And colleges that claim to “meet full need” can have widely varying definitions of how much a student needs.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/1675058-meet-full-need-schools-can-vary-significantly-in-their-net-prices.html
Only about a fifth of the colleges in the US use The Common Application.
Most colleges are not that selective or not selective at all (e.g. community colleges). The non-selective ones are obviously need-blind. Many of the not very selective colleges admit just on stats, which also means that they are need-blind. However, that does not mean that they give good financial aid or “meet full need”.
Of course, remember that “need-blind” typically means not considering financial need when admissions readers look at individual applications. But colleges that are need-blind for individual applications are almost certainly need-aware when crafting their admission processes and criteria. Since they want to be able to target a certain financial aid budget, they need to consider whether each process aspect or admissions reading criterion affects the SES distribution of the admit class. Obvious examples would include whether legacy (likely higher SES) and/or first generation (likely lower SES) applicants are boosted on those aspects, and how much.
I’ve never heard of a “need blind” reaching down to tell adcoms how to do their jobs, down to the level of “each process aspect or or admissions reading criterion.” I can barely imagine how they would. What do you think they do?
IME, need blind means need blind. Of course, the FA depts then allocate. And their processes may be scrutinized.
Process aspects would be such things as:
- Are SAT subject tests, recommendations, and interview required, recommended, optional, or not used?
- Is CSS Profile required?
- Is there an early decision or action deadline, or rolling admissions, and how much of the admit class is admitted through such early admissions?
Admissions criteria where whether they are considered, and how heavily weighted, include such things as:
- Relative weighting of GPA, rank, and test scores.
- Which types of extracurricular activities are considered stronger.
- Legacy status.
- First generation to college status.
These process aspects and admission criteria weightings can be set by policy beforehand, and admissions readers can be given general instructions about how to evaluate applications on the college’s intended admission criteria. Without such instructions, each admissions reader can apply his/her own preferences when rating an application, which would make the admissions process more of a lottery, even though colleges internally presumably prefer it not to be a lottery.
Why would you think that a college would not give its admissions readers criteria and weightings to consider when reading applications? Why would you think that a college would not consider the financial aid budget aspects of any change to the admissions process and criteria?
This means that, while a college that gives good financial aid can be need-blind while considering individual applications, it is almost certainly need-aware when making admissions policy for itself. It does not seem coincidental that many of the “need-blind meets-full-need” colleges somehow manage to end up with about half of their students not needing financial aid.
@ucbalumnus What you describe may exist but I’ve worked for two “need blind/full need” colleges and we never received the sort of “directions” you describe. Indeed, we always needed to complete the docket read by early March so that the files of those admitted and requesting financial aid could be matched and the financial aid office could begin assembling offers. I recall one year the President said that there was a bottom to the pool of financial aid funds but that had never been reached.
The issues you describe regarding “weighting” were also agreed each year with the faculty committee on admissions. I never recall financial issues being discussed but there always was a lot of debate over test scores and “weighted” grades. We also used the advocacy approach so it was up to each officer to argue the case of students who might have been scored low on one particular dimension. Not infrequently, a student was admitted who initially was rated lower on the scale. But what would perhaps surprise people is that many “highly rated” students were ultimately rejected following committee or subcommittee discussions when people felt that their other factors weren’t that impressive.
To be honest, what you describe makes a mockery of need blind admissions. It may indeed exist but I’m glad I never experienced it, and from students I have subsequently worked with, they haven’t experienced the effects of the policies you describe either.
@ucbalumnus Regarding what significance the financial aid box on the Common App has on the admissions process, we actually didn’t see the same Common App students see. That page was not shown on our screens. What did happen however is that for those students requesting financial aid, the financial aid office began preparing their packages on the basis of their response to this question. They did so without reference to the admissions committee. Once we had decided who was admitted, the files were matched and the financial aid offer went into the admissions portal. That’s also one reason students occasionally get their electronic admissions decisions before their financial aid awards. I recall there always was pandemonium in the financial aid office as they rushed to complete all the files.
Agree with you, @exlibris97.
