Everything we think we know, may be wrong

Parent Cafe
121

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course. But, since when has the mere "ability to do well" been sufficient for admission to Princeton? Or, many other schools?</p>

<p>I had the "ability to do well" at Smith, but would have had zero chance of admission because I didn't meet other criterion of the school beyond the mere "ability to do well". In a nutshell, I didn't offer what they were looking for. </p>

<p>Princeton, UCLA, Smith, and Paine College all tailor their products to meet the expectations of their customers. Each has very different admissions priorities. Because Princeton could fill its entire class at the current SAT levels without offering a dime of financial aid and the financial strength from their per student endowment, they have the luxury of setting diversity as a key admissions priority without concern for the impact on the bottom line. Diversity is a priority because their customers expect it.</p>

<p>Smith has a more complex (and more typical) set of institutional priorities: diversity plus maintaining their SATs in the face of declining systemic demand for women's colleges (merit aid), plus the need to address an explicity-stated budgetary equilibrium imbalances resulting from rapidly increasing tuition discounting. Unlike Princeton, Smith cannot maintain or increase their SAT levels without tuition discounting. If they could, they wouldn't offer merit aid; they aren't stupid. Smith's customers are value shoppers: excellent academics and high-end prestige coupled with affordability (either in terms of admissions odds and/or financial package).</p>

<p>Paine College really only has one admissions goal: find enough living, breathing students with enough Pell Grant and other money each year to keep their doors open. Just enrolling a full freshman class is their goal. Their customers share their single-minded goal. Going to college period is the goal and finding the money is the top priority.</p>

<p>I wouldn't hazard a guess about UCLA's admissions priorities except to note that there is political component that adds to the mix. For example, it is the will of the people (expressed through legislative appropriations) that the UCs reduce their enrollment (or at least stop the growth -- same thing). It is also the political will of the people that the UC system not explicitly consider race in the admissions process. These are components that don't exist in the same way at private institutions.</p>

122

<p>"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>Anecdote, not evidence. Though the use of class rank at the California schools would work heavily against private school students in the 10-20% range, and there would like not be "hooks" that would overcome that. Last April, there were 3 or 4 students on the board who were accepted to Harvard but not UCLA, but I don't actually remember same from Princeton.</p>

<p>Of course "very many" wouldn't amount to "very many" when the number of Princeton admits is so small to begin with. And (and this is quite obvious) those admitted to Princeton (or Div. III schools) on their strength of their athletic prowess would have virtually no shot at UCLA or Berkeley on the same basis.</p>

123

<p>"Unlike Princeton, Smith cannot maintain or increase their SAT levels without tuition discounting. If they could, they wouldn't offer merit aid; they aren't stupid."</p>

<p>Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The number of merit scholarships offered at Smith last year, outside of its STRIDE research assistantships was fewer than 16, and this included 3 specifically for students from Springfield. (I think Swarthmore actually had more students, or at least a higher percentage, receiving merit aid tuition discounting inside its need-based program - you probably know the program better than I do.) The STRIDE positions offer $2,500 a year (hardly a tuition discount at a school that costs $43,000) - their value to the student is in the enhanced ACADEMIC opportunity - a paid research assistantship in the first two years.</p>

<p>No, they aren't stupid. In 1975, they made a decision that the academic quality of the education offered would be substantially enhanced by substantially increasing economic diversity, and chose to spend a significant amount of their endowment income -- and admissions department time and energy - to make it happen. Then (under Ruth Simmons) they took it one step further and spent three years studying whether they could find an association between SAT scores among admitted students and academic performance (they couldn't). In other words, they made a decision not to play Morty Schapiro's airline ticket sale game. Not stupid, just different.</p>

<p>You wouldn't consider Olin, or Berea, or Cooper Union, or MIT "stupid", would you?</p>

124

<p>Garland:</p>

<p>Your zip code combined with high test scores probably landed your kids on a lot of recruiting lists. Remember, they don't know your financial situation ahead of time; they can only play the odds based on +4 zip codes.</p>

<p>I mentioned early on in this thread that a small number of schools don't play by the same rules. These are the schools that could maintain their median SATs (as a proxy for a more complex set of qualifications) without offering a dime of financial aid. As it happens, these are also the schools with huge per student endowments. In a nutshell, these schools have the luxury of not having to base admissions on maximizing tuition revenues (not because it's not important, but because they will get their revenues automatically due to high demand from full-fare customers).</p>

<p>These schools tend to focus their enrollment management strategies on achieving other goals: specifically increasing diversity. Thus, a high PSAT student from a moderate income +4 Zip code is a high-priority target.</p>

