<p>
</p>
<p>Who says this? </p>
<p>And again, the “elite” schools are not the be all, end all.</p>
<p>Lots of us, depending on whose definition, are middle class and well assisted by finaid from need aware schools. To me, the key is in carefully identifying what levels (and sorts) of support particular schools tend to give- and being a solid match for those schools. Not just stats; the sort of kid you are, your energy levels, vision, interests and accomplishments- the whole Common App- should match that school very well, what it likes and seeks in its freshmen. </p>
<p>Run NPCs. Look for merit aid opportunities.</p>
<p>There are many colleges that need to be careful about how many students they admit who will not even be able to pay for their own housing and food. However, most private colleges assume they will have to discount their tuition for most of their students.</p>
<p>Just did some calculations on a number of Cal State schools and a student from a low-income family (less than 50,000 with few assets) would have all but $1000 covered. So, while I guess this does represent some “skin in the game”, I sure don’t want to cover the rest with my tax dollars. That $1K contribution is less then 10% of what a typical middle income family would pay. So, your statement about the vast, vast… blah, blah blah, is a bit gray at best…</p>
<p>What I am trying to say, is this feeds the never ending cycle of wealthy kids going to fantastic private schools and landing a job or getting into law/medical/graduate school whereas lower income children, as you even suggested, go to a two year school and transfer to a four year, if they can even afford that. This student might have higher stats but they are rejected because they can’t pay.</p>
<p>So what? You’re wrongly assuming that those who can only afford the public school route can’t end up as doctors, lawyers, PhD students, etc. And that thinking is wrong.</p>
<p>California schools have about the most generous aid policies for low income kids in the country. Not at all a good sample, ED.</p>
<p>I agree that California has more generous aid for instate students than most other states. </p>
<p>OP, it really depends on the school. At least two of my kids had rejections that I think were based partly on their financial aid needs. In both cases, my kid was a match for the school, had displayed great enthusiasm about attending and was a URM at a school where that probably helps but isn’t a strong hook. They were turned down but accepted at similar, need blind schools. At the end of the day, there’s not much you or even the school can do: both you and they have a limited pool of money and the numbers don’t add up. Apply to a variety of schools and see how things go.</p>
<p>The vast, vast majority of colleges out there are need blind in admissions. The vast, vast majority of them also do not guarantee to meet financial need even as they define it, and they do not meet it for the vast, vast majority of their accepted students. It is only a very small number of colleges that guarantee to meet financial need of all of their accepted students and even a smaller number of colleges that say that having need could impact admissions decisions. Even that very small number of colleges that are need aware will state that it is only a small percentage of students who are affected by their need aware policy at admissions since most, like over 90% of the admissions decisions are made without regard to need and only the last 10% are impacted by the need issues. An awful lot of students seem to be packed in that 10% when decisions come out. I’ve yet to hear a college say a student was rejected due to financial need. It’s usually an assumption the student/family makes when not accepte. Maybe, maybe not. </p>
<p>But it all depends on the individual schools and how they do admissions. At some schools the admisisons director is also sitting at the aid table. At others, admissions just accepts who they want with an estimated overage due to anticipated shortage of funds. Students are rated as to whether they are the most desired, in which case they may get special invitaitons, early acceptances, special phone calls, merit money, and financial aid primarily made up of grants. Those in the last category are those that the Financial aid officer tries to work out packages so that the optimal number can be accepted, and those with the most need in that group are most likely to be turned down. Better to use $50K in that caseto accept 5 kids with $10 of need apiece, than on one kid who needs the entire amount. </p>
<p>Most schools will just accept more kids, knowing that a certain percentage will not come because they can’t come with them money. In some cases, the family will go through all sorts of contortions to get the funds even if it is a damaging financial move. IMO, it’s the way to go since it is a family’s personal business as to how they come up with the money. Those schools who make that decision due to need are trying to protect their yield figures, pure and simple. Otherwise they can just accept more kids and just not offer the money. Then it is very clear who truly made the accept cut and who did not, and who in that accept group, the school just decided was not worth funding. When schools are need aware, you never really know why you were rejected.</p>