I agree with @ucbalumnus that the admissions policies adopted by a need-blind school can be developed to help them achieve the desired mix of full-pay vs. those needing financial aid. Schools like Swat are up front that they are need-blind for domestic students, but they state that they “may be need aware” for international applicants.
The mix of first-gen applicants vs legacy, and the percentage of the class they will accept through ED, will undoubtedly affect this balance. Similarly, the percentage of students accepted from private vs. public schools can have an impact.
I take these schools with great endowments at their word - the admissions team does not know how much aid, if any, most applicants might need, Sure, perhaps they can get an idea if the applicant’s comes from a private HS and their EC involves rowing, and last name is WInklevoss (I don’t even know if they have kids ), or if they come from a public HS in a low SES neighborhood, and their biggest EC is working after school in a fast-food chain. I trust these schools when they say one of their goals is diversity, but I am skeptical that if both had identical test scores and stellar GPAs, both would have an equal shot - because I don’t know what else the school happens to be looking for that year. If they need a rower and they already have a diverse population in the incoming class, who knows?
@exlibris97 , when you cite hypothetical examples of a “highly rated” student being rejected because their “other factors weren’t that impressive” - can you clarify that by “highly rated” you are referring to test scores/GPA, and other factors refers to EC or something else? Does “unimpressive” refer to the EC’s being a dime-a-dozen, or does it refer to race/gender/geographic location, or is it their essay/teacher recs?
Amherst makes a point in their admissions info sessions to tell applicants that they routinely reject applicants with perfect SAT scores. Is this the idea you are getting at?
One of the more prominent examples of what I am referring to is the University of California system, where the admissions process and criteria are intended to increase the representation of students from lower SES families (and relatively successfully, since the Pell grant percentage at UCs tends to be significantly higher than at most comparably selective other schools). Examples include not having ED, not considering legacy, not requiring recommendations or SAT subject scores, not using CSS Profile, and emphasizing courses and grades over SAT/ACT scores.
Do you think that they would really do such a thing without at least considering the implications on financial aid budgets? If not, do you think that any other college would not consider the financial aid implications of any admission policy change?
Perhaps the specific college you are familiar with happens to be one of the few ultra-wealthy ones? Most others need to keep a closer eye on their budgets.
Regarding what @suzyQ7 and @marvin100 are discussing about need blind and being ‘suspicious’ about it, I have heard gc’s say that some need blind schools, may become need aware during the wait list process
Not that the UC system is so great with FA. And ucb originally included “reading criteria.” It’s a different egg to aim for, say, geo diversity, which is an end result, versus assuming there’s a directive to read ND or WY applicants differently.
There are lots of potential points of failure, 3puppies. A great record in that one hs doesn’t ensure a great app for that college.
I don’t know about that, but I do think it’s ridiculous people still donate to colleges with $1 billion+ endowments, knowing full and well that only a fraction of the endowments actually go towards subsidizing tuition for students. Why not donate to other charities instead, or to scholarship funds that directly help students go to college?
How many schools with supersized endowments use their endowment size for prestige or ranking purposes?
Agreed, but I was referring to
and trying to figure out precisely what @exlibris97 meant by “highly rated” and what was meant by “other factors”
If highly rated referred to a top class rank and GPA only, but then multiple attempts at standardized test scores show say 75th percentile of accepted students, then other factors would be test scores.
But if test scores are included in “highly rated” and the applicant did top 1% nationally, yet was rejected for a trite, repetitive essay on their challenges learning how to play the piano, yet they finally mastered it blah blah blah (not to pick on piano players), where there are no meaningful EC activities, then the “other factors” meant essay and ECs.
I thought this is what we were discussing, as the thread title says “Liberal arts colleges that have massive endowments”
I was under the impression that these would include those who can afford to be “need blind” and also meet full need (with understanding that these schools determine this differently). But I suppose “massive endowments” could still include schools that need to keep a closer eye on their budgets.
@3puppies No mystery, I’m afraid. “Highly rated” means the score the admissions officer assign a file after reading it. Each folder would be assigned an initial rating by its readers but these frequently changed during committee discussions. “Other factors” were things like having excelled despite significant challenges, special or unique skills and abilities (outstanding artistic achievement, fluency in multiple languages, inventions, exceptional talent in some area), and awards and honors (Intel, Gates Millennium, Coca-Cola etc).
