<p>I've been reading with interest the thread about full-pay families and have a question.</p>
<p>How much of a tip do you really think being full-pay at places like Amherst, Vassar, the Ivies really is when a student isn't otherwise admissible? Not a 1000 SAT, but GPA, course rigor and ECs that aren't even in the ballpark. Reason I'm asking is that a dear friend is in that position for next year. Kid has great SAT scores, but doesn't rank in the top 10%, has MANY Cs, mostly Bs and only a couple of As, and doesn't have a single EC. Not one. Does have a wealthy parent who is easily full-pay and is an alum of one of those schools. They are planning on no safeties because they believe the 2100+ SAT scores will carry the day. As I really like them, I worry about them being heartbroken.</p>
<p>If they have a wealthy parent I can not understand why they dont put n more applications. Whats the big deal, more boxes checked on the good old common app?</p>
<p>For need blind schools it doesn’t make any difference whether your student is full pay. That’s most of the school in this country. Where it makes a difference is in those schools that are need aware. It’s often hard to get a school to admit that they consciously and systematically classify the apps that way. I always suspect need awareness in admissions when the admissions office and the fin aid office are the same. </p>
<p>For those schools, it makes a difference how need aware the school is. What percent of applications do they process on a need blind basis? That can make the difference on how big of a tip being full pay will be. Also, how carefully do they look at the financial need? If a kid needs $5K in aid but is vastly superior to a bunch of full pays, I don’t think that would make much difference if the school looks at the need amounts. On the other hand, when you are looking at a whole bunch of kids who are about the same in desirability to the school and even come up the same in the numerical ratings admissions tends to give the apps, the pick will go to ones that fit what is left in the budget. </p>
<p>I have a few very close friends who worked in financial aid at some selective schools, and though they have plenty of negative things to say about their experiences, they have uniformly told me that when the need came into play, the pool of applicants left were all pretty much coin toss choices anyways.</p>
<p>I think this family is planning to do a lot of applications, but they don’t think they need to look any lower than Amherst, Vassar, Swarthmore, etc. They may be totally correct in that being full pay will give them plenty of options.</p>
<p>The colleges you have listed all have need-blind admission policies. That means that being full-pay is not a “tip” factor at all – it is not even considered. The admissions staff probably won’t even be aware of it.</p>
<p>That is different than being a “development” case – an applicant who not only is full-pay, but comes with a generous donation to the university – such as $1 million toward a new building on campus. In that situation, the people in charge of bringing in donor money have some pull with admissions — probably at least as much pull as an athletic coach who wans to bring in a particular athlete. I think in those cases the director of admissions would pull the file and make a unilateral decision. At schools with strong endowments, however, it would take a fairly large sum of money to get their attention. </p>
<p>Why don’t you simply suggest that the family hire a private admissions counselor? That way they will get the news from someone in the know, and may get steered in the direction of a school that is a better fit. Just make “admissions counselor” sound like something that everyone does these days, rather than giving the impression that you think their kid needs extra help.</p>
That is excellent advice. I’m going to do that.