<p>Likewise, look at the quasi-merit aid scholarships at Swarthmore (it's technically need-based, but they convert loans to grants, buy you a computer, pay for international programs every summer, along with other perks). These appear to go almost exclusively to students who increase diversity and diversity leadership (of various kinds) on campus. In other words, they are investing their "inducement-money" in attracting diversity rather than investing it in higher stats (as would be the case with Wash U or Emory or Vanderbilt or on and on).</p>

125

<p>
[quote]
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).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Mini, reductio ad absurdem (or however you spell the damn phrase). You have a good argument at its entry level, don't kill it in the advanced phase. Having a fairly close view of who gets into Princeton vs. who gets into Berkeley, at an anecdotal level, it ain't all about the money for tuition. Just ain't. </p>

<p>I concur with those who have pointed out that the best way to solve the problem of low-income kids access to high quality colleges and universities is by approaching education at the pre-school level.</p>

<p>As far as the kids from the middle bracket go who are qualified from HYPSMetc, I feel shame as though I ought to give up my Ds acceptance to Princeton. Here - who wants her spot? Sorry I have a dad who contributed to her college fund, sorry I went to business school and took a job that pays well but leaves my soul empty so I never had to take any money from the family for my own living expenses. But not really. I wish I were so selfless but I am not. Because from where I sit it looks a little different.</p>

<p>You know what? I actually bet that the number of kids, in the income range between $40-100K, who are better qualified than kids who can pay - ON THE FACE OF IT - meaning given their scores and ECs and grades and caliber of their education, is minimal. Not non-existent, but smaller than the raw numbers show. My guess is that most of the unfairness happens not when the college adcom chooses two completely equivalent kids and takes the one who pays full freight vs. the one who needs $10,000/yr in aid but when the college adcom picks between these same two kids only one has had the advantages of a great prep school and a good college counselor and lessons and not having to take a job, etc.</p>

<p>I actually have first hand confirmation from a source that the article is correct. Of course the colleges are practicing admissions management and can take only so many kids who need aid. And I am sure this is correct that the middle class gets squeezed. But in order to find a solution in the country, we can't ask universities to start operating at a loss, we can ask the federal and state governments to invest more in public grammar schools and pre-schools.</p>

<p>Besides, don't we all say and believe here that HYPSM are not the be-all and end-all?</p>

126

<p>And BTW Cal and UCLA have big athletic teams. They would trounce Princeton on the field or the court or whatever....</p>

127

<p>"But in order to find a solution in the country, we can't ask universities to start operating at a loss, we can ask the federal and state governments to invest more in public grammar schools and pre-schools."</p>

<p>I'm with ya, not against ya. I don't think there is any reason why the private schools should operate other than they do, other than to ensure the best education for the students attending - in other words, diversity benefits everyone, and if most of the students are well-to-do, then it benefits them most of all. If I were them, I'd operate in virtually exactly the same way, given institutional priorities. I urge transparency, NOT a change in policy. What I didn't like about the Atlantic Monthly article is that it comes across as a "Gotcha", when it really should be ho-hum, or so it is to me.</p>

<p>I feel very differently about the public universities, which should operate with a different mission. I'm much more concerned about public universities becoming unaffordable, or refusing to accept in-state community college transfers, and some such, or about their failure to deal with the huge nursing shortage and chemical dependency professional shortage that is beginning to swamp the health care system.</p>

128

<p>I think people here are missing a very important point: it's not just a matter of "upper class" vs. "middle class" vs. "lower class." People within the SAME class can get very different treatment when it comes to their admissions results and financial aid packages. In other words, this isn't just about the middle class being "squeezed out" or families in low income or high income brackets getting preferential treatment, it's also about the individual decisions made both by schools concerning how they will treat INDIVIDUAL students within the same economic class AND the decisions made by individual students and their families regarding how much they're willing to pay for a certain school, how they've spent their money in the past, and which schools they will only accept as suitable. </p>

<p>Schools still do accept middle class students and they still do give money to middle class families - it's just that everyone's perception of what is fair may not match up because most people are still thinking that financial aid and admissions offices hold all the cards. They don't. You can choose to go elsewhere. You can choose to allocate your financial resources differently. You can choose to accept loans or you can hunt for merit scholarships. It's really not much different than deciding whether you're going to drive that extra half mile to reach a gas station where the price of gas is cheaper, or pay extra for the brand you're convinced is somehow better. </p>

