<p>I agree fully. Mini and I go back and forth on this. But when put that way, I absolutely agree. The entire system is biased towards those who have parents who care, have the knowledge and resources to best prepare their children for college, and most of the time, by far, that means those who are more well to do. Not always, but the relationship is there. </p>
<p>One of the stats often shown as proof that no college is truly need blind is the steady percentage over the years at various schools that state that they do not take ability to pay into account in admissions, is the number or percentage of kids who are PELL eligible or who require financial aid. For it to remain so constant requires some sort of quota system is what is said. And, yes, in a sense, there is but not in the way critics imply. Those schools that are able to be need blind and give 100% of need, and who define the need generously, tend to also give a leg up for those who are in economically challenged environements. First generation to go to college hooks and tips help as do giving kids of certain areas of the state or a city some preference and also kids from programs like Questbridge or ABC or PREP for PREP in high school. The boosts are given up to a constant point each year.</p>
<p>^Well, OP’s quote is from a commenter, not the author.
I work for a school that is need blind for US kids and we do not take applying for FA into account, we do not see FA info. Yes, we see parents’ jobs and ed on the CA. And, yes, you bet, any kid, rich or poor, has to be qualified for the academic challenges and have shown personal strengths that matter to the college.</p>
<p>For anyone to assume poor kids need to “look like” rich kids is a) to overstimate how compelling wealthy kids necessarily are, and b) to assume poor kids can’t be held to the same high standards that work for the college. </p>
<p>This certainty about the decks being stacked against any category of kid…the energy would be better put into refining a great CA. That is your one vehicle to offer a great self-presentation.</p>
<p>Lots about college admissions isn’t “fair.”</p>
<p>As the parent of a non hooked child who nevertheless ,by anyone’s account, had a stellar application to a top “need blind/ full need” LAC, and was today rejected, I want to say… I think “need blind” is a farce.
My daughter needs a full ride ( our EFC is 0) Don’t mean to sound like sour grapes, but I’m sure thats the reason she is not in. Hooked, either by athletics or URM, and I’m sure it would be a different story. For the most part, top colleges in this country are very much for those who can afford them.</p>
<p>Would it be fair to say that the upper-middle class B+ student with a high EFC would do far better merit-scholarshipwise at a private LAC or university ranked Tier 2 (USWNR 80 - 200), than at a public college/university or a higher-ranked private school? Friends’ student was offered a $18,000/year merit scholarship from a less-expensive Tier 2 college, but nothing from a “Tier 1.5” school, with the ranking differential about 40 spots apart.</p>
<p>The wholly need blind college my daughter applied to for ED required the CCS Financial Aid Profile the same time as the CA. Some schools have a separate later date for the CSS which is the same for everyone no matter if they apply ED or RD.
When I see several much less qualified students get in to this college from my daughters home school - I smell a fish in admissions processes. All these families are likely full pay.</p>
<p>A theory is that the colleges advertise themselves as need blind in order to attract certain students they want which otherwise would not apply. There is nothing wrong with wanting certain students, but there is something wrong with the process. It is unfair to other applicants whom would be readily accepted as full pay but are instead rejected. “Need aware” colleges are possibly being more honest, but the same rules apply.</p>
<p>Sadie2, in my 20 years of looking at those schools that claim to be need blind and seeing a lot of kids applying with varying results to them, I have to say that the results seem to be very fair with those needing full aid often getting a edge rather than a disadvantage. The CSS PROFILE is needed so that a package can be estimated and students that want or need aid can have an out if the offer is not enough for them to attend the school rather than waiting until the end of school year not knowing what to expect in aid. </p>
<p>Admissions officers in these schools pride themselves in being advocates for those who do more with less. However, in ED special hooks count a lot more. It’s great to have those specialty areas taken care of in the early process. </p>
<p>But having perused data from an independent school where some of my kids attended highschool, I see no biases in terms of need. ED particularly seems to be need blind even at need aware schools,</p>
<p>I would disagree with, “ED particularly seems to be need blind even at need aware schools.”