I’m just a little concerned because the dad is driving this train and his knowledge is a tad out of date and his perception of his wealth is a little overblown. He is full-pay and wealthy by any measure, but is not a development case. You’ve given me a great option/</p>
<p>I’d add that if you look at financial aid stats for most of those colleges, you will probably find that well over half of the students there are full pay. It’s not all that special. And keep in mind that colleges don’t really care where the full-pay is coming from - that is, it doesn’t matter to them if the family can easily write out a check each semester from the deck of their private yacht, or if the family is taking a 2nd mortgage on the family home to come up with the money. </p>
<p>I would note that cptofthehouse is mistaken about “most” colleges being need blind. The vast majority of private colleges are need aware in admissions… but we’re not talking about top 20 schools. That again is a place where a knowledgeable private admissions counselor might be a help – that is, some counselors may have some insider’s knowledge about which schools are hurting for money and would view the simple ability to pay the sticker price favorably.</p>
<p>I’d also add that this really isn’t any different than the families who don’t have much money, but are convinced that their middling kid will get scholarships for college, or families earning $150K incomes who are sure that their kid will get need based financial aid because they live in such a high-cost area. They are delusional, in denial, or just plain misinformed… but the bottom line is that they will be in for shock down the line. The family with money actually has an advantage – because the colleges that have openings after May 1st often are colleges that have a great need for paying students.</p>
<p>Zooser, I’d think the biggest issue is whether this kid would be able to handle the work. If he/she gets mostly Bs and Cs and doesn’t do any ECs, what is he/she doing? And how much worse will that get once the parents aren’t there to remind him to study. Just because the family can pay the tuition doesn’t mean it’s a good fit, especially at the schools you listed.</p>
<p>One of my friends was pretty sure that her D’s full pay status would ensure her admittance to her first choice school which is not a selective school in that it takes more than half of their applicants, and her stats were well in the 25% range above the averages for the school. The school does state it is need blind,nor does it meet 100% of need. It’s a Catholic school that I would think is hurting in this economic time since it is expensive. </p>
<p>She was deferred during Early Action. The school counselor immediately called admission and was told that the school had way too many female applicants, so many qualified girls were deferred. When the need issue was raised as an ancillary question, the adcom said that until they got to end of their funds, they did not look at need status of the kids. They just never have.</p>
<p>Is the student a development admit…in other words can the parents donate money to build a new library or a new athletic center or a new theater? That might help. BUT if this student is really subpar other than SAT scores, I do NOT think this will get him admitted to these extremely competitive schools. They are all need blind so their ability to pay will not factor in to the admissions decision anyway. </p>
<p>If this kid got terrific SAT scores but has little else that is outstanding, someone is going to wonder why he is such an underachiever. To be honest, this is not likely to help in admissions, in my opinion. </p>
<p>And even IF they looked at finances…there are likely plenty of full pay applicants with something other than just high SAT scores.</p>
<p>Calmom, thanks for spelling it out for me. I was thinking those things, but wasn’t sure that someone like me would be in a position to have insight that people as accomplished as my friend and her husband don’t have. I guess when it’s your own kid, it’s hard to have perspective no matter who you are.
He is playing video games. That’s pretty much what he does. He is very bright but (like my little guy!) doesn’t like to do homework or be organized. The only thing one could call an EC (and I wouldn’t) is that he takes very nice vacations with his family every year so he is well traveled. He is a sweet, generous boy who is simply not motivated. He is not a member of any clubs, doesn’t have a job, doesn’t volunteer and never has done any of those things. The dad thinks he can push the kid to join something this semester or in the fall, but I think it will be too little passion and much too late. Plus the son hasn’t done anything about any of it yet. SAT scores are good, but not national merit level. But they are a wonderful, wonderful family.</p>
<p>At my last college reunion, there was much angst over how little it meant at admissions time to be a legacy with stats below the mean (but above the threshold.) Many of my classmates had kids who had been denied- these were full pay families with kids who if you squinted could have been admitted. A couple of very involved alums pointed out that one’s perception of what constituted a “development admit” was very parochial. You can give 100K to your local library or hospital or ballet company and they’ll honor you at their annual dinner. You can give 100K to your town’s Cancer Walk and they’ll name it after you. But a major university is not likely to admit a borderline kid for the sake of four years tuition and a 100K gift to the annual fund. Does not move the needle.</p>
