I’m confused by the fact that being low-income/first-gen/adversity-overcoming/socioeconomically-diverse is positive and yet that needing financial aid (which is basically the same thing) is negative.
Also why don’t colleges offer to admit students without financial aid or less financial aid instead of just rejecting them because they’re too poor? Maybe they could scholarships or find the opportunity for economic/class mobility worth it?
Many colleges have limited financial endowments and simply can’t afford to accept all of the qualified students who do not have the financial resources to pay.
Several colleges guarantee FA to all who qualify, so they can’t just admit those who ‘could find other scholarships’ (which is very hard to do).
Many schools who do not guarantee to meet need are ‘need blind’ in admissions so they do just admit anyone who is qualified and then let the student decide if he can afford that school, giving them the federal aid or any school aid available, but perhaps not enough to afford the school. Most public schools operate that way
I mean to ask why need-aware schools can’t just admit students without offering them financial aid if they’d be rejected otherwise and let them decide if that’s worth it. (I didn’t say anything about only admitting people who can find other scholarships just said it’s a possibility that they might so you can’t assume they can’t attend without financial aid)
My question was whether they actually do valuate socioeconomic diversity or not. What’s the point if it’s canceled out by their need-awareness?
My second question was if they can’t afford to give them aid why they can’t offer to accept them without giving them aid
Honestly, because they may not have the money.
Colleges and universities are businesses. They have budgets. The schools that are need blind and guarantee to fund students have major monies and donors. That’s why there are so few of those schools.
The need-aware schools tend to be on tighter budgets. They collect monies and fees from student tuitions, room and board, parking fees, merchandise, sporting events, sponsors, awards, etc. So they make some money but . . . . .
They have to take their funding and cover labor costs like professors’ salaries, health insurance, pensions, research expenses, etc. Then, they have to pay staff who work all of those offices, cafeterias, groundskeeping, dorms, security, and parking attendants. Then, they have to pay utility fees like electricity/solar, phones, computers, water, trash collection. In other words, they have to pay their bills and stay within budget.
Scholarships have to be a part of that budget.
I was in your shoes 40+ years ago.
Private schools could fund me, but the GPA, required for my funding, (living on-campus) and work study hours were stretching my parents’ limited budget. So I switched to commuting on the buses and riding my bike, which then impacted my study hours, labs, and group meetings there.
I preferred to transfer to my cheaper, public, in-state university which was more affordable and where I received more state funding.
Not everyone can afford to go to college at the age of 18. I met a lot of people who had to delay starting college until they had significant savings.
Edited to add: One of the biggest expenses for the colleges is LIABILITY INSURANCE. 18-21 year olds tend to do some really stupid things when drunk or stoned. Staff also are guilty of harassing students or doing stupid things.
Universities care about their yield numbers. If they know statistically that students who don’t receive aid wont matriculate, it’s better for them to not offer the admittance.
Where would you get the money to pay the fees?
Loans don’t work if you are low-income.
Banks require collateral that can be sold if you default on the loan.
You can’t just borrow any amount of money, every year, if your parents don’t make enough money to pay off the loan.
You could probably borrow enough for two years. Then, the banks could say, “no more”. “You are out of assets and we can’t risk giving you more money.”
Edited: If your parents go “bankrupt”, everything goes away EXCEPT a college loan. That loan NEVER goes away. You are stuck paying for that for life. The interest is ridiculous.
My doctor, who is in his late 40’s, just told me that he just finished paying off his college loans.
Socioeconomic diversity is valued at most colleges. HOWEVER. financially they can only do so much (except for a few very well endowed colleges which are need blind – but their admissions are typically hyper-competitive). Simply put a college can’t offer more in aid than it has available without risking its long-term viability.
If you need substantial aid I would suggest you focus on some colleges where your academic stats exceed the 75th percentile in GPA/standardized tests. When you are in the upper echelon of students applying to a college schools may be more likely to provide substantial aid. Also look at your in-state public options.
You have another thread asking about transfers. Are you in college now? If so you know understand that getting merit aid is generally more difficult as a transfer.
Typically, colleges that are need aware for individual applicants make some promises about the level of financial aid that they will offer, but are not able to ensure that the overall admit class fits into their FA budget without checking individual applicants’ financials.
Colleges that make lesser promises relative to their FA budgets have more leeway.
nvm
There are PLENTY of colleges that do this. Most public colleges do. What college(s) are you worried about rejecting you because you need too much aid?
There are colleges that are need blind but meet full need (Harvard, Princeton). They admit and then decide on the amount of aid to award.
There are colleges that are need aware for admissions, but if you are admitted, they will meet your full need (as they determine it). I think this is the kind of school you are referring to. They won’t admit if they can’t meet your need, even if YOU think you can find other funding. They know, from experience, that you will probably not attend and thus affect their yield. See the ‘Tufts Syndrome’) You (and all the others who need more aid than they can give) would argue they promise to meet full need and that you are needy. Nope, they don’t want that.
And there are plenty of schools that will give some aid, whether they are need blind or need aware for admissions, and that’s the max. You are welcomed to search for scholarships or grants on your own, but the school can’t give you more. They do not promise to meet full need. You can apply to U of Wisconsin, U of California (as OOS), Miami if you want that type of school and feel that admissions scheme is more fair to you.
Lots of schools want to be diverse in all kinds of ways - geographics, SES, race, international students, majors, but when it comes down to it they can’t do that at the expense of the goal of the college. That might be to serve the students of the state (public), racial diversity, SES, but they have to balance all those things with the academics and, in the case of public schools, serving their residents.
And I’m afraid you won’t know if you were rejected because of aid not being available or because there were others more qualified. The schools won’t tell you.
Agree with @happy1.
Transfers get very little funding because the universities reserve their best funding to attract new competitive students to their campuses.
Being low income is NEVER a positive for about 99% of the colleges. In fact, being full pay is one of the easiest ways to get into most T-whatever schools.
Find a school that you can afford to graduate out of with minimum debt and a useful degree.
Many colleges DO admits students without regard for their lower incomes. An offer of admission without sufficient aid to attend is sometimes called an “admit/deny”. Because without sufficient aid, the student cannot attend.
There aren’t all that many outside scholarships available after admissions are given that fully fund college costs…these just don’t exist.
It is not necessarily an advantage in admission reading – but the family who can pay private college list price more commonly has the financial resources to purchase opportunities and remove barriers for their kid(s). The kid(s) still need to earn enough achievement to be admitted to a highly selective college, but can focus on that instead of being blocked by financial barriers or financially based lack of opportunities.
100% agree. And I’ll add that full pay status makes no difference in admissions to the T-20s (and likely beyond). It may make some slight difference in getting off of a waitlist at some schools. But that’s about it.
Where I think full pay does help though, is at certain state schools if you’re a full pay OOS applicant.
I don’t think it is just about yield.
From the point of view of a highly endowed college that meets need, it is not in anyone’s best interest to admit low-income students without aid. Those colleges pride themselves on their retention rate.
They want to prevent attrition and make sure that their students succeed academically. The admissions offices don’t want to take a risk by admitting unfunded low income students because it increases the likelihood that the student will run out of money and thus drop out or take multiple leaves of absence or be forced into full time employment (which would interferes with their academic success) in order to cover tuition. Nor does a college want to have to chase students/parents for unpaid bills or be forced to freeze their registration because a previous semester was never paid off.
Full pay matters to every school that isn’t need blind. Because they have to hit theirs financial aid budget