<p>Despite my warnings that it was “difficult (impossible) to make accurate comparisons” on some of these statistics. I can see you are determined to pursue it. So from Andovers Web Site I direct you to “Currently, the average financial aid grant covers 75 percent of the boarding tuition at Andover” [Phillips</a> Academy - Access & Affordability](<a href=“Tuition and Financial Aid”>Tuition and Financial Aid)</p>
<p>As you correctly pointed out St. Paul’s covers 87%. </p>
<p>I believe the apples to apples comparison is Andover 75%; SPS 87%. Both are current, both compare boarding only, and both reference tuition as the denominator.</p>
<p>I recognize that there are inconsistencies on Andover’s Admissions web site, and perhaps you should discuss it with them, not with me.</p>
<p>I know you are proud of Andover. I am of SPS. The problem untimately comes down not to size or total endowment, but endowment per student. As the Andover Phillipian reported 5 months ago:
</p>
<p>That is why last spring Andover granted only 31 (6.9%) of their accepted students full scholarships and raised their scholarship aid budget to new students by only $7,100 (both from the [Front</a> Page | The Phillipian](<a href=“http://phillipian.net%5DFront”>http://phillipian.net)). That 6.9% compares to 12% overall (or is it 11?). While inquiries and applications for aid have increased “significantly” with the “same financial aid to a slightly larger number of students” (your Dir of Financial Aid).</p>
<p>The real point, which is missed, is **all of these schools are doing their best in a difficult economy to help students at all economic levels. We should applaud them all for their generosity with their resources. ** I applaud Andover, Exeter and all of these amazing schools, and the two of you as supporters or parents.</p>
I know for a fact that this section of the website hasn’t been updated this year, and it is inconsistent with what you can derive from average grant/tuition.</p>
<p>
Endowment and fiancial aid are not apples to apples.</p>
<p>
What’s the point again? That Andover can’t afford or too stingy to support more full aid students, rather than indeed that’s the actual finanicial need that needed to be met?</p>
<p>
Is this the conclusion of your write-up, or is it an after thought?</p>
<p>I’m not sure why there was so much angst in the response. My point was that the published numbers for SPS (average grant at 87% of tuition) actually indicate a healthier aid program, covering both full-need and middle-class students, than the 94% cited and that it is quite similar to Andover.</p>
<p>Regarding PA I wouldn’t make too much of the 75% figure. That’s just a broad strokes proclamation that doesn’t even specify whether it is solely considering aid awards to boarding students. The detailed figures from the Andover site are:</p>
<p>“In 2009-2010, 44% of the student body receives financial aid; 12% receive full scholarships. The average grant for boarding students is $35,200 and the average grant for day students is $25,100.”</p>
<p>From that one can do whatever calculation is desired. </p>
<p>Lastly, I wasn’t aware of the cited figures from the Phillipian as I no longer receive it. It would be disappointing if there has been a significant decline in new full aid students, but, if true, I suspect I know the reason. I believe there are some named programs (with presumably named endowments) that specifically target such kids. In that sense PA was arguably not being need-blind, but actually need-aware to the benefit of such low-income students. If those endowments were put at risk it may have caused a reduction in new admits at that level. </p>
<p>On the other hand the percentage of Andover students on full aid has either held steady or actually increased slightly. I know the school, like many of its peers, provided increase aid to returning students impacted by the financial downturn. However, I doubt it would have resulted in enough new full aid students to offset a dramatic downturn in similarly situated new admits. Perhaps from the article we could find more clues. Can you provide a link or at least the date of publication so I can find it in the archives? Thanks.</p>
<p>Just to clarify, I responded to Winterset’s cited figures about the number of new students on full aid as if I accepted them as facts while actually I have no idea where they are on the newspaper. Winterset appears a diligent researcher. I am sure he can point out the exact source from which those numbers were from next time he checks out this thread.</p>
<p>I find the whole discussion of whether a school commits too/continues a policy of “need blind” fascinating; it must be a real challenge for the Boards of Trustees. Essential to the discussion is that available budget money decreased dramatically with the collapse of the financial market, because all of the big schools were very reliant on their endowments. Thus, remaining need blind goes hand in hand with reducing program expenditures, and easing up on need blind means protecting the product. There’s got to be some concern about compromising the educational product, and thus compromising the brand.</p>
<p>In that vein, I assume you saw the NY Times article last month. <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/07prep.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/07prep.html</a> While endowments have done better since 6/30, the fact remains that most schools budget off a three year trailing average, so the decline will have an impact over the next couple of years. A lesser but significant factor is that most annual fund contributions (alumni and parents) have shown continued growth.</p>