<p>Are the applicants that apply to the top schools really different every year?</p>
<p>For example, were the applicants for Smith's 2007 graduating class all that different from the applicants of Smith's 2008 graduating class?</p>
<p>babar, Thank you for noticing that & for focusing on actual issues. I'll PM you later, after work.</p>
<p>Varies quite widely. In fact, there was an 18% difference in the NUMBER of applicants. Admission rates varied by 9%. (Probably not a fair example, though: they don't claim to be need-blind, have a smaller potential pool of applicants by definition, and has had a aggressive policy promoting economic diversity since the '70s. Their major variants would be in recruitment.) </p>
<p>But it hardly matters. The chances of 10 schools taking a pool of applicants, even a relatively unvaried one, and each year not only offering admission to but actually enrolling a class with virtually exactly the same percentage of full-fare customers quickly approaches infinitesmal.</p>
<p>Going back to ID's point: regardless of so-called "need-blind" admissions, has anyone ever heard of a school even claiming to be "need-blind" in its waiting list policies?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're talking about my d.
[/quote]
Yes, I knew that, but I didn't recall whether you had put that out here publicly and it wasn't my place to "out" you if you hadn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What it may have impacted, however, was the fact that no loans were needed. This is exactly the way so-called "need-blind" schools vary packages to attract applicants they wish to attend.
[/quote]
Exactly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With all due respect, we aren't talking basic demographics here, but close to exact distribution. The number of applicants per year over a 5-year period can in fact vary quite widely up and down; certain schools become "hot" because of media hype; distribution of ED candidates varies significantly. Yields vary MUCH more than distribution of full-fare customers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Believe me, I know from crazy number changes. Apps down 20%, then shooting back up, yield up unexpectedly, higher than it's been for 7 years.... this is my professional life we're talking! If you think I said things like that don't change, then I wasn't clear. Still, for all that, on our campus the class doesn't change much when you look at big measures like what percentage qualified for need-based aid, what income ranges they fall into, and so on. Maybe we're an anamoly. But I hadn't thought so. Because of it I tend to expect that the student body won't change overmuch even as the app volume varies. Perhaps we're more unique than I give us credit for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That program was declared unconstitutional, while their undergrad admissions procedures were allowed to continue (though it has been modified in practice).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is actually backwards. UMich law school didn't have to change, the undergad did. What they had to change was the role of race as a signel factor increasing a student's chance of admissions. I don't know what role the charge that a "quota" existed played (though I do know it's a hot-button word in AA cases generally).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The chances of 10 schools taking a pool of applicants, even a relatively unvaried one, and each year not only offering admission to but actually enrolling a class with virtually exactly the same percentage of full-fare customers quickly approaches infinitesmal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even with a quota system, it would be nearly impossible because of the unknowns in student yield behavior. To achieve that, I think they'd have to purposely plan on the waitlist to fill in a certain rough percentage of the class and then, after close analysis of the regular class, handpick to get the exact numbers of WL students who make $20,000-$40,000, who make $40,0001 - $60,000 and so on. I'd have an easier time accepting that they just grabbed the richest ones, frankly, and the other numbers came out the same by chance.</p>
<p>I understand. But you are talking HUGE numbers (it's Mich, right?), where the demographics of state high school graduates are well-known in advance, and the major changes in income from tuition from the school would come with changes in number of out-of-state students attending. Not an anomaly for a state school (except in its desirability to out-of-staters), but hardly comparable to a need-blind private. Princeton all of a sudden found larger percentages of "more qualified" low-income applicants when they chose to find 'em (and I think that's great!)</p>
<p>That's true, maybe I'm arguing too broadly here.</p>
<p>Maybe I'll bow out by saying I think there are more subtle ways to effectively manage the income range of a given class than saying "We need exactly 248 rich kids next fall." The professional (and the pollyanna!) in me prefers to believe they use those subtler methods. LOL A duck by a different name smells sweeter, or something like that.</p>
