<p>idad, UChicago is notoriously stingy in their financial aid - so much so that I it has become a priority for the college to increase endowment in order to improve their ability to offer aid they want to increase their yield; they feel they are losing admits to other colleges because their financial aid is inadequate. In fact, if Chicago hires an enrollment management firm, their prime question is likely to be, how much more in aid $ do they have to offer to meet their target yield. </p>
<p>The problem is that any college that says it meets 100% need and uses "institutional methodology" to calculate need is lying -- because for them, "need" is whatever they say it is. As far as I know, every 100% need college is ALSO an IM college - they are happy to promise to pay out $X to every family as long as they get to decide what $X is. I'll bet enrollment management firms can help with that, too -- perhaps by changing the formulaes used to calculate need. So maybe Chicago decides that the EFC under its own formula is $20K, and the better-endowed Harvard, using a more generous formula, decides that the same family's EFC is $12K -- both colleges claim to meet 100% need, but Harvard is offering a better financial aid package.</p>
<p>Meeting 100% need is a myth that most middle class families run up the day the financial aid awards come in. The problem is that families in the $50K-$100K income range tend to present nuanced financial pictures -- they are not simply wage earners with few or no assets. And the top privates ask questions designed to measure assets or income that are not counted or weighted in FAFSA methodology, including intangibles (e.g., the "value" of an ownership interest in a business that has no true market value).</p>
<p>Eagle, yes, thank you. I use Princeton because I know the most about it, but I agree we are in large part talking about HPYAWSSM...etc!</p>
<p>But I look at it as a glass half full/half empty sort of thing. </p>
<p>The top schools used to be bastians of wealth and privilege. Now, those who are not wealthy make up a large portion of these schools. We can cry over the fact that the percentage is not exactly in proportion to the population, or we can be glad that if a student has the brains, talent, and will, he might just get in, regardless of wealth. </p>
<p>And then, if we want the glass to be more than half full, we can work on k-12 education. And Northstarmom eloquently addresses part of that dilemma.</p>
<p>Of course "need" is open to definitional discussion, but even if less than hoped for, it still may bring the school within range. The fact that over 50% of the enrollees' family income is below $100,000 speaks to the fact that many less than wealthy families can attend one of America's greatest universities.</p>
<p>Well, now, I never said or implied that "the plural of anecdotes [is] evidence." In fact, I specifically said that our anecdotal info was <em>not</em> comprehensive. {Translation: cannot be extrapolated.}</p>
<p>However, after cricket's last post, I think that you will see the income ranges of admitted P students to be wide. That also verifies my in-person impressions at P.</p>
<p>Also, I've been on record more than once on CC for lamenting the availability, or offer, of gap-aid to the middle class at more than just the wealthier 4-yr institutions. And I'll say this again, as well: I have no problem with the idea of merit aid, including gap merit aid, as well as awards which are a formula of need + merit.</p>
<p>NSM, your last post -- about the relationship between income & admissions success, is dead on -- particularly that last sentence. Low income is a tip relative to the whole profile; it is not in itself a "qualification." The mythology about this needs to stop.<br>
(Also an encouraging story about said student. Yay for her, & thanks for the story.)</p>
<p>NSM brings up an interesting point, and I apologize for thread hijacking, because this is not the central point of this thread, but when we take private colleges to task for not having proportionate numbers of low income students - we should keep in mind that getting the most "bang for the buck" for low income kids comes from strong community colleges, improvements in high schools, strong minimum wage, etc,etc, and I think it is not patronizing for colleges to select low income kids that they have reason to believe will do well. Elite schools say they seek diversity to benefit the majority students - while I think it is important for growing minds to be exposed to all different types of people with varying backgrounds, something about that almost "token poor person" just gives me the willies. I came from a very lower middle class background, but among my peers in high school I was considered wealthy - some of my friends were truly poor, I think of them and the pride they had when I read these arguments.
