"The gatekeepers here wanted to shed, once and for all, the reputation of a tradition-steeped university that caters mainly to the preppy and the privileged. So they recruited from far more high schools, tapped the endowment for more financial aid and took more steps to welcome newcomers from poor and working-class homes.
They even began checking family finances before deciding whom to admit. The point was not to exclude those in need but, possibly, to boost their chances.
The result: In little more than a dozen years, Princeton University tripled the share of freshmen who qualify for federal Pell Grants to 22 percent this fall. The grants, targeting students from low-to-moderate-income families with significant financial need, are a key indicator of economic diversity. The Ivy League school’s transformation reflects mounting pressure on top colleges, public and private, to provide more opportunity to communities where poverty is common and college degrees scarce." …
More than that, it sounded like they are actively giving a boost to applicants who are Pell-grant Eligible (why else would they ask the FA dept to identify them, and mark their applications prior to final decisions -
If you think of it, though, Princeton relies heavily on test scores and grades, which are both linked to income levels. So a student who has tremendous financial need, yet still manages competitive test scores and grades, is probably pretty special.
It sounds like it is harder than ever for an average excellent, non-Pell, non-legacy, non-athlete to get into Princeton.
If they are looking directly at the financials of individual applicants to make admissions decisions, then they would technically be need-aware, though in this case in the opposite direction that need-aware generally connotes.
Of course, colleges also can and do shape their classes to meet an expected financial aid profile by changing the weighting of various applicant qualities that correlate to higher or lower family income and wealth, without necessarily having to look directly at the financials of individual applicants.
@3puppies the one URM that I know at Princeton has test scores and grades way below what is expected of the non- hooked. Granted, he was also a great football player and went to a top public HS
42% no grant or scholarship financial aid – presumably top 2-3% or so family income/wealth
43% grant or scholarship aid, no Pell grant – presumably upper half of family income/wealth, except for the top 2-3%
15% grant or scholarship aid including Pell grant – presumably lower half of family income/wealth
Even if the Pell percentage increases to 22% overall as the frosh classes with higher Pell percentage replace graduating classes with lower Pell percentage, that still leaves the top end of the income/wealth range extremely over-represented, and the rest of the upper half better represented than the lower half.
@citymama9 I don’t think that is correct. Depending on your definition of rich, I’d say most are middle class and upper middle class. Lots of highly educated parents.
@dolemite and @ucbalumnus What I meant was that there is financial help for those with little money and the wealthy are full pay, but there are those who make too much for aid, but not enough to be full pay, and there is no merit available to them. I have read that here on CC so many times.
Isn’t it self-serving for P to select out Pell Grant eligible students from out of their FA pool of otherwise academically qualified students? Doesn’t the federal government fund the Pell Grants, not the institution? Sounds like P may be taking the most very needy just so that P does NOT have to dip as deeply into its own endowment to fund these students as it might for other students that don’t qualify for a Pell.
@citymama9 While that is true, Princeton pretty much has the best need-based aid in the country, so even households making 200K+ are getting institutional aid at Princeton.
@Sam-I-Am They are doing it to get students with different life experiences not to save FA money. They are actually spending more of their own money doing because the Pell Grants aren’t very much and the rest of the need is made up by Princeton. Maximum Pell Grant is like $6K and the rest of Total Cost of Attendance is provided by Princeton since they cover all costs for families that fall in the Pell Grant range. Meaning they are giving about 58K in institutional aid. If they instead took a student from a middle class family they would be giving less aid.
And since the percentage of full-pay remains fairly constant, it appears that they are taking more Pell-eligible students over middle-class families.
They don’t want to mess with the legacies, who tend to be full-pay.
I think, therefore, that Princeton is being intellectually dishonest on their website when they are still advertising that they are need-blind. https://admission.princeton.edu/cost-aid
And full disclosure - we are a not a Pell eligible family. Princeton accepted my “average excellent” D and offered her an incredible FA package, but she declined it in favor of Stanford, which also gave us a tremendous offer. We toured the Princeton campus multiple times, D even spent an overnight there as an accepted student. The 2 hosts for her made her feel comfortable and they clearly loved what the school offered.
No matter what Princeton does as they tweak their admissions policies, there will be many awesome applicants who are excluded due to the sheer numbers. I do think they owe it to their own culture to indicate to what extent they are favoring Pell-applicants, or at least to disclose that they are not need blind in the sense that they include Pell-grant status as a potentially favorable indicator.
“I think, therefore, that Princeton is being intellectually dishonest on their website when they are still advertising that they are need-blind.”
Whether Princeton is being intellectually dishonest or not depends on the purpose of “need-blind.” Simply stated, it’s purpose is to remove any financial barriers that prevent promising students from applying. If your understanding by need-blind that it can’t and must not review anyone’s financial data before making the admission decision, then that’s a procedural quibble, not the essence of its purpose. What Princeton is attempting to do is actually expanding the scope of need-blind by increasing the Pell applicants in a way that’s no different than increasing URM and other “hook” applicants. That’s not being intellectually dishonest. It’'s more like an evolutionary step in the right direction. This evolutionary step is noted below: “Pell eligibility became another factor among many in the ‘holistic’ review of an application…” When Eisgruber stated, “What we really want to say is, we’re never going to hold your financial need against you,” he was simply attempting to reaffirm the original purpose of need-blind. The result, as stated below, “is a demographic revolution, with unprecedented numbers of students from modest circumstances becoming Princetonians,” and if other peer institutions follow the example, greater doors open for students from all economic spectrum. And THAT’S a good thing and something to applaud.
"By 2013, the Pell-eligible share had doubled to nearly 15 percent. For the next year’s class, Rapelye took another step: She asked Princeton’s financial aid office to advise which promising applicants were likely to qualify for Pell. She noted that data in their files before making final decisions.
“It doesn’t mean that we automatically admit these students,” Rapelye said. But Pell eligibility became another factor among many in the “holistic” review of an application at one of the world’s most selective schools. Princeton’s admission rate is 6 percent.
That was a significant shift for a university that, like its Ivy peers, depicts its admissions process as “need-blind.” Eisgruber sought to clarify: “What we really want to say is, we’re never going to hold your financial need against you.”
The result is a demographic revolution, with unprecedented numbers of students from modest circumstances becoming Princetonians."
I think it is a cool thing that P pays particular attention to those who need aids the most. But I think P should change the word “need-blind” to something like “need-wanted” to better reflect the new practice.
@citymama9
You are correct. A vast swath of people who get no aid, yet would have their savings depleted if they attended at full price are left out of the elite and B level schools.
That’s a fact. The rich can pay without pain, the poor can go with no risk, the professional middle class (most of whom came from blue collar and mid middle lives) are not getting into colleges without also draining all they worked for.
But that’s the choice we face. Go to your own state college, or a C level college that will offer your child money. Kid gets the education he puts into it and you are still flush. No bragging rights, no super connections but you can still make a lot out of that situation.
I know people who went to prestigious schools and they are no better off than those who did well at other schools. I know hooked kids who were not excellent students but did much better in elite schools than they would have at average schools- they are the luckiest ones.