<p>Hi. Do colleges (especially the ivy leagues) consider income in the admissions process? Do people with low income get a plus, or do those with high income get it? Thanks.</p>
<p>Ivies are need blind, therefore they don't look at your financial need. Some schools may or may not be need blind. Most schools are not need blind for internationals.</p>
<p>I have heard two sides to this story:</p>
<p>A) Colleges look at the resources you had available to you and decide if you took advantage of them. They will evaluate you based on the context of those opportunities.</p>
<p>B) Colleges will hold low income students to the same standard (mainly STATS) as high income students. Regardless if the high income student had the resources to pay for private school, tutors, sat prep courses, etc. Being poor is no excuse not to have a near perfect gpa and high stats even if the student was holding down a 30 hour a week part time job. </p>
<p>These are the conflicting stories I have heard, I am not saying that I agree with either of them. </p>
<p>I believe the OP was referring to the admissions process, not taking into consideration financial need.</p>
<p>If you look at the accepted applicants for Princeton (who all by the way have great stats); the majority come from upper income families, even those who are first generation and/or URM.</p>
<p>True. I wasn't sure what the OP was asking. </p>
<p>Technically they don't look at your income, or at least say they don't. But college admissions does seem to be biased towards high income students and families. Although when you think about it logically it makes sense- colleges are a business and there have been many posts about strategic admission and admitting students who can pay. </p>
<p>But I don't think being low-income will provide any real boost to the application, the same goes with high-income. They look at you as an applicant in terms of what you have done. A high income student who did not take advantage of the opportunities presented to him will most likely be looked in the same way a low income student who did not take advantage of the opportunities.</p>
<p>I am low income and make no excuses for my lackluster STATS. It was my choice to spend my hard working money on further education and my sport. Had I put more effort towards studying and prep for the SATs, I would not have participated as much as I did with my ECs and then I would look like the average high scoring, high GPA student with few ECs or passions. More money, brings about more opportunities, plain and simple. I have said this on previous threads and I will say it again. I might not go to a selective school but I certainly would not change who I am or what I've done. It is the fact that I am low income that has provided me with experiences that I would not have otherwise obtained.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to say anything against that. Good for you, I think that is the "right" response to questions of income and opportunity.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>But I don't think being low-income will provide any real boost to the application, the same goes with high-income. They look at you as an applicant in terms of what you have done. A high income student who did not take advantage of the opportunities presented to him will most likely be looked in the same way a low income student who did not take advantage of the opportunities<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree with you. However, how do they 'know' if you took advantage of the opportunities available to you unless they had some idea of your income?</p>
<p>Well of course they have some idea of your income without even looking at the financial aid box. Schools, zip codes, parent's professions, parent's education, EC's, etc all give some indication of income level.</p>
<p>It can be misleading though. My zip code includes apartments that rent for $550 a month and 2 million dollar homes. My parents (who are both college educated) make less money together than a 1 good blue collar job union position. My ECs are expensive but I work 3 jobs to pay for them.</p>
<p>Just the opposite: My cousin has a rural zip code (as in blue collar, non educated area) but live in a million dollar house. Her parents are not college educated but make $200K a year. Her ECs were not very expensive (cheerleading and 4H). </p>
<p>I guess things are not always what they appear.</p>
<p>I'm sure there are some cases where it can be misleading, but I think for most cases that is not the case. </p>
<p>I looked up an old thread on it, this might be interesting:</p>
<p>I am certain I misrepresented myself on my application. I should have written an essay on the fact that I could not get a CT-Scan a couple of weeks ago after an accident because my mom could not afford it and the fact that our hot water heater busted and we went without hot water for weeks. Guess what we got for Christmas this year?</p>
<p>I'm sorry, especially about the CT scan. That must be awful. Sometimes I find myself quite glad to be living in a socialist country, where at least health care and education are taken care of for everyone, not just those who can afford it.</p>
<p>Lots of good info. on that thread, thanks. No need to be sorry, my mom had to make a judgement call. Had she felt it was absolutely necessary, she would have done it. She would never put $$ before my health. I am just saying that had money not been a problem, I would have had the scan. Had it been a life and death situation, I would have had the scan - money or no money. She is already faced with the $1000 hospital bill to pay as it is. We do have insurance but we have a huge deductible, my mom only got the insurance policy for major medical.</p>
<p>I found that thread really interesting as well. I came across it awhile ago. </p>
<p>That must really suck to have to make that call. Healthcare in the US is crazy. Awhile back I hurt my knee in a soccer game. I saw my doctor the day after who sent me to an orthopedist, who then sent me for an MRI. Then a few weeks later to see if it was healed they sent me for another MRI. Didn't cost my family a thing- the gov't health insurance picked up the tab.</p>
<p>scarletleavy, I'm not going to get into a socialized healthcare debate, but let's just say that I don't want to wait for two weeks to get an x-ray (like my friends in Canada do). Oh, and those MRI's did cost your families - in taxes that is.</p>
<p>As far as the OP goes,
Here are the two sides to the coin:</p>
<p>On the one hand, colleges claim to be need blind, meaning they don't get to see your financial situation. On the other hand, they know what your parents do for a living, where they went to school, where your siblings went to school, what your zip code is, what school you attend, etc...</p>
<p>they can figure it out.</p>
<p>Now, a low-income situation isn't going to make up for a deficiency in scores - there are enough folks with tight financial constraints who manage to become valedictorians or get 1600s (now 2400s, I suppose)</p>
<p>It's like urm status: it really isn't going to give you the nice free ride through the admit process (there are enough high achieving minorities), but it might make them take that second look.</p>
<p>Trust me I know. I'm one of the biggest capitalists I know, in an early post I said this is one area where I appreciate socialism, regardless of the cost in taxes, because we pay through the roof in both the US and Germany. </p>
<p>I do agree with what you are saying with regards to the poster. I think they should read through the post I linked above, as well as search for need blind admissions in the search function. All of the information is out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the one hand, colleges claim to be need blind, meaning they don't get to see your financial situation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, Colleges being need blind only means that your ability to pay or if you have a financial need is not a factor in the admissions process.</p>
<p>So, if anything, is high income better than low income?</p>