My Dinner With An Admissions Officer

Parents Forum
221

<p>
[quote]
Again, the caveat that many of the attributes they value are correlated with income, yada, yada, yada.... but I do believe that when the admissions committee considers each individual application, the student's inability to pay will not be a negative factor in the admissions decision.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I think full-pay students need to be very conscious of not submitting an application package that smacks of being born with a silver spoon in their mouths. The single best thing a wealthy applicant can do is write about something that shows they've gotten their hands dirty. And, by all means, no essays about what you learned while summering in the family villa in the South of France!</p>

222

<p>
[quote]
*Ergo, let's assume that about 3% of the annual endowment will be used for tuition.
*3% of a billion - and this is for the richest fraction of 1% of universities in America - is $30,000,000. Sounds like a lot? Divide that by your 5,000 students -> $6,000 per student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aries:</p>

<p>Swarthmore is a pretty conservatively mananged school from a financial standpoint. Their target range for endowment spending is 3.75% to 4.75%. Over the long haul, they feel that range is sustainable and protects the endowment against inflation. There are schools that spend 5% to 6%+, however, at the top end of that range, the school is considered to be not in "equilibrium" and will attempt to curtail spending or increase tuition revenues.</p>

<p>Try dividing a $1 billion by 1462 students. In 2004-05, Swartmore spend in the middle of its target range, 4.2% of its endowment for operating expenses, a figure that worked out to $29,295 per student. That endowment spending was 41% of the operating revenues. Net tuition, fees, room, and board were 40% of operating revenues. As you point out, those are numbers that don't represent normal colleges in the least.</p>

223

<p>
[quote]
"A school like Harvard" in terms of endowment is ridiculous. You cannot maintain intellectual integrity and use Harvard as an example of a school that can go tuition-free.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was not arguing that Harvard was typical of schools in general. </p>

<p>And my point in this thread was NOT that schools can go tuition-free.</p>

<p>I was doing a hypothetical back-of-the-envelope calculation as part of taking issue with Alumother's father's very specific statement (based on his perspective as a former university administrator and professor) that "Even the best and richest universities are not and cannot be need-blind."</p>

<p>Harvard is not the richest school in the country as measured by endowment per student, but it is certainly up there. It is one of the "richest and best universities" to which Alumother's father was alluding. </p>

<p>Harvard's numbers are prominent and easy to obtain. It's also widely known what their current major spending priorities are--the Allston initiative. (Princeton's numbers would have done as well. They have a higher endowment per student and they are also funding a major expansion.)</p>

<p>So they are good examples of a school that CAN afford to be need-blind, even if need-blind were (in some bizarre alignment of the stars) to result some year in an entering class entirely filled with zero-pay full-need students.</p>

<p>If they are NOT in fact need-blind, it's not because they can't afford to be need-blind, it's because they choose to put priorities elsewhere.</p>

<p>And personally, I believe they are in fact need-blind, as I said above. (In the sense that they do not consider lack of ability to pay as a negative factor when considering any individual applicant.) But I'm even more convinced that they CAN be need-blind.</p>

<p>I agree that there are few universities that can afford to be need-blind, but Alumother's father was making a very specific statement that even the richest universities could not afford this. That is a very sweeping statement and refuting it doesn't require proving that every university can afford to be need-blind, only that the richest ones can afford to do it.</p>

224

<p>I hope there's never "a bizarre alignment of the stars," because I think a 100% needy class would not be healthy for a major educational institution, ever. It would result in a class, & eventually a student body, of limited experience & perspectives. I know that's not the argument on the table, but I think it's important to mention. And I think that "alignment" is not such a bizarre possibility, when one looks at application & admission trends relative to demographics & population growth. Therefore, just in case, I'm actually glad that there is some "need-aware" going on, personally.</p>

225

<p>My father's point, and what I believe, is that even the richest universities could only go wholly need-blind for a fairly short period of time.</p>

<p>Which is what I believe young Aries Athena is also saying above. My father also made this comment in a less direct way than I have quoted it. He said it in a "nobody would ever tell you this" way. </p>

<p>They all want to be need-blind. They can obtain results that approximate need-blind. But at a high level, they cannot be fully and wholly need blind.</p>

<p>At least, that was true 10 years ago.</p>

226

<p>The following so-called "need-blind" schools participate in the Questbridge scholarship program: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona, Stanford, Princeton, Grinnell, Williams. In addition, the following schools which I think are need-aware participate: Scripps, Wheaton, Trinity, Rice.</p>

<p>By definition, any school that participates in Questbridge is "need-aware", that is, they know the financial status of the applicant, and how much it will cost the school when considering the application. This is very fine from the applicant's point of view - they know in advance what they will be getting (quite alot!) if they qualify and are accepted. But lest you think the schools are doing this purely out of the goodness of their hearts, consider that participation in Questbridge enables school admissions offices (if they choose) to spend less effort and energy recruiting and evaluating low-income candidates.</p>

