<p>Every year financial aid commitments roll off also as students graduate...</p>
<p>Balto, far be it for me to argue with you, but if you roll one financial aid student out at one end and another enters at the other end, then, in a strictly financial sense, you are at square one. No net gain or loss. I just cannot imagine that the schools are not very concerned about the multi year recession that we are facing. The years of spectacular appreciation in endowments are over. Look at what happened to Harvard with its illiquid investments.</p>
<p>Feel free to argue! My (small) point simply was that there is an additional variable in the mix - the financial aid profile of the class that is rolling off. And while an institution may have a reasonably stable financial aid budget, there can be a lot of variability from class to class. </p>
<p>I do think these institutions are terribly concerned (who isn't) about a multi year downturn from a variety of perspectives - increased demand for financial aid, reduction in annual campaign contributions (which was going to happen anyway due to increased economic diversity), inability to fund capital projects, etc. I also believe these schools are totally committed to economic diversity and will continue down that path as long as they can. Along the lines of "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste", I think several schools are also using the downturn as an excuse to take some of their sacred cows out to pasture.....which is a good thing, but difficult to do in prosperous times.</p>
<p>Everybody can say whatever they think. However, what is the point of this arguement?
Nobody knows how BS and FA will be affected in this economy. They may have more application or they may have less application. Everything is not clear until they release the data after 3/15. By the time everybody will know if they are admitted with or without FA or they are not accepted at all. Since nobody knows about all these, there is nothing you can do. All you can do is to let kids their best at test, filling out application, interview, and so forth.
Even if they know the impact on FA and BS, what can they do? They have to apply anyway to take a chance.
What I am saying is that you do not have to worry about these for now and do your best to get whatever you like to accomplish. You may be curious about the impact. So is everybody. But we are not gonna know until 3/15.</p>
<p>I care, because for most schools, many things will change. For one, I do not want to commit my child to a school which might close before 2014. </p>
<p>I assume most building projects will be delayed; I do not assume that all schools will be able to enact last year's plans. </p>
<p>I also wonder about how schools will trim their budgets. A hiring freeze is most likely. Some changes are regrettable, but acceptable, such as higher class sizes and fewer "nice to haves." Other changes are not acceptable, such as a decrease in supervision of the dorms.</p>
<p>Lastly, I worry about the effects of financial pressure on admissions. Large endowments and FA allow schools to select the students they want. I'm not worried about the admission of children with somewhat lower grades or SSAT scores than last year. I'm worried about the admission of full-pay children whose behavior or attitude would have disqualified them last year.</p>
<p>Periwinkle said: "I'm worried about the admission of full-pay children whose behavior or attitude would have disqualified them last year."</p>
<p>I've thought of this as well and it concerns me most of all. The vetting of applicants is one of the things that appeals most to our family. My children complain every day about the behaviour of their public school classmates - the apathy, the disrespect and the general nastiness of a lot of their classmates really gets to them. Often, they can't even relate to them and it sometimes make them feel like they are the ones who are "off".</p>
<p>But how tempted will admissions be to overlook a discipline issue or a rec that says the student is insubordinate or a bully when they see that they aren't applying for FA?</p>
<p>I am of course only speculating, but I imagine that the vast majority of schools would eliminate a student with a documented history of bullying or dsruptive behavior, whatever their pay status. But do you really think that they might compromise on stats to grab more full pays?!!!</p>
<p>They might compromise on ssat scores and grades if they still feel like the full-pay applicant can keep up with the work. I certainly HOPE they wouldn't compromise on matters of character. But like periwinkle said, something that might have disqualified a student last year, may be more likely to be overlooked this year because the student will be a) not taking up FA money and b) bringing 40K+ with them.</p>
<p>Surely not at the "need-blinds?"</p>
<p>Oh, surely not. But remember, need-blind is only a small fraction of the schools discussed (obssessed over) on this board. And those discussed on this board are only a small fraction of the really great schools available. I forget that sometimes myself.</p>
<p>Two things, neatoburrito:</p>
<p>Full pays bring in not 40k, but 40 or 80 or 120 or 160k.</p>
<p>And, do you really believe that any schools are truly need blind? If so, how do they wind up with a consistent ratio of aids to full pays, year after year?</p>
<p>True! I didn't think about the donations!</p>
<p>I am very skeptical of the need-blind idea. However, there is a direct correlation between income and academic achievement. It makes sense that FA applicants have a lower admit rate because all those EC's that the admissions staff seem to put so much stress on often cost a lot of money. Maybe an applicant doesn't have any honors classes because they go to a crappy public school that doesn't offer any. The full-pay is more likely to have gone to a private school that not only offers advanced classes, but perhaps foreign language starting in 3rd grade. The more money a family has, the more opportunities for educational enrichment it can give. If the admissions staff truly doesn't consider finances when making their decisions they might see two students with similar academic stats, but one who has participated in academic enrichment summer programs like CTY that cost 3500. The other may have had higher qualifying scores, but didn't get the FA that would allow him/her to go. If the adcom is really "blind", the second kid just might look lazy or unmotivated. </p>
