<p>A friend of mine recently commented to me that "Full Pay" applicants to BS really get an advantage. Do you think this is true and at what point in the admission process does this come in to play?</p>
<p>I realize that schools have budgets to meet and that the Full Pay candidates are extremely important to meeting revenue goals - which I would assume also helps to fund FA.</p>
<p>The key indicator in this dynamic is size of the endowment. The larger the endowment, the more the school is able to offer FA and offset it with income accrued from endowment. As the endowment size declines, schools rely more and more upon paying families. BTW, schools like HADES will tell you (once you become an alum) that the annual tuition doesn’t even cover the actual expenses, even for full-pay students. The difference is made up–ideally–in alum & parent contributions, leaving the endowment interest for FA.</p>
<p>@mamakiwi,
On the Milton Academy website they say something addressing your concern. It’s found on this page:[Financial</a> Aid FAQ](<a href=“http://www.milton.edu/admissions/Financial-Aid-FAQ.cfm]Financial”>http://www.milton.edu/admissions/Financial-Aid-FAQ.cfm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard similar things from other schools as well. I think on St. Paul’s website they say almost the exact same thing. The only school I know that is need blind is Andover. I think that there’s more of financial aid applicants having a disadvantage than full pays having an advantage. They have to really want a financial aid applicant if they’re going to pay extra money for them. I’m a financial aid applicant and in two weeks I’ll probably be able to tell you more about being a financial aid applicant.</p>
<p>@ifax: As has been mentioned before, St. Andrew’s in Delaware also has language similar to that of Andover. I think they are the only two schools (at least from the East) that claim to have truly need-blind admissions…</p>
<p>“St. Andrew’s is committed to meeting 100% of demonstrated financial need of all families whose children are offered admission.”
[AND]
“Since our founding, one of the hallmarks of St. Andrew’s School has been our deep commitment to providing an exemplary educational opportunity to students regardless of their financial means. At a time when many boarding schools have become accessible only to the affluent in America, St. Andrew’s commitment to need-blind admissions and socioeconomic diversity within the School enables us to develop a truly distinctive student body and School culture.”</p>
<p>It depends on each school. Some school has need-blind process for the admission. I would say that there might be some advantage for the full pay student but it might not that big influence.</p>
<p>I think someone cut and paste Jane Fried’s recent article from the Phillipian on the board where she cites that the new class (this year’s admitted students) will be 47% FA.
So it looks like there is only a minute advantage to being full pay.</p>
<p>^^I think that’s a very misleading figure because it tells you nothing about the range of aid awarded.</p>
<p>Range of aid:
</p>
<p>But this is one of the few need-blind schools, and it’s not representative of all boarding schools. I think full pay in general is still an advantage. It is lesser in top schools (even the non need blind schools) as they have a bigger FA budget and turn down fewer students because of their finanical need. In schools with limited funding, they are sometimes pressed to only support the top candidates they really want.</p>
<p>Process wise, I think most of the top schools have similar process as Milton’s, which was quoted by another poster earlier.</p>
<p>I think that full pay students have an advantage. The schools have budget constraints so they obviously can not accept all studnts who require aid. So there is a process that adds up to tuition paying students and those who require aid. If you’re looking for aid, you need to be in the top quartile of students who are applying.</p>
<p>[Buying</a> Your Way Into College - WSJ.com](<a href=“Buying Your Way Into College - WSJ”>Buying Your Way Into College - WSJ)</p>
<p>The way I explained it to my kids is that full pay kids only need to be admitted once. FA kids have to be admitted twice - once in the normal round and once again when determining whether they’ll get the aid. I think it is safe to assume that only the best of the admissable pool get the aid. Maybe “best” is the wrong word. Only the kids the school wants the most get the aid. At some point, there has to be two piles, unless the school commits to meeting the full need of all admitted students. To my knowledge, St Andrews and Andover are the only two schools where admissions sends a list of names to the FA office and says, “fund them.” Maybe there are years when other schools don’t have to make any cuts from the FA stack, but I think it’s unlikely.</p>
<p>As shelley said:
</p>
<p>I’ll add that you could get the aid if there is something else compelling about you that the school wants. I don’t think top quartile is defined by just grades and ssat scores.</p>
<p>Klements -great link not sure it correlates 1:1 with bs; however, I enjoyed the article and comments. I am biting my tongue because my thoughts are college issues not bs.</p>
<p>mama: Thank you. My point in posting it was that if (among) the strongest, best endowed colleges are taking this approach to FA & admissions…Cheers</p>
<p>The two admissions comment was dead on. Take two candidates with+95 SSAT, awesome EC’s, perfect grades etc. If you are asking for a significant amount of aid and are not being heavily recruited for a sport or for some other reason, the full pay student will get admitted over the aid student. Been there done that. The reality is that the endowments took substantial hits in the recession. The schools have a limited pool of money, students currently in the school who had financial changes through job loss need to be supported etc… </p>
<p>The bottom line is that the bar is higher if you are asking for a significant amount of aid.</p>
<p>Economic diversity is an asset to any school, and schools will go as far as they possibly can to introduce such diversity.</p>
<p>Well said, @Brother. Perfect!</p>
<p>Why, thank you, Exie!</p>
<p>Along those same lines related to diversity, Adcoms are assessing kids in a context. They have the power to give kids who didn’t have full advantages, but who still show academic success, opportunities, they wouldn’t have otherwise. And I bet that can be a heady experience, and self-serving. For the kid who shines, but it appears has had all the support and advantages necessary, having two CEO parents for instance who could provide monetary opportunities, those applicants may actually not appear as attractive even though they are full pay. And adcoms may think that those kids will do well on their own back in their resource rich communities.</p>
<p>So let’s not get carried away stating that those who need FA have to get thru the admissions process twice, whereas full pay only have to go thru once. Not so. It’s more complicated than that.</p>
<p>I never said it was easy for FP kids. But FA kids do indeed have an extra hurdle to get through; namely, should they award the funds to this kid or that kid? And that’s after they have already gone through the “final” vetting. That’s what I mean by “admitted twice.” It’s not a value judgement, just a fact. FA kids are WAY more likely to go from the admit pile to the waitlist pile because of limited funds. I didn’t mean it as a “oh, poor me” statement. </p>
<p>I do see your point about a possible disadvantage for FP kids. More may be expected of them because of private MS or tutors, etc? Or, maybe the AC feels that kid doesn’t “need” it as much as the poor kid from Oklahoma? There are only so many beds, after all.</p>
<p>your last paragraph is what I was trying to convey; and yes, I agree that FA kids may end up on waitlists more often</p>