<p>While all Questbridge candidates are low-income, it is a MERIT AID program. Once candidates pass the low-income screen, they are awarded their scholarships based on merit, and merit alone. This allows all of the above schools to offer merit aid without it being recognized as such (because it goes through Questbridge.) In fact, it is no different than the way Berea awards tuition-free admissions to ALL its accepted applicants. </p>

<p>I've got no problem with the program - I think it is a terrific idea. But, virtually by definition, any participating school is not need-blind, and all offer merit aid.</p>

227

<p>"I will try to refrain from using Adcom, but what will we use? There are a variety of things we can toss around (finally we old birds can create a new language)</p>

<p>Adco
Adrep
Adoff
adcommem"</p>

<p>How about lotto master, ad-dealer, ad-boss, ad-shooter ?</p>

228

<p>"There aren't URM quotas at Michigan."</p>

<p>Not strictly quotas in the meaning of a minimum number of certain minority students accepted. It is probably fairer to say that the institution wants AS MANY of these URMs as they can get. And will pay to get them, regardless of their background.</p>

<p>"considering race and ethnicity and other factors in its efforts to recruit a diverse class."</p>

<p>"I think a wealthy, privileged minority student has as much power to break down incorrect stereotypes as a disadvantaged minority student. A school truly committed to diversity would be pretty short-sighted to only go after one profile of minority."</p>

<p>hoedown, oh if only colleges were as noble as you are. I think they are more likely to court whoever they can get who fits the appropriate URM category to boost their US News Rankings. I am on the faculty of UM, and know how very important it is to the administration to do whatever it takes to boost their rankings into the top 5. I think it is highly questionable that a wealthy, blond-haired, blue-eyed student who never spoke the native language in the home, has never even been to the grandparent's homeland but just happens to have the proper URM surname will ever break down stereotypes. However, it is probable that the number of smart Hispanics at UM is up by one. One point scored for "diversity" at U of M!</p>

229

<p>I'm here at Michigan, too, quiltguru.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is probably fairer to say that the institution wants AS MANY of these URMs as they can get. And will pay to get them, regardless of their background.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would agree with that. </p>

<p>Clearly, some of their recruitment and conversion efforts are blunt instruments. But I think the alternative is problematic (e.g. to distinguish between URMs due to things like how dark their skin is). So they are stuck with what they have, which is to bluntly regard ethnicity as one diversifying plus factor, and also promote other kinds of diversity--like asking about it in the essay, collecting more information on SES, and so on. </p>

<p>As for the student's case who you brought up--I would guess she checked her ethnicity as minority and then also wrote a fabulous essay that led readers to believe she'd really bring something. I don't know. (I know URM does not confer ethnic status on last name alone). Perhaps the reader was wrong to consider her race as a plus factor. Perhaps the reader said "Eh, doesn't seem like it was a factor for her, but we need the numbers so to heck with it." That may be the case. If so, I hope cases like hers aren't numerous.</p>

<p>Will U-M benefit for her # being added to the tally? You bet. I'm not naive about that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
hoedown, oh if only colleges were as noble as you are. I think they are more likely to court whoever they can get who fits the appropriate URM category to boost their US News Rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Me, noble? Ha! Although I hope Santa buys that! :)</p>

<p>If it were just about rankings, I don't think U-M would have gone all the way to the Supreme Court, and nor do I think there would have been so many amicus briefs filed. I found the arguments about diversity (U-M's and GM's and others) really compelling, and they're not just about shades of skin or elevating the downtrodden. Of course, my perspective is also influenced by my status as a former sheltered white girl from the sticks.</p>

<p>I am also convinced, from what I have seen and heard, that there is more to Michigan's methods than just gunning for URM numbers. If that's all they cared about, they'd spend all their time going after the kind of "minority" student you described. They're doing a lot more.</p>

<p>I think Michigan does some things which truly benefit diversity (the way we'd all define it), and some things that attempt to benefit diversity but occasionally have effects that seem shallow. The latter do not completely negate the former, in my opinion. Holistic review is making them smarter about it (IMO). Let us hope they can continue to refine it.</p>

230

<p>Regarding need blind and need aware....</p>

<p>This is one of the factors that people rarely take into consideration when they look at legacy figures for the Ivies, and yet this does play a role. Last summer I was searching for legacy figures at Brown, since I went to grad school there. I dug up an interesting article that broke down the legacy admits between those who requested financial aid and those who did not. (Sorry I don't have the link.) The percent of legacies admitted who requested financial aid really wasn't that much higher than the "normal" figure. By contrast, the percent of legacies who'd been admitted and who did not request financial aid was some twenty-five points above the average.</p>

<p>Don't ask me how all this gets factored in, but I do think it plays a role in legacy admits at top tier schools.</p>

231

<p>"The percent of legacies admitted who requested financial aid really wasn't that much higher than the "normal" figure. By contrast, the percent of legacies who'd been admitted and who did not request financial aid was some twenty-five points above the average."</p>

<p>Brown was need aware for a while until I think that Ruth Simmons became president.</p>