<p>I think it's great that there are kids whose parents have the means to really nurture their children's passions. But for every kid who shows up at a competitive entry summer camp, there are probably 4 others whose parents had to say, "I'm sorry Honey. We're proud of you for qualifying, but we just can't afford braces and this marine biology camp." All of those camps and enrichment are things that make a BS applicant look good and more likely to be admitted. This might explain why Groton, for instance, states that the admit rate for FA applicants is about 1 in 5, while non-FA applicants is about 1 in 4. Or....they realize that to keep their doors open, they've got to have so many students paying the tuition.</p>
<p>I believe that they try to be need-blind, but I really don't see how any of them really can be. I read an article in Boston magazine about how SPS tried going need-blind and couldn't afford it, but were working to raise the money to do so again. (article was from 2006)</p>
<p>When the schools talk about "economic diversity" they are fooling not a soul. I have read that only 4 - 6 percent of American families have the wherewithal to pay the 40k yearly that it takes to send a child to boarding school. Yet full pays account for up to 70 percent of the student population at most of these places (and nowhere less than 55 percent of the student population.) So individuals of substantial means are grossly overrepresented at the schools.</p>
<p>I can argue with nothing that you say! </p>
<p>If we knew what percentage of APPLICANTS were applying for financial aid, then we could know a little more.</p>
<p>(Hotchkiss also states that it is their practise not to admit students for who they cannot meet the required aid.)</p>
<p>I'll see if I can find that article I read....</p>
<p>Here's the article I was referring to: Costly</a> Boarding Schools Offer More Aid - Education - redOrbit</p>
<p>It's interesting to compare these two statements, both from SPS (the second one is from a different article about the same thing)</p>
<p>1) "But other admission officers say students deserve to know that they had the academic credentials to get in. Admission is typically based on grades, interviews, essays, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and entrance exam scores. </p>
<p>"These kids are extraordinary kids. They would have every reason to believe they would be admitted," said Michael Hirschfeld, director of admissions at St. Paul's School. "</p>
<p>2) "St. Paul's School, in Concord, saw an increase in applications from students in lower-income households after announcing its new policy, said Laura Dickson, senior associate director of admissions. But she said only a handful of those applicants met the school's admissions requirements."</p>
<p>I am going to risk being thought of as cynical with this post. Institutions with large endowments seek to protect their tax-exempt status. Is it possible that some of these schools (colleges as well as secondary schools) declare that they are need-blind in admissions in order to strengthen their case for remaining tax-exempt? In this regard, you may remember all the commotion a few months ago between Senator Charles Grassley and the Ivy League schools over their staggering endowment returns. My understanding is that the Ivies were forced to expand financial aid in order to blunt the efforts to revoke their tax-exempt status. So they are not doing it for altruistic reasons, but only to protect their interests. As Noam Chomsky says, all organizations have a propensity to act in their own interest.</p>
<p>This is certainly yesterdays problem, and I don't think it was ever a serious threat - losing tax exempt status because of endowment spending patterns. Further, I don't think there is a correlation between the interest in increased socioeconomic diversity and Grassley's blathering. The schools in question were already well down the road on their diversity programs.</p>
<p>Making an effort to improve access to higher education for millions of middle and lower income students who are locked out? That's "blathering?"</p>
<p>You misundertook my post...unless you actually believe there is some correlation between a senators blathers about excessive endowment returns and the diversity policies of these institutions. I clearly do not believe that congressional action would have any impact. Nor should it. Do you really want the government telling private schools how they can spend their money?</p>
<p>By definition, when an institution is tax exempt it enjoys certain benefits in relation to the tax laws. It enjoys a subsidy from the taxpayer. In return for that subsidy, certain obligations are imposed upon it from time to time. It is analogous to the situation with hospitals that receive monies from Medicare: they are obligated to comply with a whole series of requirements, including not turning uninsured patients away. This is known as the social contract. Furthermore, these universities are the beneficiaries of billions of dollars in grants and other subsidies from the taxpayer. They are already under heavy government regulation, as they should be. They are not "private" in the sense that you suggest, because they benefit from enormous taxpayer largesse. When higher education is beyond the reach of millions of middle and lower income students and endowment returns of universities compare favorably to those of the best managed equity and hedge funds, then those who represent the taxpayer (Grassley) are in fact obligated to question the situation.</p>
<p>I will stop blathering. Sorry I got off the boarding school topic.</p>