<p>CrewDad, I cannot give you a simple answer to your question, but my answer, which I will restate here in (hopefully) clearer format, is laid out in responses #26 and #28 in this thread. </p>
<p>In posts # 26 and #28, I tried to create a few models to describe what the admissions picture would look like if Vassar had reduced admission of both middle class students on financial aid and wealthy students by the same proportions. </p>
<p>However, I don’t know the baseline percentage of Pell Grant recipients in the student body before the adoption of the policy to recruit more low-income students. I don’t even know exactly when Vassar changed its policies and increased the number of Pell Grant recipients in the student body, or if the college gradually increased their numbers. All I know (or think I know) is that the current figure is 20%, and you, CrewDad, implied that it’s even higher.</p>
<p>In my calculations, I used the information available and played around with assumptions. I used 40% as the baseline figure for the enrollment of wealthy students (which is the same as the figures CrewDad found of 39% and 41% for the last two years). I used the figure of 40%, because last year, 40% of the student body at Vassar (classes of 2013-2016) was wealthy (as indicated on the common data set), and I was contrasting this number with the current freshman class, in which 44% are wealthy. 60% of students at Vassar last year were on financial aid. </p>
<p>(By wealthy, I am referring to those students not on financial aid.)</p>
<p>Let’s assume that PG enrollment was 15% before the adoption of the new policy to increase PG enrollment to 20%. That would mean that 45% of the student body was composed of middle class students on financial aid (60%-15%=45%) at baseline. </p>
<p>Using these assumptions, if enrollment of middle class and wealthy students had decreased proportionately, enrollment of middle class and wealthy students would have decreased from 45% to 42.3% and from 40% to 37.7%, respectively. However, the enrollment of middle class students on financial aid decreased to 36%, while enrollment of wealthy students increased to 44%.</p>
<p>Of course, if Vassar had kept the proportions constant, the percentage of students on financial aid would have increased to 62.3% from 60% and instead decreased to 56%.</p>
<p>You could develop alternative models assuming other baseline percentages of Pell Grant students, but I doubt the baseline percentage was much higher than 15%. If it were much higher, say 18%, why would Vassar bother to make a big deal over admission of a few more Pell Grant students and warn traditional applicants that their numbers would be reduced?</p>
<p>I don’t think the big drop in middle class enrollment happened by chance alone. </p>
<p>CrewDad, by and large, the people who benefited from the economic recovery were already rich, not the sort of people who ever would apply for financial aid. Companies aren’t hiring, and wages for the middle class have remained stagnant. You have to own stocks to have benefited from a rebounding stock market. The stocks the middle class own, to the extent that they own them, are mostly tied up in retirement funds that Vassar does not consider when calculating financial aid.</p>
<p>In answer to your question, CrewDad, at the very least, I would have liked to see that as Vassar boosted PG enrollment the college did not decrease the overall percentage of students on financial aid and held it steady at 60%. At the very least, I would have liked to see that Vassar did not use admission of PG students as a ploy to increase admission of wealthy ones. </p>
<p>CrewDad, based on the link you provided to Vassar’s endowment page, it sounds as though the college is admitting that it is not need-blind, which I suspected all along. You and Vonlost use this finding to excuse the evidence that enrollment of middle class students has declined disproportionately, and I turn it around and use it to say, “See, I told you so. Vassar is not need-blind. How can Hill claim the college is?”</p>
<p>Applicants need to know the truth. I googled some articles and quickly came across an article published by a college advisor in the Huffington Post who wrote, “ juniors in the process of developing a balanced college list should make note of schools that have a need-blind or need-aware admissions policy in order to accurately assess chances of admission.” Middle class students have a right to know the truth before they spend time completing Vassar’s application and forking over the application fee. </p>
<p>Hill has written that other colleges are understandably having debates about whether they can remain need-blind. She mentions Wesleyan, which has a low endowment, and Grinnell, which has a higher percentage of students on financial aid than Vassar does, including a long history of enrolling more than 20% of students on Pell Grants. When I googled this information, I found evidence of gut-wrenching public debates on these campuses about what to do. No matter what these colleges decide (and Wesleyan is now need-aware for the last 10% of the class admitted), some people will object. But at least the debates are out in the open. The presidents are being honest that they have to make choices. One of the ways in which Grinnell is trying to increase the enrollment of full paying students not on financial aid is by marketing to them. Many colleges do this, but at least Grinnell is being honest about it. I cannot find evidence of open debate of this sort at Vassar other than statements that Vassar and the Board of Trustees have proudly decided to do the right thing and remain need blind. That’s hogwash, especially when the percentage of wealthy students in the student body has steadily been increasing since the college returned to being need-blind. </p>
<p>Perhaps Hill should either admit that Vassar is not need-blind and that only enrollment of middle class students has been decreased to make room for Pell Grant students, or she should provide a reasonable explanation for the evidence (backing up her explanation with data) to prove that I am wrong and that Vassar will continue to be need-blind both in practice and in spirit.</p>
<p>In my dreams, what I’d really like to see happen is for someone at Vassar to realize that word is getting out that people are questioning whether Vassar is truly need-blind and for this trend to reverse. I want to be able to look next year at Vassar’s website and see that 60%+ of the class of 2018 is on financial aid. I also want to hear that Vassar has continued its efforts to recruit PG students. But I suspect that’s not realistic. Vassar’s endowment is high but not that high.</p>
<p>That’s why I keep posting replies to college confidential posters who argue with me. Thanks for keeping this debate alive. Special thanks are due to Vonlost. The debate would have died very early in this thread if not for him/her. But at some point, I am going to have to quit and get back to my own life. Maybe now is the time. I’ve done everything I can.</p>