I am mostly referring to the most selective schools, as in 20% or less acceptance rate. This is assuming that you are a competitive applicant regardless of your financial situation and that you do not have any hooks.
Most of those selective schools are need-blind for domestic applicants, so none. Are you international?
No, I live in the U.S
Most of those selective schools are need-blind for domestic applicants, so none.
Berkeley (and UCs in general) is a school where full-pay, especially OOS, is an advantage.
@moscott I’ve wondered about that. I find it hard to believe though that all of the schools who claim to be need-blind are lying.
bump
Berkeley is need-blind also.
However, being need-blind does not prevent a school from having admission criteria which can favor those from high or low income and wealth backgrounds. For example, many of the most selective private schools have legacy preferences, which skew their admit class to higher income and wealth (although if you are not a legacy, it does not help you). Use of recommendations and interviews also tends to favor those from higher income and wealth. In addition, those from higher income and wealth tend to be at better high schools which give better preparation for college to begin with.
So, while a college’s admission process may not explicitly be need-aware, its admission criteria may well be much easier to meet by those from higher income and wealth. Some schools (like Berkeley) do have criteria to counterbalance that skew (e.g. no recommendations or interviews, essay topic about overcoming adversity).
Bottom line is, if you are full pay at the most selective schools like Harvard, then you probably have lived a very advantaged life in which you likely have had plenty of opportunities to build an impressive college application.
Even a “need blind” admissions committee can gain a hint or two about an applicant’s socioeconomic status by the types of activities described in the common app and in their personal essays.
Berkeley is need blind. There are plenty of people from out of state who are accepted and just given a full pay bill.
@prospect1: Perhaps, but I rather doubt they would want to do so. Need-blind institutions are committed to the concept that acceptance is NOT based on wealth or financial status AND that (for many institutions) 100 percent of the demonstrated need will be met by the financial aid office. These two university entities (FA and Admissions) are intensionally separated, have entirely different functions, and generally do not share a common database. Under these circumstances, why would admissions be at all desirous of the “hint” you suggest?
@ucbalumnus Does Cal say anywhere that it is need-blind for OOS students?
I guess that even if it does, the fact that OOS students have to pay their EFC plus $23k, the school can sort of figure out who might end up being full pay.
http://admissions.berkeley.edu/typesofaid says (in the “tuition” drop-down) “Our admission program is need-blind: Your financial status will not affect the admission decision.”
It is likely that the OOS applicant pool skews wealthier to begin with, and the $22,878 gap for OOS financial aid offers makes it unlikely that the non-wealthy OOS admits will attend.
The schools that promote themselves as need blind place a value on admitting students who could otheriwise not afford to attend. I don’t think they are gaming that. On the other hand, there are schools that don’t promote themselves like that and that are known to decline students with credentials that would get them in if they were full pay. At the top of that list is Wash U although there are plenty of others. Wash U is notorious for that.
@lostaccount and @TopTier - are you saying, then, that such schools DO pay attention to the “hints” in the common app and essays re: an applicant’s socioeconomic status, so as to ensure that the entering freshmen fill their needs (i.e., some schools looking for “poor” students and some looking for “rich” students)? Is there anybody valuing the “middle” anymore?
I know many schools claim to be need blind, but I think regardless of what they say that more likely they are need aware.
Even the richly endowed schools can’t afford to give a blank check to every incoming class indefinitely, or endowments would eventually erode.
Note the 2008 downturn sparked a flurry of articles about whether need blind admissions could continue even at the most elite schools.
Although things have improved since 2008, I can’t help but think that it got schools’ attention and made them think more carefully about a “healthy” ratio of aid vs no aid.
A lovely experiment would be to control for scores/ grades/race and have people post their acceptance decision by the colleges and whether or not they applied for financial aid.
My suspicion is that controlling for all variables, being able to pay is a boost - even at the elites.
I recall a thread from the Vassar boards where some parents challenged whether that school was truly “need blind” when each entering class magically happened to always contain just the right ratio of socioeconomic applicants the school was seeking.
Read what I said in post #11 @prospect1, which is entirely clear and unambiguous!