<p>"With all due respect, we aren't talking basic demographics here, but close to exact distribution. The number of applicants per year over a 5-year period can in fact vary quite widely up and down; certain schools become "hot" because of media hype; distribution of ED candidates varies significantly. Yields vary MUCH more than distribution of full-fare customers."</p>
<p>Mini, you missed the point entirely if you believe the NUMBER of applicants is relevant. Smith could double its number of applicants and end up with the exact same class if the attributes and characteristics of the pool did NOT change. However, you would expect the characteristics of the applicants to change over time, in reaction to the impact of a larger pool. For instance, if Smith would be blessed with a 100% increase in 2007, its selectivity would skyrocket. This would ultimately attract higher stats candidates. However, there is a time lag before the effects would surface. See saw changes -as it is the case for Smith- would not yield such changes. For instance, last year's growth in application at Smith is probably a DIRECT result of the subtantial decrease in selectivity and substantial increases in admit rate of the prior year. In so many words, many candidates considered themselves in Smith ballpark than before. To measure the growth in applications, you need to check a pattern over many years. If the numbers of 2004 were almost equal to the numbers of 1995, an increase in 2005 is meaningless unless it is the start of a trend. The answer will show up in a few months.</p>
<p>However, the above discussion addresses applicants statistics more than socio-economic factors. The distribution of financial "qualifications" would be LOT more static and remain in the current range of past applicants. That is why the numbers of financial aid are very predictable.</p>
<p>The admissions officer that spoke at the Colby info session we attended a year and a half ago said that they were need-aware. He went on to explain that the admissions people would choose the apps they wanted to accept. Then, the apps would be sent to the financial aid office, to see if they broke (or did not meet) the budget. Based on these results, some reshuffling would then occur, often giving full (or close to full) freight customers the edge. Given the realities of a college's financial existance, this seems pretty reasonable to me. And, Colby (at least at the time) did not style itself as need blind.</p>
<p>To illustrate my point about changes, here's a look at the last 6 years (minus 2009) for Smith. There are very little variances over the 5 year period. Now, we only need to plug in the financial aid numbers and we could draw conclusions from verifiable data points. </p>
<p>2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003<br>
2993 3304 3047 2869 3017 2998 Applications
1694 1705 1616 1559 1607 1681 Admitted
57% 52% 53% 54% 53% 56% Admission Rate
696 635 679 660 627 667 Enrolled
41% 37% 42% 42% 39% 40% Yield
255 311 280 265 481 482 Offered WL
129 133 174 175 331 200 Accepted spot on WL
0 42 0 0 0 99 Admitted from WL
192 211 224 230 190 218 ED Applications
156 152 156 153 134 131 ED Admitted
81% 72% 70% 67% 71% 60% ED Admission Rate</p>
<p>PS How to deal with the seasaw patterns of admissions a la Carol T. Christ, Tenth President of Smith College:</p>
<p>May 2005: I don't need to tell you that Smith students are an exceptional group. In admissions we had great success this year. In fact, we had the highest number of applications ever in Smith's history: 3,406 students competed for 630 places in our first-year class, a growth of 13 percent over last year.</p>
<p>May 2004: In the area of admissions, Smith has had great success this year. Acceptance of our offers of admission has increased significantly. We have now 731 acceptances, for our first-year class, where our original target was 640. I want to thank all of the alumnae who are helping us recruit students; you have succeeded beyond our most optimistic projections.</p>
<p>May 2003 In the area of admissions, Smith has had great success this year. We had the second highest number of applications in the colleges history -- 3303 applicants for the first-year class. While it is still too early to provide you with final enrollment figures, we hope to greet a first-year class next fall of 640, in addition to 65 Ada Comstock scholars, and 75 transfer students. I want to thank our alumnae for all the hard work you do in helping us recruit students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The professional (and the pollyanna!) in me prefers to believe they use those subtler methods.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are right, of course. Enrollment management is more subtle and sophisticated than a simple "quota" number. I'm not really cynical about it at all; I don't have any problem with enrollment management. Approval or disapproval of the results should be targeted at the institutional priorities driving the enrollment management, not at the admissions professionals carrying out their instructions.</p>
