<p>At the tippy top universities, the percentage of international students seems to be determined solely by the needs of the university. For example, in 2006 (the last year that this figure was publicly available) MIT reported an international admission rate of 4%. I assume that MIT has enough high caliber international applicants that they could easily double their international student population if they were so inclined. </p>
<p>Now, this is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that Carnegie Mellon might have more financial motivation than MIT to admit more international students. A few other colleges have gone on record calling international students “cash cows.”</p>
<p>I would like to reinforce some of Borlum’s points.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>As a rule, internationals are seen as a source of full pay students, NOT as a drain on very tight financial aid budgets. Most schools are need aware for all their US admits and nearly all for their international admits.</p></li>
<li><p>If you are willing to pay rack rate, you will find many schools, even among the more selective will be VERY interested in you. A number of schools use recruiters, especially in China and India to get students from wealthy families to apply. It is actually easier to be admitted to MOST colleges as an international full pay student than even a US full pay. </p></li>
<li><p>Hardly any schools are need blind to internationals, and those that are extraordinarily selective. MIT took 2.4% of international applicants last year and nearly ALL of them were in the superstar category i.e. IMO medalist or similar. If you are REALLY REALLY good, they will know through their network who you are and will approach YOU. They don’t care if you can pay or not, but they have quotas on internationals. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Your best choice, a) if you can’t afford $50K per year and b) you are not an academic superstar is to apply to schools below the top 50 where you may be able to get some merit aid. </p>
<p>Frankly, if i were in your shoes I would wait until grad school to apply to the US, especially if you can a decent education in the UK at 10% the price. It is not worth for you to borrow +$100K to go to college in the US.</p>
<p>It is true that some schools are paying recruiters up to 50% of the tuitions received from the students. I don’t understand why the schools do not give the internationals 50% tuition discount instead of to pay that amount of money to recruiters.</p>
<p>^ I’m interested to hear more. Which schools do that? Can you name your source(s)?</p>
<p>I do know that some universities work with recruiters, but I had never heard that 50% figure before. That seems surprisingly high and not something I am willing to believe without a credible source backing it.</p>
<p>Does anyone how common this practice actually is (universities admitting full-pay students with lower grades and/or test scores), among, say, top 30-type universities and LACs? Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence? Thanks.</p>
<p>I think the essential part of the question is, “admit full-pay students with lower grades and/or test scores than who?”</p>
<p>Colleges with need-aware admission policies for all or part of their applicant pool are quite explicit that they treat full-paying applicants differently from financial aid applicants. All other things being equal, students are better off not applying for financial aid. I assume that you also want to vary some parts of the “all other things being equal” equation, but I am not sure which.</p>
<p>Now, the situation might be a bit different at the top 30 universities than the average 4-year college because money might be less of a factor. The top colleges and universities generally strive for a diverse student body. That’s why African American or native American applicants might get accepted with lower academic credentials than (as a group very high-performing) Asian Americans. Female engineering students might face lower expectations than male engineering students. Students from poor inner-city schools might be held to lower academic standards than students from science magnets. And so on and so forth.</p>
<p>I assume that the same reasoning applies to international applicants. Exactly how desirable a certain international applicant is relative to a certain domestic applicant will depend on the institutional context.</p>