<p>Cpt, I think the reason you are seeing an awful lot of students packed into that 10% is because colleges are not being completely open and honest about which schools are need aware and for whom. I realize that very few schools admit to being need aware and, when they do, they invariably say it affects only a small number of borderline students. But the truth is that there is a significant number of private colleges-- perhaps not large as a percentage of all the colleges in the US but a group that is mentioned in these forums frequently-- that do not have unlimited endowments but are very aware of where they stand in the magazine rankings and very much want to increase yield, all while keeping their financial budgets remarkably consistent year after year. Oh, and when I say that one of my kid’s rejections was based on need-- that college actually contacted my kid <em>after</em> the rejection (and after their deadline) and offered to re-open the application because my graduate had won a huge national scholarship that completely changed our financial picture.</p>
<p>2College, in your case, with that extra info, it may well be the case that need was an issue. But at my alma mater which is need aware, they do a “body count” of those kids who were accepted by admission but designated as third tier in qualification and how many of those kids are cut. It’s a very easy count to make and the % is very low. Part of why it is so low is that the sad truth is that in order to make that % low, as few kids as possible are so rejected by rejected the third tier ones who have the highest need. If a school rejects 10 kids coming up with $5K a year in need, it will show a lower % of kids accepted on a need blind basis, whereas rejecting just one kid needing the full $50K brings that number down drastically. </p>
<p>My cousin’s son was waitlsted and then accepted at a school that I very well know. He was accepted off the waitlist after getting a NROTC scholarship as an alternate. His mother would swear to her dying breath that he was initially waitlisted due to the need. But knowing how this school works, they truly are need blind in admissions and could not care less if you can afford the school or not when making the admissions decisions and their acceptance rate reflects this as they will get low yield since a number of kids will get accepted that cannot afford the school. That he was awarded the NROTC scholarship is an honor in itself, and additional info that could affect a decision EVEN IF IT DID NOT RESULT IN A DIME OF MONEY. The same with a huge national scholarship. Some schools collect kudos more avidly than the money, and in a school that is need blind in admissions, it is one less factor they have to deal with and they gladly dispense of it. </p>
<p>So it depends very much on the school and how they do their admissions. Most admissions officers are that–ADMISSIONS. They want to admit and they hate, hate, hate, having to turn down anyone for economic issues and many will give a boost to those from needy factors. They accept and then let the beancounters do the culling for financial reasons, euphemistically called enrollment management, it the group of kids considered the lower tier of the accepted group. </p>
<p>If you think about it,it makes sense. For an adimissions office trying to juggle all of the factors for an admit decision, throwing in the financials which then have to be fit in is really a crazy job. Easier to admit and then move the financial issues to those who specialize in making the numbers work.</p>
<p>cpt, but the school your cousin’s son applied to was openly need blind. The schools I’m talking about were not need blind. In the example I gave, the school says it is need aware and meets need. The other school is a school with which I am very familiar-- they don’t meet need but accept many upper middle class kids and give them enough $ to attend and attract (scholarships). The only low income kids I’ve ever known who attended were athletic recruits. At the time my kid applied, we had substantial need. My kids were accepted to more competitive schools that were need blind (some met need and some don’t) and both of those were the only fluke decisions in the pile. This is part of why I like kids to have more than one safety-- because if your match is a private need-aware school (or private school that doesn’t say one way or another how it handles financial aid), $ may be a factor. </p>
<p>And I don’t think it would be that hard even with your model for financial need to have a considerable effect. Instead of just looking at the lower tier students, the beancounters could come into play at the match level. At the other school where my kid was rejected, $ was also openly used to attract top students and there were a large number of merit scholarships given. So obviously, the beancounters were involved in decisions for higher tier students. I’m just suggesting that they also review match kids and screen out the ones who need a lot of aid.</p>
<p>Usually, merit awards are made by admissions, not by financial aid. There are schools where the office are one or may work heavily with each other, but from what I have seen, merit money is awarded by the admissions office because ALL students, not just those who have need are considered. The merit money is to go to the students the college most wants. I’ve seen some major disappointments when kids who get both financial and merit awards find out that they have to be integrated. Ideally, the merit awards are communicated to Fin Aid and the Aid awards are adjusted for them, but the communications does not always go as planned. </p>