My husband had a student several years ago, when he first began teaching, highest scoring, brightest student he has had to date. Not a URM, but from a poor family - dad drove a truck, I think, Mom didn't work. She was recruited by all the big name Ivies - Harvard, Princeton, plus Duke, Vandy, you name it. She had a boyfriend at home, no one had ever gone to college from her family, etc. She was scared, and turned it all down for big state U. My husband begged her to take any of the OOS offers. Well, it was the first and last time he ever begged like that - she went to big state U, shed the BF within the first year, graduated with much honors, went to another well known graduate program, I think at UIUC, anyway OOS and just recently finished her PhD. His take on her story is that he was wrong - she knew herself, knew what was right for her, sometimes kids need to listen to their hearts and gut.</p>
I doubt very seriously that the course work at Harvard is more demanding than that at UC Berkeley, which draws primarily from public high schools in California, including very dismal ones. On the contrary, I think it is much harder to get an A at Berkeley than at Harvard. If "stats" = "test scores", there is such a low correlation between test scores and ability that the scores are virtually meaningless. The difference is that a school like Berkeley might have taken a chance an the girl you interviewed, if she had come from a California public high school -- as a top student at her lower quality school, she would likely have been extra points in the admission process to compensate for the challenges she had undergone. </p>
<p>In fact, the idea that the student is being weighed on her "presentation" at an interview suggests a gatekeeping form of elitism rather than a search for academic quality -- she not only is expected to do well in school, but she also must master the social graces that characterise the upper class. It makes it rather easy for the Ivies to reject the kids from middle class backgrounds who haven't mastered the art of acting rich.</p>
<p>By the way, I just discovered a neat trick. Go to all of the schools on your list and do a search for "enrollment management" and "admissions yield." You will, in many cases, turn up detailed information about just what a school's plans in this area are. </p>
<p>For example, doing this search on Clark University's website turned up a long letter from the college president written last spring. In it, he noted, in part, "The yield on admitted students has remained flat, resulting in total enrollment and net tuition revenues below target...we remain heavily dependent on merit aid to recruit outstanding undergraduate students, and we also have a low percentage of enrolling students paying full tuition..." and other specifics about how they didn't meet their goals for yield, revenue and attracting better qualified students last year but are hoping to this year. Interesting and useful information for anyone considering applying to Clark. </p>
<p>And, a quick check of the websites of several other colleges - including Yale's - brought up similar reports and other sources of information. </p>
<p>So, again, dig deep. The information is out there, and not as closely guarded as many think. But you do have to look for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
which would likely mean that roughly 12% of the freshman class is on Pell Grants - not a very large percentage
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But, saying that 1 out of every 8 Princeton students coming from a family income below 40k per year is "not a very large" number ignores the rather large elephant in the living room. There aren't very many students in that socio-economic bracket who even remotely meet the academic qualifications at Princeton -- SATs, curriculum, class rank, writing ability, four years of language, three years of science and so forth. As long as we accept those academic standards, then 1 out of 8 is a very large number.</p>
<p>Now, we could argue that Princeton should throw out their standards. For example, Princeton could reduce their standards to median SAT 1160-1370 and 59% in the top 10% class rank from their current SAT 1370-1560 and 94% top-10. This would open up the pool of Pell Grant students and allow Princeton to perhaps have as many as 1 in 4 very poor students. But, they might as well change the name of the school because it would not be Princeton as we know it. It would be a total repositioning and rebranding of the product.</p>
<p>It seems to me that if you consider the academic strength of Princeton's student body as a core defining characteristic of its educational product, then 1 out of 8 students from very low socio-economic backgrounds is not only a large number, but an impressive achievement made possible only because Princeton has made it an institutional priority.</p>
<p>Other schools offer products with different feature sets. Just like one car company specializes in high-tech engines and leather seats another positions its product to compete on the basis of price. Neither approach is inherently wrong or right. They are simply different.</p>