<p>Here's a quote to consider:</p>

<p>"One of the most common horizontal equity quandries in designing a need analysis system is determining whether or not families with similar incomes who have, for a variety of reasons, made different choices, should be treated similarly. If two families have equal incomes, but one has chosen to save while the other has chosen to consume more, should they have equal expected family contributions because they had equal financial opportunities, or should the family with savings pay more because their accumulated savings increase their capacity to pay?"</p>

<p>That quote comes from the College Board's "A Primer on Economics for Financial Aid Professionals." I recommend that people read it, to understand more about the role things like supply and demand play on any one individual financial aid package. Here's the link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/fa/Economics-Primer-2004.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/fa/Economics-Primer-2004.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

129

<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>Respectfully,I disagree. First, the interview isn't just a search for academic quality. It's also a search for people with the social skills and personality to be able to fit in at a place like Harvard.</p>

<p>This means students who won't be frozen in fear to talk to a professor who is a presidential advisor. This also means students who'll be comfortable, not intimidated, when interacting with other students from a variety of backgrounds, including the wealthy as well as the working class. </p>

<p>A student who bursts into tears in a low pressure Harvard interview is not showing the resiliance that indicates she could handle being at Harvard. The college's environment is not a supportive one. Instead, it's more akin to swimming with the sharks. There are plenty of very bright students, including those from high income backgrounds, who would not thrive there, but may flourish in other university's environments.</p>

130

<p>Northstarmom - very good point. We all bewail the fact that kids get into emotional difficulties at these high selectivity colleges, so if they want to screen for swimming with the sharks they are doing parents and kids a favor.</p>

<p>Carolyn, as always, a good point. And mini, perhaps you are saying the same thing she is. The enrollment managment policy may be necessary but it is the unpredictibility and mild misrepresentation that is the problem. Agreed.</p>

<p>I noticed everyone ignored my little temper tantrum about my guilt and/or lack thereof. Thank you. Well done.</p>

131

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>I can only go by the stats. Smith gave merit aid to 10% of their incoming freshmen in the fall of 2004. Swarthmore gave merit aid to 2 out of 368 freshman -- from a special endowment to give a full-ride deal to two local high school students. </p>

<p>The average merit aid package at Smith is quite small, so my assumption is that the merit-aid mumber includes the STRIDE packages, although Smith also has some dedicated packages for engineering students that may be merit based.</p>

<p>You have said that Smith's financial package blew away the packages from similar schools. Either you submitted different FAFSA forms or there is an inducement-component in their tuition discounting. These schools are too smart to give away free money without getting something in return. BTW, the $2500 Stride discount is nearly 10% of Smith's net average tuition, room, and board price of $27.5k (the real price). A 10% discount is a 10% discount. Bet we'd all take a 10% off coupon on our next car purchase especially if they throw in the leather seats and power moonroom (paid research assistant) for free!</p>

<p>Just as a point of reference, noted merit-aid discounter Emory awarded merit aid to 5% of their freshmen last year. However, their average package was much bigger than Smith's -- about $15k versus $3.5k at Smith.</p>

132

<p>
[quote]
Besides, don't we all say and believe here that HYPSM are not the be-all and end-all?

[/quote]

Everybody says HYPSM are not the be-all and end-all because it seems like the right thing to say. But in reality, most people end up saying something like, "...if my son/daughter didn't get enought aid to go to HYPSM, he/she would have been perfectly happy at our state U." But, they don't actually go there. I have often thought in reading posts that it must be easy to say that your state u (or other more affordable lower tier private school) is okay with you when you don't actually have to attend there. I don't mean to offend to anyone here and I certainly don't fault anyone for grabbing the brass ring if available, but this thought has occurred to me occasionally over the past year.</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
BTW, the $2500 Stride discount is nearly 10% of Smith's net average tuition, room, and board price of $27.5k (the real price).

[/quote]
What does this mean? The real price?</p>

134

<p>The average price charged for tuition, room, and board is the college's true price. Total student revenue divided by total number of students.</p>

<p>Some folks pay more, some folks pay less, but the average is what the college really charging for its product.</p>

<p>As an example for two schools that are roughly comparable, Haverford charges an average price of $28,896. Grinnell charges $20,399. </p>

<p>The price is determined by the marketplace, and may or may not reflect the cost of goods sold. For example, Oberlin charges $2,000 more (on average) than Grinnell, but spends $6,000 less per student. Grinnell's huge per student endowment makes up the difference. Their per student endowment spending is $10,000 a year higher than Oberlin's.</p>

135

<p>The "real price" is what they charge me. LOL. As soon as I get her educated I will again have some professional distance. We all view this stuff personally. Alu, me, you, mini (everybody else), we all are coming from where we come from (ode to Yogi Berra). It's all good. It's just all fairly predictable. </p>