<p>Of course each school operates differently, and they can do whatever they please with the money, but I have found that admissions does tend to be need blind and there is a strong desire to attract the strongest students in those schools that are need aware. I do believe the small percentages reported of those who are not accepted due to need, for the most part, given what the schools’ missions are. </p>
<p>I’ve yet to find a school that will t tell you if it is need blind in admissions if you ask. IF there are stipulations, then they are not. Simple as that. “For the most part” means no. “Most of the time” means no. The only exceptions being those made for transfers, wait list and international students, as those exceptions are common. </p>
<p>And yes, if you have need, you have to cast a wide net. Most need aware schools are pretty danged selective and are not really matches for anyone. As the selectivity percentages go down, even if you are in the upper 25% of the stats, it doesn’t mean you are a match for a school. </p>
<p>Over the past 12 years that I have seen admissions decisions made by those need aware schools which tend to be targeted by the kids at the schools my kids have attended, I have to say that they seem to be as fair as their need blind counterparts, and the GCs seem to think the same. There are a couple of schools and a couple of occassions when they have felt that need was a creeping factor they tell me, but rare, and parents tend to attribute that more often than the GCs thing it happens. They just nod and agree when this happens as it it does assauge very hurt feelings and no one is going to get to the bottom of this anyways.</p>
<p>The Ivies will tell you flat out that they are need-blind for US kids.</p>
<p>None of this can be handily summarized. Some of need awareness depends on all the other usual factors- the umpteenth kid from one area, for that major or with the same exact CA presentation as hundreds of others (ie, not compelling) could be labeled “high need” and reviewed accordingly. (I see this with international applicants, in a need aware context.)</p>
<p>At a need aware, you increase your chances by being a good holistic match, to begin with. As in all things admissions, that’s more than stats and love of the school.</p>
<p>NYU and Fordham will tell you flat out that they are need blind as well, at least for US freshmen. But they do not guarantee to meet need. I don’t know if NYU gives any merit money outside of need. They do give merit within need and I have seen kids get some sweet deals that way. Fordham does give a lot of merit money, and that is awarded by Admissions, not by the Financial AId offices and Admissions does not care what your need is when they make those merit awards. Fin Aid has to integrate them with need, reducing need packages accordingly. </p>
<p>Schools like JHU and Wash U are need aware. I know JHU does not guarantee to meet need either though they come close. I don’t know about Wash U. In a number of schools, looking at kids accepted to both schools, I’ve seen high need kids accepted to both were not tip top applicants, and kids who were equally qualified academically rejected or WLed with similar stats who did not apply for aid. My kids went to a school that tracked every single app and result carefully and the results were carefully recorded in a looseleaf binder for parents to peruse. The candidates were not identified but their attributes (legacy, URM, gender, recruited athlete, special talent, celebrity, development, financial need, etc) were all noted. There were a lot of disappointed full pay parents with kids who looked like there were matches for such schools. Many of them felt that the fact that they were full pay was a disadvantage, and that is not so far fetched. “Silver spoon” kids are not particularly beloved in admissions. Any book written by admissions officers out there makes that abundantly clear. It’s when the bean counters have to distribute the beans, and that is rarely in the admissions offices of such schools that need comes into play detrimentally because if there isn’t the money to distribute, someone has to be cut.</p>
<p>I’ve also been told, and I believe it, that most of the top candidates tend to be full or near full pay. Income and economic strength of household and success academically are very strongly linked in every single educational study. In fact, many highly selective programs, and I’ve been on panels for some of them though not in college admissions, in order to get more diversity in economic backgrounds, a boost has to be given to those who are low income, or it just doesn’t happen.</p>
<p>At a need-aware school, being full pay would not be a bad thing. When I asked an admissions officer if it would be harder for me to get in based on need, he flat out said yes.</p>
<p>Whoa, now we’re into boosts. We should consider what actually makes applicants compelling, beyond superfificals of stats, wealth vs financial need, and diversity. This cannot be translated into a formula and assumptions are assumptions. We sit here on CC, wth a lot of anecdotal experience and, sometimes, a darned good sense of what happens. But, not perfect. Doesn’t Smith lay out exactly how their quirky need aware/not need aware works?</p>
<p>When schools state the % of kids on aid, it seems clear “most of the top candidates” are not high SES.</p>
<p>OP, yes, need “can” make it harder, but they very app process itself and all the assumptions about what makes a kid a good candidate…are far more deadly.</p>
<p>As I’ve mentioned earlier, my D was admitted to a 100% need met school even though academically it was a reach for her and even though she had significant need.