<p>If there is cynicism, I don't think colleges have anyone to blame but themselves. Admissions offices work very hard to conceal the details of enrollment management so consumers have little choice but to simply view it as a "black box". We compare the input to the black box with the output of the black box and draw conclusions accordingly. At the end of the day, if the black box produces consistent, predictable, repeatable results, it really doesn't matter what the actual circuit design inside the black box looks like.</p>
<p>It's the admissions offices that are cynical in their use of language. For example, an admissions dean saying that the college is "need-blind" and then describing the techiques they use to apply "socio-economic" tags to various admissions folders. Who is kidding who? They ask right on the application whether or not you will applying for financial aid and where your parents went to college and what occupations they hold. I think that more transparency in the system would lead to less cynicism, not more. By and large, the admissions priorities in higher ed these days are quite laudible. I think consumers are sophisticated enough to understand that those priorities have to be balanced against the financial needs of the institution. It's telling us, "no, it's not really a duck" that leads to cynicism.</p>
<p>I think we should treat adreps with the respect they deserve, and that includes respect for their intelligence in achieving the results they set out to achieve. If respect for professionals carrying out their responsibilities intelligently and well is cynicism, I plead guilty.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"It might be splitting hairs, but the idea of having to admit a certain number of minimum rich kids is a little distasteful to me."</p>
<p>To play the devil's advocate here, why would this be any more distasteful than admitting a certain number of 'name your URMs'? And I believe in Affirmative Action. This year several students we know have been admitted to Hoedown's institution, all with pretty stellar stats. Only one has been offered a full ride scholarship: a student with a surname that identifies a URM group and who has no better stats than the rest. The student's background is upper class, both parents professionals, no financial need, never even spoke the native language at home since the student is 3rd generation American, and certainly is not going to offer diversity to the campus. But I'm sure fills the not-named quota for this URM. Distasteful? No more so than admitting students whose parents can foot the bill with equal stats.</p>
<p>I'm a little confused here. If your S or D is a borderline applicant (stats wise) and you've pretty much figured out that he or she won't qualify for need based aid, does the need based aid situation come into play at the time the application is filed? If you check the "are you going to apply for financial aid box" no does it truly give a student an admission advantage?</p>
<p>Pebbles:</p>
<p>I think the only fair answer to that question is an unqualified, "maybe". My own personal hunch is that, yes, it can make a difference. But nobody who actually knows the answer would ever admit that -- in fact, they would steadfastly deny it, even while at the same time employing expensive enrollment manangement consultants to boost student revenues from the admissions process. So, all consumers can really do is make logical assumptions. The most basic assumption is that virtually ever college would like to have enough "high-stat" students and enough students who can write tuition checks. A shortage of either creates problems for nearly every school.</p>
<p>Admissions deans are generally given periodic status reports on where they stand on a number of issues: percentage of URM acceptances to date, financial aid committments to date, etc. So, they definitely are making adjustments on the fly as they continue through the admissions process. But, I wouldn't presume to predict at what specific point in time self-declaring as a full-fare customer might make a diffference.</p>
<p>So much depends on the individual school. For example, if the President has just issued a Strategic Plan with the number one goal being to achieve financial equilibrium through a reduction in tuition discounting, then the Admissions Dean is probably going to be sensitive to the need for enrolling full-fare customers. Conversely, if the President has just come down like a ton of bricks on the admissions office to get at least a smidgeon of socio-economic diversity on campus, then it could work the opposite way.</p>
<p>One reason that I think it's worth researching the recent financial reports and planning documents at a college is that you get some sense of what the college's priorities will be.</p>
<p>Pebbles, the vast majority of colleges are NOT need-blind and don't claim to be - it is only the elites that take that stance. So the answer would be that at most schools, if your kid is a borderline candidate, an indication that you would be a full-pay student is something that might help, probably in the same way and about the same extent as a 100-point increase in SAT score. It is a factor that would be applied in the candidate's favor - but certainly not the sole factor.</p>