<p>This thread has been good. I like the give and take without (much) rancor. Let's keep it above the personal as much as we can, even knowing that our personal situations and choices have colored our views. We all have hot buttons and this thread is nudging a bunch of them, but the discourse is wonderful. Let's try hard.</p>

136

<p>lkf - yes we do all say that and yet I had exactly this situation and sent my D to Princeton vs. Cal precisely because I wanted her to a) go to a school small enough that she could get her arms around it b) get full exposure to a brilliant professor or two whose job is to open her mind c) get into all the classes she wanted to get into d) live on campus e) get to make her own choice. </p>

<p>So at the moment of choice she took the gold-plated route. However, I am fully convinced that for her life Cal could have been a great and maybe even better option. Just when the moment came it felt more right for her at Princeton, more guaranteed of a good experience, more like that gold-plated bit was what she had worked so hard for. But I have no certainty at all that it will turn out to have been actually, measurably better for her future happiness.</p>

<p>Anyway, I guess the issue here is fair access to the goldplated experience and at the very least disclosure of any requisite unfairness.</p>

137

<p>
[quote]
The "real price" is what they charge me. LOL.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course! But, then we're all blind men feeling different parts of the same elephant and having trouble agreeing on what an elephant is.</p>

<p>To understand the differences in colleges, you have to step back and look at the underlying economics. It's pretty basic supply and demand stuff. If you want more customers, charge less or give them more for their money. Whether you call "charging them less" merit aid or something else, a discounted price is still a discounted price. Compare per student spending to average price charged and you'll see exactly why the schools at the top of the USNEWS list are at the top of the list. If a Mercedes dealer ran a half-price sale, they'd be lined up around the block waiting to buy one.</p>

138

<p>Carolyn wrote
'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>Thanks Carolyn!! I typed in "admissions yield" at one college we are looking at and discovered all kinds of interesting information. Looks like they are making an effort to recruit males and multicultural applicants.</p>

<p>Which makes me hopeful for S! :-)</p>

<p>FresnoMom</p>

139

<p>Yeah, interesteddad, but at the need-only schools my kid may be charged sticker. There may be no discount even available for us so the fact that somebody else got a cheap fare is really not germane to my family's choices or opportunities.</p>

<p>It's all matter of perspective. </p>

<p>Now, talking college economics is fun as coffee house chat but at the end of the day-how much do they want? How much can I pay? are the only financial questions that make any real difference to the parent of a prospective.</p>

<p>Whether Swat or Smith does a better job distributing their largesse is just not that engrossing to everybody, as I'm sure the "Plight of the Middle Class" book I keep reading from is not that interesting to wealthy or poor folks.</p>

<p>Carolyn's thread has been about how parents can use this knowledge about enrollment strategies to help our kids gain admittance and reasonable FA. I'd hate to see it turn into a personal battle of whose school is better at FA policy that serves no end (that I can see).</p>

140

<p>So the part that's tricky, and I am trying to keep this light, is the how much can you pay part. Because that is determined some times by the deck stacked against you and some times by life choices. In the middle class, particularly the upper end of it, I can particularly imagine that to be true. For example, sticking to the personal examples, I could have chosen to stay home, chosen to move to some other region of the country, chosen to have more kids. Then my D would not have gone to a well known prep school full of teachers with degrees from Stanford where her grades would be measured against other kids from far smarter parents then me. In other words, choices I made a long time ago made my D a known quantity to adcoms. And of course there is also the legacy issue, but we are putting that aside in favor of the income question today:).</p>

<p>I mean, I would have in another life loved to have lived in the Pacific Northwest and baked bread and cooked and owned a small restaurant and had many babies and traded my midwifing skills for oysters. Or whatever. But I picked this route and it is hard and brutal and they pay me well enough and there are two working parents so we can pay full freight.</p>

<p>Should colleges correct for that and give someone with a kid as smart as mine a scholarship? Even if those parents made other choices and they are at this moment dandling the 5th kid and feeding everyone else oysters?</p>

<p>That's Caroline's point, I believe. High consumers shouldn't be subsidized per se. But I completely understand the voices raised for transparency. I also completely understand that to some extent my choices were a result of generations of privilege. I am just reiterating that most of the unfairness started when my ancestors funded railroads - way before my ability to pay tuition showed up on someone's screen. And that unfairness is only half of it, as I could have spent everything my family gave me, gone surfing, said hell to the MBA, and waited around for dad to take care of me. On second thought, maybe I will do that now:).</p>