She also was first gen college, which disproves the theory that schools are only about collecting tuition.
But perhaps they didn’t have enough spunky blondes on campus without tattoos.</p>
<p>There’s always room for diversity.
;)</p>
<p>“At a need-aware school, being full pay would not be a bad thing. When I asked an admissions officer if it would be harder for me to get in based on need, he flat out said yes.”</p>
<p>Of course he did. As a rule, it is. He doesn’t know who you are. For him to say otherwise when that need aware specter exists would be a lie. At any need aware school, it is a fact that if you need aid, you are not on a level playing field with those applicants who are not asking for aid because there is a certain real risk that you could be cut because you have that need. How else could he answer? He’d be in trouble if he answered otherwise. That is the whole issue with need aware schools; there is a risk that your need will put you in the reject pile.</p>
<p>However, most of these schools are striving, striving to be right up there in terms of the attributes of their students. The reason they are need aware is so that their yield figures stay up there which affect some ratings, and also in some cases so that merit money can be given to the students that they want the most, or that more generous packages can be given to those they want the most. So there comes a merging point where the desire to have a student and what that cost is, comes together. The more desirable that student is, the less likely need will come into the picture and there is a point where the class is pretty much defined as the kids they most want, and then it’s up to financial aid to figure who in the last whatever percent (and it’s usually a low percent, from what I’ve seen) that the school can fund so the student is likely to come. </p>
<p>For top students, the aid packages can be better at these schools since there is a push to get these students. If you look at the stats of these schools, it’s not as though they have a whole lot more full pay kids. THeir stats are about the same in terms of kids who are getting some form of financial aid. </p>
<p>But, yes, if you apply to a school that is need aware and you have financial need, you will be in a category with a lower accept rate than the group who is not asking for aid.</p>
<p>[Colleges</a> rethink need blind admissions in favor of meeting need | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/30/colleges-rethink-need-blind-admissions-favor-meeting-need]Colleges”>Colleges rethink need blind admissions in favor of meeting need)</p>
<p>“I’ve often commented that there is no such thing in the US as “need blind admissions.” If you think that ignoring ability to pay counts, you’re just wrong. Essentially, the farce of need-blind admissions says that you can be admitted if you’re poor, provided, of course, that you look like wealthy students in every way except your parents’ income.
If your admission process looks at SAT or ACT Scores, you favor students who can afford to take the test multiple times and pay for expensive test prep; if you are impressed by a transcript filled with AP classes, you are selecting from the high schools with the highest socioeconomic status; if some students seem to be more aware of how to manage the process and that makes a good impression on you, it’s probably because they have college-educated parents; if you like the captain of the lacrosse team more than you like the kid who worked 20 hours a week to help buy his own clothes, you have just given an advantage to the wealthier kid who doesn’t have to work. And the list goes on.I once had dinner with a group of people who were invited by an organization that supports first-generation and low income students. The admissions person from one of the most selective institutions in our region told the director, “Your kids say they’re ‘pre-med’ but I don’t think they really know what it means to be a doctor.” QED.If the nation’s most selective institutions were truly need blind, they’d enroll more low-income students. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.”</p>
<p>I agree with the majority of what he is saying. A comment on that article.</p>