<p>Exactly, they could enroll a very high stat class of full freight students, and instead they enroll very high stat classes with relatively few full scholarship students. This extends to minorities. They can enroll who they want, and upper income URM's have higher stats, so their URM students tend to be wealthier than URM's nationally. Part of the reason they can give such generous financial aid to low income students is that there are so few of them there.</p>
<p>So they can pay for diversity, but since they are at the top of the food chain for enrolling students, they do not have to. At least not as much as most other elites.</p>
<p>"So does a Black or Hispanic not needing aid have a better chance?"</p>
<p>I think, pretty universally, the answer is a resounding "yes", but not per se because they don't require aid, or even because of family income, but because of the pre-college opportunities that relative wealth can buy. Unless they are used to it (meaning they have had a commitment to doing so for a long time), admissions officers are likely to be uncomfortable trying to figure out how working 30+ hours a week to help feed one's family compares against four years playing lacrosse at a top prep. Or they have difficulty evaluating "strength of curriculum" when the school offers nothing past basic chemistry or algebra II. Or having to relate to an unknown and overworked GC whose main job is trying to get more than 40% of the high school students to graduate. It's just easier not to have to deal with such things (or pass them off to Questbridge), and not even have to visit "bad neighborhoods." </p>
<p>"Yes, that's theoretically possible, but it runs counter to everything written by every college about financial aid and tuition discounting, every book ever written on college admissions, and so forth."</p>
<p>Just the opposite. Other than a full-pay high stat football quarterback, there is almost nothing more desirable than an almost full-pay URM. It adds to the statistics of providing financial without having to shell out much, it adds to URM numbers without having to offer much in the way of additional services. It is a real deal! And the data from Princeton suggest that the no-merit "merit aid" policies are aimed primarily at those in the $110k-$160k category (and if I were them, I'd do the same.)</p>
<p>So the Pell- and near-Pell grant data are directly relevant. Those are the costly ones - not only in scholarship aid - but in actual commitment in the admissions department.</p>
<p>collegialmom If your question was addressed to me. Im sorry I didnt make myself clear but my D is only a junior in HS, she is not a student at W&L.
[quote]
[quote]
"So does a Black or Hispanic not needing aid have a better chance?"
[/quote]
I think, pretty universally, the answer is a resounding "yes"
[/quote]
mimi Thanks, I selfishly hope you are right.</p>
<p>Probably has to do with overlapping as many students admitted to Duke are also admitted to other schools and then end up choosing where they want to be.</p>
<p>Most of the top universities are competing for the same high-performing black applicants, so Duke/Chicago/Emory/Georgetown/Northwestern/etc. tend to lose out to Harvard/MIT/Stanford/etc. UNC Chapel Hill manages to lure a considerable portion of the talented in-state students, so that's also a factor. Duke uses URM recruitment weekends, student-applicant interactions, and similar things to try to attract more of these students.</p>
<p>"14% of the students were unknown ethnicity
10% of the financial aid students were unknown ethnicity"</p>
<p>This group seems to have the best ratio for full paid. Wonder whether this group is a mix or is biased toward one group of ethnicity. Interesting implication though.</p>
<p>kjane...surprisingly 'puffy' for a student newspaper article. No comparison of WUSTL's low percentage of Black admits vs peer schools. </p>
<p>96 students--out of 1500+ freshman? Still surprised --though not surprised about the graduating rates. The African American students that I know come from wealthy, highly educated families. Those families pay full freight.</p>
<p>yeah WUSTL's been spamming me. i was going to apply, then i figured i most likely won't get in anyway. It's the school i get the most mail from.
but then why do these people keep sending mail to people. is it to increase their selectivity. to see how much people they can reject.
they put too much emphasis on SATs for some reason too (probably to weed out poor kids who tend to score lower and increase the # of wealthy kids).</p>
<p>
[quote]
"14% of the students were unknown ethnicity
10% of the financial aid students were unknown ethnicity"</p>
<p>This group seems to have the best ratio for full paid. Wonder whether this group is a mix or is biased toward one group of ethnicity. Interesting implication though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are white... and perhaps a few Asian American. You would have to legally brain dead to apply to Swarthmore and not check the African American or Latino/a box on the application if it legitimately applies. Not too many brain dead kids apply to Swarthmore.</p>
<p>The assumption is so strong that USNEWS lumps "unknown" in with "white" in their ethnicity statistics.</p>
<p>I think many well qualified applicants who belong to the group known as URM actually resent the label of URM, and it won't surprise me that they leave that blank on their application.</p>
<p>On that note, has anyone seen any statistics on how many students qualify as both Nat'l Merit and Nat'l Achievement Semifinalists? Just wondering; there were only two in Memphis City Schools (compare to 24 nmsf's and 16 nasf's), and I knew that had to be pretty unusual.</p>
<p>Quantum,
I have never seen stats on the overlap between National Merit and National Achievement scholars. Once I e-mailed the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, and they responded that they had tried to get that data, but the College Board said that it didn't keep those records. Since the College Board collects racial data on everyone who takes the test and checks the race box, it was obvious that the CB simply didn't want to release the data.</p>
<p>I'd love to see the breakdown. Both of my sons were National Merit Commended, National Achievement Semifinalists (Unfortunately, both were academic underperformers who didn't have the 3.5 or so unweighted gpa that Nat. Achievement finalist requires) whose SAT scores were either 98 or 99th percentile for everyone. </p>
<p>I have met only one black student who was a National Merit and National Achievement finalist. Most of the black students whom I have met who got into Ivies weren't even Commended in National Merit, though they usually were National Achievement finalists.</p>
<p>My D is both National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalist and has the GPA (3.7+uw) and SAT I scores, (770v, 680m, 680w) I believe to make the finalist. Don't no of any others in our area and info seems hard to come by. </p>
<p>I agree that the CB must have the info.</p>
<p>But just like everyone else D is nervous about admission chances at top schools(D applied to one Ivy) and I am worried about the 'middleclass tuition bill'.</p>
<p>Are the designations independent? Both programs are run by the National Merit Scholarship Corp, is it correct to assume that they would give both scholarships to the same person? Since there is money involved, and the number of awards is limited, I thought they would give kids one or the other, but not both.</p>
<p>I am not sure the College Board would have the answer, but the NMSC would.</p>
<p>As per the NMSC website you can only accept the monetary award from one and get a certificate or honorable mention from the other...the student chooses.</p>
<p>I was NM/NA and I haven't met any one else to my knowledge that was both...though we don't talk about that anymore since we're uni geezers:P It didn't help that all that much as far as I saw...only useful if you're applying to state schools or the rare uni that cares...</p>