<p>Heck, if you want to focus exclusively on Pell Grants, Paine College is better than Princeton because it has 72% Pell Grant students. Of course, its median combined SATs are 700 - 890. You can't look at one measure in a vacuum.</p>
<p>When comparing your circumstances to others within your zipcode, remember that zipcodes now come in the nine digit variety. If someone has your street address, they can easily obtain your ZIP+4. Any demographer worth their salt is using this to best advantage (theirs, not yours.)</p>
<p>If you think they will have the wrong measure of your circumstances based on your standing within your 5-digit zipcode, think again. Recalculate in terms of your ZIP+4.</p>
<p>As far as the well-endowed top schools go there are only two groups of students who have much of a chance of ever attending even if somehow they get past the gatekeepers and I think mini's numbers and the anecdotal evidence I have collected bear it out. </p>
<p>1)The full freight payers ,50% or so of enrollees and</p>
<p>2) those who for whatever reason were comfortable that their full-need would be met.</p>
<p>Put another way, </p>
<p>2) those whose definition of what they need (almost all, to all) matches the institution's view of what they need (almost all, to all).</p>
<p>It is rarely in the under $50k scenario that those two definitions of need disagree. Bump that number to $85k-$100k and throw in some "larger than normal" expenses or no retirement plan and see how many parents agree with the institution's definition. Parent (almost all, to all) Institution (a bag of nacho chips, and a $1 off coupon on some bean dip). (And doesn't it appear that those that do seem to make it with somewhat greater frequency are often the children of academics? Right hand washing the left?)</p>
<p>Uncertainty rules the roost. We ,the great unwashed, don't trust that our need as defined by what we believe are realistic measures will match the definition at HYPSD (to pick on just 5 ). We are not news when our kid does go to a select school or makes a high score on a standardized test. One or two a year do . Out of 100 or so. These colleges don't parade us around or feature us on their website. They don't market to us . There is no "Middle-classbridge", no "Posse", no "middle-class weekends" or outreach programs. (The merit schools DO market to us. Our kids are their stars.)</p>
<p>So what are we to do? Drive our kids to the super-select party so that they can be told , "hey-if you are good enough you can get in". Only to find out that when they do , from their rural schools and crappy publics, beat the overwhelming odds and trounce the advantaged kids at their own game the $ don't work? Yeah, right. Admit/deny. That's a real good plan. ;)</p>
<p>"But, saying that 1 out of every 8 Princeton students coming from a family income below 40k per year is "not a very large" number ignores the rather large elephant in the living room. There aren't very many students in that socio-economic bracket who even remotely meet the academic qualifications at Princeton -- SATs, curriculum, class rank, writing ability, four years of language, three years of science and so forth. As long as we accept those academic standards, then 1 out of 8 is a very large number."</p>
<p>No elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is that the prestige school standards are drawn a priori to conform with what the school has ascertained are those held by its potential desired full-fare customers. I imagine that some 80% of the student body at UCLA and Berkeley (just to pull out those two examples), plus 25% of their rejects would do quite well at Princeton (or at virtually any other school in the country), but they not only won't get in, they won't even get to apply. (And, similarly, given California standards, a significant number of Princeton's student body couldn't get into Berkeley or UCLA).</p>
<p>MIT seems to function quite well with 72% of its student body on financial aid - do you really, honestly think these students wouldn't do well at Princeton or Swarthmore?</p>
<p>I don't think any of these schools need to operate any differently than they do. It's their money. I would just urge more transparency. And they certainly don't need false excuses made for them, like the students aren't there if they really wanted them. The very success of Princeton's initiative (and Amherst's), and the longer term success of Smith and Occidental, and above all, Berea, is proof positive that they are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you think they will have the wrong measure of your circumstances based on your standing within your 5-digit zipcode, think again. Recalculate in terms of your ZIP+4.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, I am looking around my block (that'd be my ZIP+4, right?) Well, the two-family on one side of me, the guy upstairs is some kind of lower middle manager, i think. His wife doesn't work outside the home. The woman below (his mom) is a waitress. Next to them is the guy who works for the town public works dept. On my other side is a teacher married to a golfclub groundskeeper. Across from them is a single mom, also a teacher. Next to her is another teacher married to a p/t plumber. Farther up my street is a single mom on disability, a retired couple supporting their DIL and grandkids, an older widow on SS, etc, etc. Oh, and totally varied ethnically, racially, etc.</p>
