/12/higher_tuition_coinc.php)&lt;/a>. Sounds like they are "need blind" in their admissions, and remain "uncommon" in their admissions process, even if it hurts their ranking.</p>

<p>So I did find some Princeton data, and again, they are changing somewhat. They report that 15.9% of the student body is below $50.9k in family income (which would likely mean that roughly 12% of the freshman class is on Pell Grants - not a very large percentage, but up from 9% two years ago.) 45.3% of the freshman class (down from 50% several years ago) received no aid whatsover, meaning family incomes of a minimum of $155k (with the median WAY above that.) This leaves a total of 38.2% of the student body for the 60% of the U.S. population between 50K and 155K. IF (and I don't know that this is the case) Princeton resembles Harvard, then 70% of those receiving aid will be in the $100-$150k range. Statistically, that doesn't work out, as it will mean that NO ONE is in the $50k-$100k range. But let's assume it is even half of the 54.7% - it would still mean that percentage of the student body between 50-100k in income is around 11%. No matter how you slice it, there just aren't going to be a large concentration of folks in that range.</p>

<p>And, yes, I do think you'll find them concentrated among athletes, and perhaps URMs.</p>

<p>Cricket,</p>

<p>Preliminary comment, Princeton is used only for illustrative purposes. It is a great school that provides great financial aid.</p>

<p>Actually, I think you are making the point we are trying to make, it is often the middle class that is getting squeezed. If 50% of the freshman class at Princeton has less than $100K in income then 50% has more than $100K in income. Someone please verify what I am saying but I believe that those over $100K are in the top 5% of wage earners in the US so Princeton should have only 5% of their class in this group yet they have 10x that many.</p>

<p>Basically, I am saying what mini is saying. The stats at Princeton and many other schools show a certain bias toward full tuition payers.</p>

<p>Admitted Students in the Class of 2009 Who Applied for Financial Aid</p>

<p>Income level, #applying for aid, percent with need, then ave.grant for eligible
$0 - 39,999 225 100 $38,900
40,000 - 59,999 124 100 $34,800
60,000 - 79,999 130 100 $32,000
80,000 - 99,999 126 99 $26,000 </p>

<p>This is off the Princeton financial aid site. </p>

<p>55% of the class of 2009 is recieving aid--close to Chicago, then, Idad, at least this year, which is an increase over last. </p>

<p>Yes Mini, I agree that there are fewer middle-class students in the top colleges than in the US population, but given the educational advantages for k-12 students of wealth, that does not seem surprising. (Better schools, more opportunities, more educated parents, etc.) My point is, there is lower and middle class representation in the top schools, and hopefully it will grow as more students are aware of the aid available, and try to get into these schools.</p>

<p>"No matter how you slice it, there just aren't going to be a large concentration of folks in that range."</p>

<p>That's because excellence of public schools is linked in the US to property taxes, which are connected to income levels. Of course, excellent of private schools tends to be linked to tuition levels, and the higher the tuition, the more likely that the school is to be excellent.</p>

<p>Since students with the stats and academic background to be able to handle the coursework at places like Ivies are likely to have gone to excellent schools. Excellent schools in most cases have students whose income is far above the national average.</p>

<p>Even many of the low income students who end up at places like HPYS have gone to either good private schools (where they got excellent scholarships) or have gone to excellent magnet public schools.</p>

<p>It's not as if the low income students going to places like HPYS come from low performing inner city or rural schools. In fact, it's virtually impossible for students to get the skills and academic background at such a school that would allow them to have the stats, etc. that would indicate they could successfully attend a place like HPYS. </p>

<p>I know that when I went to H, most of the students from low income backgrounds had gone to prep schools through the ABC program, which indentifies gifted low income students and puts them in some of the country's top prep schools.</p>

<p>The few low-income applicants that I have interviewed for Harvard, have been mainly artificially low income. For example, the offspring of low income, but highly educated immigrants who were not able to pursue their professions in the US because of licensing problems. The only low income student whom I have ever interviewed who came from a family that was low income and uneducated, had gone to a very weak inner city school where she was a top student. However, even though she clearly was brilliant, her scores were horrendous, as was her presentation during the the interview. She burst into tears during the interview, apparently because of stress.</p>

<p>She ended up going to a several low ranked colleges, including a community college. She eventually graduated from a tier 2 4-year college, where she developed more confidence and solid academic skills. Now she's a grad student at a tier one college and is, I hear doing very well. She has the brains to become eventually an Ivy facultly member, but at age 18, she lacked the exposure and knowledge to have been able to succed at an Ivy. </p>

<p>I am sure she wasn't rejected by Harvard because she needed lots of financial aid, but because she simply was not academically an appropriate candidate for admission.</p>