Regarding test scores, at both universities I worked at, admissions officers only saw the highest scores for each candidate, with our admissions clerks updating our computer screens when new scores arrived.
@ucbalumnus I’m sure that many universities do fashion their admissions policies with financial considerations in mind, and University of California for years treated out of state students as a great revenue source. That contrasts with the University of Michigan and University of Virginia. Both of those state universities have devoted large amounts of budgetary resources to providing financial aid to OOS students, and both now offer excellent FA to those students. I was referring mainly to LACs and highly competitive private universities.
Michigan and Virginia may offer good FA for the few middle and lower income students who are admitted, but their admit classes that are highly skewed toward wealth. It is not as hard for a college to offer good FA if few of the students are financially needy.
Pell grant percentages for new frosh:
43% UCI
38% UCSB
38% UCD
33% UCSD
30% UCLA
26% UCB
20% UNC CH
13% Michigan
12% Virginia
Even compared to some private universities that have a reputation of being places of student family wealth, Michigan and Virginia do not seem particularly friendly to middle and low income students.
Pell grant percentages for new frosh:
24% Amherst
21% Pomona
18% USC
18% Columbia
18% Princeton
17% MIT
17% Williams
15% Harvard
15% Stanford
15% Swarthmore
14% Yale
I hope folk did not misconstrue my comments. I am absolutely clear on how Yale’s need blind admissions works and yes, it also meets full need as far as financial aid
(as a middle class parent of a Yale student, I can quibble with that, but that’s another post). Don’t know how my comment was taken any other way. And yes, there are other schools that may be need blind as far as admissions. And there are others, through whatever means they choose, and due to the fact that they cannot meet the need of all admits, do make choices based upon the perceived ability to pay. Even if they do admit everyone without regard to money, in reality they are skewed toward those that can pay because of their lack of financial resources. CC is full of cases of students who got into great schools, but then can’t afford to pay to go. We lecture parents all the time about only allowing kids to apply to schools they can afford, so for some schools, lower income students may not apply at all because they know they have no means to pay for it.
My monetary donations to Yale have never been large since I decided to use my Yale degree and devote myself to relatively low paid public service. However, I have donated my time over the years as many of us have. I am proud that Yale has its massive endowment and that it continues to acknowledge and expand the ways in which it meets the needs of students which goes far beyond just giving them money for tuition, room and board. We’re all ultimately on the same page.
At both my alma mater and my D’s current university, donations can be earmarked. My alma mater gets a donation for the scholarship fund and D’s school gets a donation to the cheer team she is a part of. After she graduates that donation will go to a scholarship fund instead. We used to joke that we had to specify a fund because we didn’t want to “buy a bush.”
“I don’t know about that, but I do think it’s ridiculous people still donate to colleges with $1 billion+ endowments, knowing full and well that only a fraction of the endowments actually go towards subsidizing tuition for students. Why not donate to other charities instead, or to scholarship funds that directly help students go to college?”
Why is this ridiculous? People donate paintings to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston all the time- believe me, they do not lack for artwork- half of their collection is in storage at some point because they don’t have the space to display it all or it’s on loan overseas. People donate to the Red Cross even though that organization makes over a billion dollars a year selling biologics (blood, plasma, and other components).
People donate to organizations which have proven themselves to be responsible stewards of donated funds; which prove themselves to fulfill their mission as they define it; which prove themselves in terms of following the laws which apply to them.
There are a bunch of small organizations in the US that do disaster relief… every time they get audited someone discovers that they spend 80 cents of every dollar they raise on fundraising and administrative expenses ( the Red Cross is much more efficient). There are scores of small museums and historical societies which discover every year that their holdings are mildewing or being destroyed by vermin/insects because they don’t have state of the art climate control (which the MFA clearly has).
Donors don’t want to prop up a failing organization with their dollars. They want to donate to an organization which manages its resources in an efficient manner.
Building a successful endowment seems to be a perfect example of handling resources efficiently. Ergo- donors like to give to Harvard more than Sweet Briar.