<p>weenie, you're probably right that we've flogged this one, and I'm ready to withdraw, but you deserve a response: Because we're of modest income and have two kids in private schools, D applied only to LACs that meet 100% of need (all excellent choices), and to the local (inexpensive but sadly inappropriate) UCal, to which she'd been guaranteed admission because of GPA in top 4%. So we knew she'd have at least one affordable choice even if none of the LACs accepted her. She was offered merit aid at Mt. Holyoke, but because we qualified for need-based, it made no difference to our bottom line. If we were wealthy, $15,000 a year wouldn't have swayed us, but it certainly might have if finances and EFC were different. Part of the reform that needs to happen, apparently, is that EFC needs to be more closely in line with reality; I don't know how to fix that. I didn't know it was broken.</p>
<p>Re "elite colleges trying to reform the system," I hear your suspicion but don't share it. I believe these are mostly good people struggling to achieve social justice without putting themselves out of a job -- the same struggle most of us have most of the time. What I hear and read from them is mostly heartening. Their clients have traditionally been America's wealthy elite, but I don't hear admins or faculty at Williams, Amherst, or Yale strategizing to exclude bright, motivated, low-income kids. I think they're sincerely trying to bring ethics back into admissions. I've seen this first hand at elite preps, so I believe it.</p>