<p>I'm often asked if applying as "no need" can boost admission odds. The short answer is "Yes--at some colleges, not all," but the longer one considers multiple factors. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the stress on parents and students who are paying full freight but can't really afford it</p></li>
<li><p>the likelihood of decades of college loans ahead</p></li>
</ul>
<p>-the common college policy of forbidding no-need freshmen from applying for aid in future years (or at least until after a waiting-period has expired)</p>
<p>The trade-off may be retention rates. My D was deferred and later accepted, even though her GPA actually dropped slightly in the meantime. It surprised me! Can’t help thinking that her ability to pay was a factor. She only lasted a semester at that school.</p>
<p>And retention rates can also be affected when no-need students are admitted ahead of those who require financial aid, if, in reality, these “no-need” students really don’t have the resources to cover their college costs and are struggling … worrying about expenses and working extra jobs to meet them. </p>
<p>Over the years I’ve had a number of parents tell me that they will not apply for financial aid in order to boost a child’s admission odds, but then they get in over their heads when the child enrolls, and the child must eventually withdraw and attend a cheaper college. </p>
<p>In a perfect world, need-blind policies would address both of these problems, but most colleges can’t come close to affording to offer need-blind admission.</p>
<p>The Tamar Lewin story in Wednesday’s (9/21/11) New York Times provides more detail than you get in the NYT blog post linked in the OP^^; you can find a link to the longer story in the blog entry.</p>
<p>I don’t know if I’d describe full-pay as a “hook,” exactly. It may be at some colleges, but not at those that profess to be “need-blind” in admissions, which includes most of the most-selective colleges. So for the most part colleges that are now going out of their way to find full-pays are colleges that are somewhat easier to get into anyway—and not the colleges where the typical CC reader is most eager to find a “hook.”</p>
<p>It also seems that much of what’s described in the article isn’t predicated upon using the individual applicant’s financial data as an admission criterion. “More than half of the admissions officers at public research universities and more than a third at four-year colleges said that they had been working harder in the past year to recruit students who need no financial aid and can pay full price,” according to the article. OK, that’s a lot. But only “22 percent of the admissions officials at four-year institutions said the financial downtown had led them to pay more attention in their decision to applicants’ ability to pay.”</p>
<p>At first glance those numbers don’t seem to add up. Which is it, 22% or more than a third? Well, here’s the answer: “Admissions directors at many public universities said in the survey that recruiting more out-of-state and international students, who pay higher tuition, was their top strategy.”</p>
<p>Public universities don’t need to be “need-aware” on an individual applicant basis in order to improve the school’s bottom line. They just need to admit a higher percentage of OOS and international students. Not only do the OOS and international student pay a higher tuition—in some cases 2 to 3 times as much as in-state students—but they tend to be self-selecting by ability to pay. That’s because most public universities do not promise to meet 100% of need for OOS and international students. Some don’t give any need-based aid to OOS or internationals. So the OOS and international students who accept the offer of admission will skew heavily toward full-pays; most of those who can’t afford the full sticker price will find a more attractive offer elsewhere. A few may self-finance by taking on large debt loads, and that’s where the university needs to be careful because it could increase the attrition rate (and decrease the graduation rate). </p>
<p>Is that a “hook”? I wouldn’t describe it as one. But it is the cold, hard reality of today’s higher education market.</p>
<p>Also interesting in the Tamar Lewin story: some (an undisclosed number of) admission officials acknowledged admitting men with weaker credentials so as to preserve gender balance. I never thought it would come to affirmative action for males, but apparently that’s now the case at some schools.</p>
<p>*The trade-off may be retention rates. My D was deferred and later accepted, even though her GPA actually dropped slightly in the meantime. It surprised me! Can’t help thinking that her ability to pay was a factor. She only lasted a semester at that school. *</p>
<p>Because she didn’t like it? or it was too hard for her?</p>
<p>Too hard for her and she just wasn’t ready for college. I should have paid more attention to those second-semester senior year grades and made her start at her safety school. Just because she got into a higher-ranked, expensive college didn’t mean that she should have gone there.</p>
<p>The article explicitly says that “need blind” colleges are an exception to this rule, but I am feeling audacious enough to call that one BS as well. Is there honestly a limit to human greed? Just because some college’s endowment is billions higher than another and they advertise “need blind” doesn’t necessarily make me buy their story.</p>
<p>Well just look at the increasing numbers of international students at some schools. Why keep increasing (in the name of diversity!)? They all pay full tuition.</p>
<p>Admitting students with need (and giving them the financial aid that people with their demonstrated need get) could also decrease retention rates. Students who receive aid are probably more vulnerable to financial problems that will make them drop out than are full-pay students.</p>
<p>Students who are in the fortunate position to genuinely not need aid are also often in the fortunate position not to have to work, not to have to pay back loans during college, not to run into trouble paying the non-aid part of their costs. Their parents, perhaps, are not stretching to the breaking point to afford their childrens’ college and are thus not as vulnerable to sudden financial emergencies or reversals. Students whose families have fewer financial resources are more likely to suffer those stresses and problems.</p>
