<p>I would think with times being financially difficult for many and aid being tighter, a kid who can pay in full without aid has a better shot at admission, as long as they are an appropriate applicant. Can anyone comment on this?</p>
<p>Of course, it depends on how much aid we are talking and the COA of a school. If a student is eligible for Pell and/or other federal grants, perkins loans, subsidized stafford loans and the EFC plus all that adds up to the COA (in other words the school doesn’t need to give out its own money) then that is a viable candidate as well. A loan or grant counts as money paid to the school same as cash from a parent.</p>
<p>For schools that truly follow a need-blind admissions policy, the answer is no.
For the rest, the answer is obviously yes. Otherwise, those schools would be need-blind, and they’re not. Private colleges without huge endowments need a substantial number of students capable of paying full freight, in order to subsidize the tuition discounts for their less affluent classmates.</p>
<p>alot of private colleges w/o big endowments are need-blind and will accept you but not offer enough money to make it affordable (leaving a big gap between your efc and the coa that isn’t filled with scholarships and grants)</p>
<p>I don’t think that having all the money in the world is going to save you from a 1200 cumulative SAT for all three sections though. You have to at least have strong enough credentials to make a case that you deserve to be there. You can’t go to someplace like Vandy if you have a 1.3 GPA and 17 ACT, no matter how much you can pay.</p>