<p>I'm shooting for a number of selective schools ranked about #10 - 25 in the U.S.</p>
<p>My family is not well off, FA would help us greatly. We do, however, have members of my extended family who are rich and willing to help finance my education.</p>
<p>My top pick is need-blind for international students (such as myself) but even though they say they're need-blind, I've read comments here saying that full-pay applicants have an advantage.</p>
<p>Comments?</p>
<p>Where are you from?</p>
<p>South Korea, by way of Canada.</p>
<p>I’m a Canadian citizen.</p>
<p>Regardless of what a given college’s brochures say, full-pay students will be at an advantage in this economy.</p>
<p>Bump.</p>
<p>I’d like to see another reply from hmom and if others want to chime in that’s great too.</p>
<p>The very top institutions (HYP) that say they are need blind, are need blind. Even in these times, the Harvard endowment is big enough to cover everybody’s aid.</p>
<p>Any university that considers Canadians equal to US citizens when it comes to aid, is not likely to change that policy between now and next spring. Anyone admitted under that policy will most likely be grandfathered even if the policy changes in the future.</p>
<p>Everywhere else, need enters into the picture.</p>
<p>But please, remember that McGill, U of T, and UBC are indeed world-class institutions, and depending on the specific department arguably better than any one given member of the US top 25. Don’t forget to apply to a decent school in Canada.</p>
<p>For need-blind schools, there is quite a skirmish. But for others, applying for FA will give you considerable disadvantages (in this economy).</p>
<p>AO from Penn made no secret of their admission policy:
Rather accept students who can afford their education than those who can’t, even tough they proved a little better</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When HYP’s full-pay population dips below 30%, then I might sincerely believe this.</p>
<p>P.S. If I recall correctly, H’s application form has a box to check if the applicant will be applying for FA. Do they block that out before reviewing the apps?</p>
<p>Harvard is dreading the day Larry Summers ever thought up the new fin aid initiative. They, and most schools, are very strapped for cash. I’m among the believers it’s an advantage to be full pay everywhere.</p>
<p>Some insight on Harvard’s situation:</p>
<p>[Rich</a> Harvard, Poor Harvard: Vanity Fair | Vanity Fair](<a href=“http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/06/harvard.html]Rich”>http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/06/harvard.html)</p>
<p>@happymomof1, I’m not overlooking the schools in my own country. I’ll probably apply to all three of the ones you mentioned as safeties and if I fail to be admitted to one of my target U.S. schools, I’ll attend one of them.</p>
<p>I don’t know where this HYP talk is coming from, I’m more interested in Duke, Penn, and Cornell (among others).</p>
<p>What would I do if I apply ED to a school, get accepted, then find out that I can’t pay tuition? This won’t happen but I’m a ‘what if?’ thinker…</p>
<p>Many kids apply to colleges, get their aid package and can’t afford to go. It’s very common.</p>
<p>At the schools you name there’s no question applying for aid will dramatically lower your chances.</p>
<p>Duke, Penn, and Cornell are probably no better overall than McGill, U of T, and UBC. You need to take a long hard look at the specific programs that you are interested in at each of these places, and get honest with yourself about just how much money you are willing to pay for any qualitative difference that you find. Perhaps for your major field, there really is a difference and the cost differential is worth it, perhaps not.</p>
<p>happymomof1- i don’t know where you get your information but you are wrong. As a Ontario student who had done extensive research on the subject, McGill, U of T and UBC are not on the same level as Duke, Penn, and Cornell, not even close. U of T accept around 70000!!! kids every year with nearly 50%. </p>
<p>So in short, McGill and U of T and UBC are more like state schools comparable to the UCs.</p>
<p>Shuaishuaishuai - Selectivity rates aren’t hard-and-fast indicators of a school’s quality. My undergrad is ranked around #65 on the U.S. News lists, but our acceptance rate is around 35% which is comparable with highly-ranked women’s colleges like Mount Holyoke, Smith, and Wellesley. Some state schools - like Berkeley and UCLA - admit less than 30% of their applicants.</p>
<p>Besides “state schools” is a huge range. There are your average regional universities, there are big flagship universities like Florida and Georgia, and then there are ones that are more nationally ranked like UCLA, Berkeley, and Michigan. My undergrad LAC admits a smaller percentage of our applicants than Michigan, Wisconsin-Madison, Texas-Austin, and Minnesota. I don’t think anyone (not even I) would be willing to say that my undergrad is a better place than those schools!</p>
<p>McGill and University of Toronto are great, highly respected schools and may be better for the OP’s purposes than Duke, Penn, or Cornell.</p>
<p>i know selectivity isn’t a true indicator but it really shows how easy to get in. Here’s another stat, anyone with over 75% (80% for more “selective” programs) will get in.</p>
<p>When you have that many kids, how do you expect the quality of education to be high? IMO, a big reason why U of T’s reputation is good is because there are so many U of T graduates, all of whom boast about their schools to try to increase the prestige of their diploma</p>
<p>It shows how easy it is to get in - it doesn’t show the quality of the school or the school’s programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What this data shows you is who your classmates are going to be. I totally agree the Canadian schools ae not on par with the ivies.</p>
<p>@shuaishuaishuai - Where is your patriotism, comrade? (Crack on Canadians being seen as ultra leftwing… ha-haaaa…)</p>
<p>Of course they are not on par with the Ivies. They’re a little weaker to much weaker based on your perspective. I’d choose Cornell over McGill any day… just sayin’.</p>
<p>The move to need blind was stupid. It reminds me of the California legislature. When the real estate market was going up 15% a year, and revenues were rolling in, the legislature started setting long-term budgets based on the notion that the money would always be rolling in. We see what mess this thinking left. The idea that colleges could sustain need blind admissions for perpituity is insanity. Schools are a business. They have to make money. This is why I continue to believe that even the need blind schools have a unspoken cap on accepting kids who need tons of FA. Every other business has a budget. Why wouldn’t Harvard?</p>