<p>what does this mean. If you say that you are not applying for financial aid does that mean you are not in the running for merit aid? My next question would be, can you apply for financial aid if there is a change of circumstance?</p>
<p>A financial aid application is required for some merit awards at some colleges. Merit aid protocol is one of the many confusing inconsistencies in the college process, and each student (or parent) must read Web sites carefully to see which merit awards require separate applications, which require a completed FAFSA, etc.</p>
<p>However, the typical merit scholarship (if there is such a thing) does NOT require proof of financial need NOR a separate application. In most cases, simply submitting an application for admission will put students in the running for merit money, if offered.</p>
<p>Many colleges have rules that restrict when “no-need” freshman applicants can apply for aid. Commonly there is a two-year waiting period. (Thus if you didn’t apply for the fall of freshman year, you can’t apply for aid until the fall of junior year.) But this can vary from college to college.</p>
<p>If, however, there is a critical change of circumstances (e.g., a parent dies, becomes disabled, or loses a job) then many financial aid officials will make exceptions. But if it looks more like a case of “We got in over our heads” or even “We expected Mom to make Senior Partner last spring but she got screwed,” then that could be a different story, and the aid folks may not be so sympathetic.</p>
<p>Whew! So I have been saying no to asking for financial aid but I would like to be in the running for merit aid. I guess you are saying that I would be in the hunt for merit aid.</p>
<p>Like some schools give automatic merit aid to freshman if they reach a certain gpa and act/sat score. I just want to make sure that by saying i wouldnt be seeking financial aid that I would still qualify for merit aid.</p>
<p>“Need blind” means that admissions does not consider financial need. Trivial examples include open admission community colleges, and moderately or less selective state universities that admit by a GPA + test score formula.</p>
<p>However, some posters here do not believe the “need blind” claims of many more selective universities with opaque holistic admissions practices that can conceal admissions preferences that they do not want to make public (this is also the case with the widespread (but almost universally denied by admissions officers) belief that Asian applicants are at a disadvantage compared to white applicants in university admissions).</p>
<p>Of course, if you consider financial aid as part of the admissions process, since (from a student’s perspective) admission with insufficient financial aid is as useful as a rejection, then there is no possible way to be need blind, unless the school gives a full ride to everyone.</p>
<p>Some merit scholarships are awarded based on merit criteria, but the amount awarded depends on need. E.g. a nominal amount may be given to non-needy students, but needy students may see the amount expanded to replace loan or work-study amounts in the need aid package.</p>
<p>In MOST cases, yes, this is true. But–as noted above–some merit scholarships DO require that a student have financial need (based on a completed FAFSA).</p>
<p>Policies will vary from college to college and even from scholarship to scholarship within an institution.</p>
<p>Sally, how common is this occurrence (universities admitting full-pay students with lower grades and/or test scores), among, say, top 30-type universities and LACs?
Thanks, Londondad</p>
<p>Londondad–I can’t guess at the numbers here, but --as we’ve already seen noted on this thread – many of the “top 30” institutions are need-blind. So at these places, wealthy low-rated students will not bump poorer high-rated ones out of the “Admit” pile.</p>
<p>But even at the “top 30” colleges that are “need-aware,” the differences between the richer student who is accepted and the poorer one who isn’t can be hair-splitting.</p>
<p>For example, when I started reading application files at Smith College 25 years ago, Smith was need-blind. The way the system worked back then was that each applicant was rated on a 1-to-10 scale. (1 was the good number; 10 was the bad). Then all of the 1’s were accepted into the class, ditto all of the 2’s, all of the 3’s, etc. until the class was full. (That’s an oversimplification, but close enough.) The ability to pay was not considered, and some classes became very costly, if too many of the top-rated applicants needed a lot of aid. In fact, the classes were getting SO costly that Smith finally had to pull the plug on the need-blind policy in favor of a need-conscious one.</p>
<p>BUT … the way that candidates were evaluated didn’t change a lick. Those 1-through-10 ratings were still assigned without any knowledge of financial need. Then, the admission and financial-aid honchos had to start paying attention to cost. Even so, all of the 1’s, rich or poor, made it into the class, all of the 2’s, and so on. But, when they got down to the lower ratings, that’s when some changes had to be made. For instance, a “5” who needed a full ride might be replaced by two “6’s” who required only partial aid. </p>
<p>But keep in mind that there is some subjectivity in the rating process to begin with, so the “5” and the “6’s” might not have been strikingly different. We’re not talking about shoving 1’s off the class roster and replacing them with 10’s.</p>
<p>I haven’t read folders at Smith for nearly a decade, so I don’t know if the process there has changed. But probably not much.</p>
<p>Thus, the moral of the story is that, at the more selective colleges that are not need-blind, finances may play a part in the final verdict, but you shouldn’t expect to see outstanding applicants replaced by lousy ones. </p>
<p>Money may talk in such cases but it’s more of a whisper than a shout.</p>
<p>You’re welcome, londondad. I figured that I might try to compensate for what I lacked in actual statistics by providing a bit of narrative “enlightenment.” ;)</p>
<p>This isn’t news at all. Since colleges began they have discriminated against applicants based on income. Particularly for top colleges, it’s not just about making money off of the applicant but about that particular person’s pedigree. Those that can pay full tuition are much more likely to be of the demographics these schools most desire. It’s unfair, but it has always been this way.</p>