<p>Despite being in the "wrong" zip+4, my kids were aggressively marketed to by top schools, as i'm sure many of all yours were, too.</p>
<p>The question, alluded to by ID and NSM, is, what percentage of applications came from middle income or lower students, and how many of them met academic qualifications? The PSATs will trigger the information and marketing, so it's not that the schools are keeping themselves secret on purpose. As I said, our democraphics would indicate need, yet our kids were heavily recruited by top colleges (with the interesting exception of the all-time marketing king, according to this board--WUSTL--which hardly acknowledged their existence. Which leads me to believe thet maybe they were truly followng a different marketing pattern than most other elite schools, though this is pure speculation.)</p>
<p>But it seems we can't make much use of percentages until we know what they truly are a percentage of.</p>
<p>we live in the wrong zip thats for sure- our zipcode encompasses an industrial area, gravel works- etc, but also includes homes on the waterfront. This makes our house assessment be way over what identical homes would be a few blocks away- and I imagine makes other assumptions as well. ( when we moved in we got all kinds of literature for cemetary plots)
D wasn't actualy targeted for many top schools however, mostly obscure Oregon or Idaho schools.
Interestingly, Reed has been noted on other boards as a prolific mailer, but we didn't receive anything from them until I requested something.
I have no idea what list we are on, or not on. although I am bemused at my yearly invitation to the republican barbeque on vashon island</p>
<p>Interestingly, Reed has been noted on other boards as a prolific mailer, but we didn't receive anything from them until I requested something.</p>
<br>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yet, my daughter has received something from Reed nearly every other day for the past month or so. She never contacted them, and her test scores are on the low side. But they even sent her an application. Guess we must live in a "better" zip code than you Emerald. :)</p>
<p>By the way folks, there's no need to speculate about how vendors like the College Board help colleges use the information they collect about our kids and us -- the CB spells it all out quite nicely on its list of available recruitment databases. See this link --- and be sure to browse around, there's tons of information there on what the CB has available for schools. And that's just ONE such vendor.</p>
<p>interesteddad, Thanks for your paragraph #1, Post #108.</p>
<p>mini, it would seem that your declarations in your recent post -- about the probability or lack thereof, of cross-admits -- has not been supported. Speaking of evidence, where is yours, regarding these statements? While it is true that the Ivies readily admit that "80-90% of our applicants can do the work here" [quoting what I've heard from them at rep sessions], I haven't heard or seen evidence that very many P admits couldn't --if residency were not an issue -- get accepted to Berkeley. I don't know on what basis you make that statement. </p>
<p>May I just remind you that Berkeley & UCLA use recruiting strategies for special categories that do not have to meet the higher bar that a non-hooked CA resident has to. The only category that CA publics & P do not have in common is legacies. However, even then, there were definitely legacies not admitted to P & other Ivies this yr., many with very high stats, etc. It is highly unlikely that "a significant number" of the current P student body is composed of legacies with 2nd-rate academics (& thus could not be accepted to a top CA public.)</p>
<p>Hey, I didn't even mention the auto body shops, plumbing supplies stores, etc. around the corner. But for whatever reason, the absolute first piece of college literature, here on the opposite coast, came to my S from Reed. I have no idea why. :)</p>
<p>I just saw an interview on c-span with Artur Davis, Congressman from Alabama. He is African-American, graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard College, and Cum Laude and won the best oral advocate award (may not have the exact title correct) from Harvard Law. He mentioned he had a good GPA but did not have stellar test scores, but was admitted primarily via AA and because of low income status. He went on to out perform most of the white students who had those big time test scores, EC's, etc. So admitting some of those 2000 SAT kids to Princeton may not be such a bad idea after all, and bringing in more of those kids that need financial aid.</p>