I have heard a lot of schools try to get full pays hooked ED so that they can offer more financial aid during RD.</p>
<p>Well, I am very happy to share my child’s stats and recs privately. I can tell you that less qualified students get into this top LAC, I believe either for athletics or full pay. Why is that? And why, if they are need blind, is the financial aid profile required at the same time as the CA? Her teachers and college counselor are as astounded as I am that she was rejected. I don’t buy the need blind.</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between needing a full ride and needing say 50%. The statistics given out by colleges regarding FA that really matter are how many are getting PELL grants? That is the question to ask if one is truly in need, and the answer is not good.</p>
<p>If it really is a top LAC, they reject people with perfect GPAs and test scores. What is the acceptance rate? If it’s anything less than a third or possibly higher for other schools, no one is safe in admissions.</p>
<p>People might get in who have lower stats because most top schools have holistic admission processes. Maybe your daughter just didn’t seem like a fit. Maybe here recs or essays weren’t unique. Who knows? I don’t think you can say the one reason she wasn’t accepted is because your EFC is 0. </p>
<p>They require the CSS when you apply so that they can give an estimated aid package that is either acceptable or not enough, in which case your reject the ED offer.</p>
<p>It is a possibility that that’s the reason she was rejected. However, I don’t think it’s a very high one. I think schools would be sued if they are claiming need-blind yet don’t follow it. Statistics could help prove if they are actually not following what they say. People would get awfully suspicious if family’s with little or no financial need were getting in a lot easier. Obviously this only applies to schools that claim they are need-blind. Schools that don’t claim this can reject people who need a lot of financial aid and they do if they want to meet “100%” of need.</p>
<p>The fact is the bar gets higher the greater ones need. Don’t need high school math to figure that out. My message is do not drink the cool-aid. Sip, maybe, just a little sip, and wait.</p>
<p>I think the reason certain schools advertise “need blind” is that they don’t want to be sued for reverse discrimination. Not that they most of the kids they favor are URM’s, but still, the possibility is there in the case of an underqualified student getting preference, whether they be an URM, an athlete or whatever. I am not against affirmative action, in fact I am all for it. However it opens up a legal can of worms.</p>
<p>I would love to share my daughters profile and then see what you have to say.</p>
<p>Share her profile! As well as the school. Or at least percent admittance. If it is a very top school, I really don’t think her rejection can be completely attributed to need.</p>
<p>I don’t know if there is a such a thing as reverse discrimination and I don’t care. There have been lawsuits regarding such, of which I have not offered my opinion on. Lawsuits are expensive, that much I do know. Maybe I am not seeing something, but I cant for the life of me figure out a better reason for colleges to advertise they are need blind when I for one do not believe it is true. </p>
<p>For the record I am for giving disadvantaged peoples a chance for an elite college education, and that just happens to include my daughter, who in every other way than financial is a “good fit”. That she is clearly more qualified than some other full pay or mostly pay applicants I know have recently been accepted is what irks me.
Anyway, I have said enough. I don’t mean to sound like sour grapes. Maybe it was the Kool -Aid. </p>
<p>Of course there are exceptions, but I think they are very rare. As I said, how many Pell Grants are in attendance…that is the question to ask if the desire for economical diversity is genuine.</p>
<p>You missed my point. There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination” because discrimination is discrimination. I do know other Pell kids at top colleges so I can’t say. I do know they’re underrepresented HOWEVER, part of that is because Pell kids often don’t aim high. We just don’t know about top colleges and FA and all that. There’s a thread on it in the Parents’ Forum right now. </p>
<p>Again, I’d love to see her profile like you offered.</p>
<p>Sorry for your disappointment. Kids get reviewed based on the full CA and any supplement. Adcoms at “top” holistic need blind/meet full need schools make their decision on more than stats; there are no guarantees for matching the top 75th percentile of enrolled kids, there are limited seats and the competition is tough. Your finaid forms would have been sent to the fin aid folks, not admissions. </p>
<p>You will find people who agree with you that it is all a farce. Sure. But best thing is to help your daughter get through this. You can also look at the surface profiles of other kids on the ED threads and see that it’s impossible to predict. Good luck.</p>
<p>Wellesley, Vassar, Williams are all three top LACs that I know were need blind AND guarantee to meet 100% of need. There are some LACs such as Smith, and lately Wellesley who have gone need aware and they are upfront about it. For a school to say it is need blind in admissions and then operate otherwise, discriminating against those who are PELL eligible would be very high risk in terms of integrity. There are few secrets in the admissions office and a lot of employees involved. I doubt very much that a school that out and out says they are need blind in admissions is not. As a rule, the admissions officers of these schools try to give a “bump up” to those who are economically disadvantaged. That there are not many PELL eligible kids in these schools is because the sad truth is that high income and educational achievement are highly linked, and you simply are not going to get the same proportion of high stats kids out of a low income group. When I was on a scholarship committee where only one of the factors in consideration for an award was family income, you could really see that divide.</p>
<p>Your reverse discrimination argument makes no sense. There are many very fine schools that out and out say that they are need aware. It’s no big deal to say that. They would be in good company. If this school is one that accepts very few students, there are any number of reasons why your DD did not get accepted The financial info was needed to give an award package in case she was accepted so that you could decide whether the school was affordable with what they offered you and could get out of the ED commitment if it were not. </p>
<p>I don’t know which school this is, but having looked at 20 years of look back data on nearly all of the top LACs and who gets accepted and not from a private school that keeps meticuous records, I can honestly say, that as hard as I look, I can’t see that kind of discrimination in the top schools. Even in some of the schools where some individual cases looked like it might be the case, and these were not the top LACs, I have been assured at some of them that admissions does not even look at the need and does not care. That’s for the bean counters at financial aid to figure out. The admissions folks have enough trouble trying to get the best class together possible without trying to figure out who can pay for what. An exception to this is when admissions and fin aid are the same office, but again, I don’t see that in the most selective schools. Also, yes, ED is where the funding is the best. School is flush with money then, and can afford to be generous. At the end of the process, the money is simply not there to give and that is often when need aware schools have to start practicing what they call enrollment management. Even some notoriously cheap schools regarding aid, that do not meet full need during RD, will during ED. </p>
<p>At some schools the ED stats are extremely skewed, particularly the smaller ones where sports and special interests comprise a large % of the student body. A school that has full armada of offering in athletics, music and other venues and wants competitors in those fields and has a small overall size, is going to be very lopsided in specialty students. Throw in the fact that ED is where a lot of these spots are filled, and those ED stats may not be as good as they appear in terms of an unhooked student. Though in larger schools, despite the specialty, hooked student the ED push is an advantage, this might not hold up in the smaller school where nearly everyone applying ED has some hook and you just don’t look too good next that crowd if you are not a stand out in something.</p>