<p>To others who have been debating the "quota" issue - my personal source of information for the idea that even need-blind colleges may look to financial ability when they go to the wait list is an experienced admissions rep who now conducts workshops in college admissions -- that rep also says that there is no such thing as a truly "need-blind" college and used the wait list explanation as one example of how the need-blind use financial data in decision making. </p>
<p>I don't think there is a set quota anywhere in terms of numbers of full pay students -- I think there is a financial aid budget. On May 1, when the admissions letters have gone out and the financial aid awards claimed, the finaid department probably sends a memo to the admissions department reporting on status. If the news is bad: "We are over budget here and we have no more $$ to give out" .. then when it is time to go to the waitlist, the ad com will pull out the full-pay applicants. (After all, they've just been told that there is no money left for financial aid, what else are they going to do?) Maybe if the news is different: "We still have $500K in unexpended grant money" ... then that year the waitlist search will be different - the college ad com might look at other info and stats, and use the extra aid dollars to try to fill whatever other niche they want -- in theory, in that situation an aid award could be very generous. Obviously the size of the college endowment is also a factor. </p>
<p>For colleges that are need-aware, I assume that some of this process takes place earlier in the admit season. The admissions rep I mentioned above provided another example: right before the letters go out on April 1st, the ad com might get a report from the financial aid - if financial aid tells them that they have accepted too many kids who need aid, then the ad com may make some adjustments, moving needy borderline candidates who would have been admitted to the waitlist, moving designated full pay waitlist applicants to the "admit" pile. Again - I think that if the numbers are another way, then in a given year priorities might shift -- college ad com probably think it is great news if they get a report in late March telling them that they have extra $$ they can use to invite a weaker, but hooked candidate. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is that private colleges need to watch their own bottom line.</p>
<p>My father the former college administrator and professor confirms that even the best and richest private universities are not and cannot be fully need-blind.</p>
<p>This is a very informative thread. TheDad, Im curious about two statements you made - would you mind elaborating on them? Thanks
[quote]
After having read several dozen student essays here on CC and reading Harry Bauld's book on writing the college essay, I'm convinced that essays are more traps than opportunities.</p>
<p>They can make some pretty good guesses. Among other things, if you send them your SAT scores, I believe the label shows what other schools you're applying to.
[/quote]
I have another question. If there are two URM students with similar stats one has EFC 100% and the others EFC is 0. Would the URM with a zero EFC be a more desirable applicant at the need-blind school than the full-pay URM? Would the reverse be true for non-need-blind schools?</p>
<p>I would love to see an analysis of how the 30 colleges that still claim to be need-blind and meet 100% of need do REALLY fare. On the surface, without checking the numbers, I would tend to believe that the need-blind schools may also be the same schools that do not have a high percentage of wait list admissions. In addition, it would also be interesting to see how the school respond to their early applicants when it comes to financial aid. </p>
<p>For what it is worth, I do NOT remember reading many complaints of WLA who or ED/EA who received unsatisfactory NEED based financial aid on these forums. I believe that the complaints involved aid that was deemed insufficient because of a high EFC. </p>
<p>So, why don't we identify the "cynical" and misleading schools. I'll start with Claremont McKenna and Pomona and categorically put them on the list of schools that are truly need blind and provide substantial and generous financial aid.</p>
<p>"They can make some pretty good guesses. Among other things, if you send them your SAT scores, I believe the label shows what other schools you're applying to."</p>
<p>Humm, I do not think that this information does come from the SAT reports of The College Board. On the other hand, the schools listed on your financial air reports are shared with all other schools that are in the same 'batch'.</p>
<p>As far as the URM/EFC question, the answer simply depends if you believe in the definition of need blind. If you believe that the schools are "honest" about it, there should not be any difference. To this date, I still believe that on a scale of 1-10 the schools are much closer to the 10 than to the 1 in satisfying the terms of need blind admissions.</p>