<p>Who are the exceptions? Children of United States Senators. Kids who have already been nominated for an Academy Award, won a medal at the Olympics, debuted at Carnegie Hall. Means much more to the university than 100K. But those kids don’t need to be legacies-- if their stats are in the general neighborhood, these kids are getting second and third looks- and very likely getting admitted- so the legacy piece of it is really meaningless.</p>
<p>Pretty funny for all the “regular folks” who had been stretching to send a thousand bucks to the annual fund every year hoping it would get their kid on the “development case” list.</p>
<p>A kid who has super SAT scores, but not-so-hot grades, may well have an un-identified learning issue (this combo is practically a diagnosis of ADD), or may have behavior issues. Two more things that a hired consultant might be able to help the family get a handle on.</p>
<p>We are full pay, S had 2250 on his SAT’s A’s and B’s from a rigorous boarding school, 5’s on his AP’s, captain of his crew team for 2 years, a prefect at his BS for 2 years, head tour guide for three years, worked summers, yada yada…Mom and Dad are not graduates of prestigious schools so no hook there. He was rejected at a good number of schools, Tufts, Georgetown, UVA. Accepted at some schools where the ability to pay may have made a difference, ie Villanova, oos at William&Mary among others. I think your friends are taking an awfully big chance with their child’s future.</p>
<p>Blossom, my college classmates have reported the same experiences with their kids. Some of those kids did not even need squinting to be accepted. And they were all full pay. Maybe things have changed with the economy the way it is, but I don’t think it has changed that drastically. </p>
<p>Does anyone know of any schools where full pay would make a big difference in acceptance where a kid with no other hooks can consider that a major hook?</p>
<p>Thanks ACM. That’s good to know. I dearly love this family and can’t tell you how amazing they are, but I think they’re a little blind here. I’m going to gently take Calmom’s suggestion.</p>
<p>zoosermom-- tread very carefully here…only offer advice if you are actually consulted by the family for your opinion on such a question…or maybe drop very broad hints about how you have read “things have changed” and maybe each family should consult with its Guidance Counselor to get the most “up to date scoop” on what to expect. To simply volunteer your opinion that their child isn’t going to “measure up to the desired colleges’ standards” to your friend is likely to lead to a serious rift in your friendship…</p>
<p>I’ll stick my neck out…if a child is put on the waitlist…some of these high flying schools will look at ability to pay between two EQUAL candidates when taking kids off of the waitlist.</p>
<p>BUT this kid’s parents are assuming he will be in the running for acceptance with kids who need aid who also are not particularly high achieving students. I agree with the poster upstream who said they are taking a BIG risk looking at only these competitive schools. </p>
<p>Also, if he’s spending his time doing “other”…I have to ask…WHY do they want him to go to a school were he will really need to work hard? It doesn’t sound like he has the organizational skills, study skills or the academic achievement and discipline at this point in time…or so his grades seem to show.</p>
<p>We have a family member…(age of parents on this forum) who was a legacy at an Ivy and a full pay. His parents paid a LOT of money for him to flunk out…twice. Luckily for him, HE (the student) found a great school years later that was more suited to him and got his degree and has had a very successful career in his field. BUT the Ivy experience was a failure for him. He didn’t have the independent study skills and was far more interested in his “hobbies” at college than studies.</p>
<p>I agree with 2bornot2bvy. I’ve gotten stung giving well meaning advice with only the intent to help.</p>
<p>Zooser, living in this area of NY, I know ever so many families who are full pay whose kids were not accepted to schools where they would have fit in with the admitted kids, stat wise with no problem whatsoever. Though schools like Villanova and OOS Wm & Mary may be need aware, and I don’t know if they are or not, when it came to schools that were of that selectivity, I certainly did not see a sea of kids getting in just because they were full pay. Not at all. It hadn’t gotten to that point yet as of last year’s admissions crop. </p>
<p>Now I do know a lot of parents who claim their kid was probably denied because they needed fin aid. But they did not stand out among those kids who were also denied from the same schools that were full pays. With school practicing need aware policies, I’m sure that there are kids who did get into some schools because they were full pays and conversely those who were denied because they were not, but that category is truly still too blurred for me to be able to clearly see this. I have looked for this in the stats that my sons’ school keeps on every application that has been made for the past 10 years. And I’ve been looking at that book since 2002. Current year info is not in there yet, but last year’s just did not reflect that much of a difference in who got accepted where.</p>