232

<p>When most people discuss endowments, they often ignore the restrictive restrictions most endowed gifts contain. Most of the endowment principal of the major universitites can not be spent. Moreover, most of the interest or capital gains earned on the principal can only be spent based on donor intent (science, library, faculty pay, athletics, dorms, whatever). So, to discuss applying 3 or 5% and using it at the Board discretion (say to give free tuition or simply underwrite undergraduate operations) is flatly irresponsible and certainly not how any prudent Board would act. Remember donor intent always trumps all other discussions. Simply put, the 'rich schools' do not have the power some in this thread have ascribed to them.</p>

233

<p>"When most people discuss endowments, they often ignore the restrictive restrictions most endowed gifts contain. Most of the endowment principal of the major universitites can not be spent."</p>

<p>At the HYPSM's of the world, this is absolutely irrelevant. They take in more in alumni contributions each year than the total cost of undergraduate tuition - sometimes, significantly more. It's just a matter of how they decide to prioritize the use of newly realized income.</p>

<p>"Brown was need aware for a while until I think that Ruth Simmons became president."</p>

<p>There's two levels of need-aware. Smith, where Simmons was President, is need-aware, but in two ways. They are need-aware in that they have a three-decade long commitment to economic diversity, and have spent an enormous amount in the way of resources to ensure it. But they couldn't do it without being "need-aware". They are also "need aware" in that if, in the last 3-5% of applications they have already spent the financial aid budget, they will indeed take aid into consideration.</p>

<p>Brown is "need-aware" (as is every other school I know of, with the exceptions of Cooper Union, Olin, the military academies, and Deep Springs), just in other ways. (But I wouldn't be surprised to see Simmons, if resources increase at Brown, to see it move in the direction of her former Presidency.)</p>

234

<p>mini,</p>

<p>Schools to add to your list: Curtis Institute of Music and, starting next year, Yale's School of Music (graduate level only.) As at Cooper Union and Olin, tuition is free but room and board are not.</p>

235

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>Large alumni donations are almost always restricted. People may write $1,000 checks to the alumni fund (unrestricted). However, the perecentage of the checks that are restricted are very high for the larger gifts which comprise a large proportion of the alumni giving. "Naming oppportunities" are big factors in large awards. Non profits are all struggling with donor intent driving their strategic plans whether the staff likes it or not.</p>

236

<p>Even small alumni donations may be restricted. My two "elite" schools (Wellesley and Stanford) certainly give me checkboxes to direct my puny little gifts, whether to a specific school, the museum, the landscape, etc. etc. They both "encourage" unrestricted gifts, but give both checkboxes and an "open-ended" box for alums to direct the purpose of their gift. I don't know the percentage which is unrestricted. I know that Tulane reported very limited ability (if any at all) to use its endowment funds, even in an emergency such as Katrina, for other than pre-designated purposes.</p>

237

<p>"Large alumni donations are almost always restricted. People may write $1,000 checks to the alumni fund (unrestricted). However, the perecentage of the checks that are restricted are very high for the larger gifts which comprise a large proportion of the alumni giving. "Naming oppportunities" are big factors in large awards. Non profits are all struggling with donor intent driving their strategic plans whether the staff likes it or not."</p>

<p>I think you missed the point entirely. Alumni funds can be raised for specific purposes - ANY purposes that the college chooses. Yes, the funds can be restricted. But they can just as easily be restricted for purposes such as scholarships, tuition assistance, etc. as for anything else, and they often are. (Brown's most recent $100 million gift was specifically for scholarships, as were huge parts of both Williams and Smith's recent drives.) And even then....MIT's alumni giving last year was more than double the revenue from undergraduate tuition. If half of it was unrestricted, or for scholarship purposes only.... Or if only a small percentage of the endowment were unrestricted, and coupled with alumni giving.</p>

<p>The other reality for the older schools is that much of the endowment comes from growth on unrestricted gifts given 50-150 years ago. It is readily tapped into any time the school feels it needs to. All this is a long way of saying that the wealthier schools restrict themselves by their spending priorities and I think we should give them credit for making intelligent choices, even if we might make them differently.</p>

238

<p>jnmom - one of the big name schools is in litigation over this very issue. $400 million of its endowment can be used only for its government school to educate future government employees. The third generation of the donor and the school are disputing the interpretation. Casual observers (like CC posters) looking at huge endowments have to understand that you can't use restricted funds for science, landscaping, tuition or other noble causes because staff wants to. Donor intent always trumps. Sad but true that virtually all large gifts are restricted in some way.</p>

239

<p>"The other reality for the older schools is that much of the endowment comes from growth on unrestricted gifts given 50-150 years ago."</p>

<p>WOW! Is this based on facts or simplistic speculation? Could you enlighten the board by, for instance, evaluating what was the size of the endowment at Harvard, Yale, or at the UT-system in 1955, 1905, and 1855? Are you so sure that the profits realized by the endowment managers were mostly due to the return to gifts made 50-150 years ago? </p>

<p>"Sad but true that virtually all large gifts are restricted in some way."</p>

<p>Interesting how you point out the Robertson vs Princeton dispute and, yet, conclude that it is sad to see large gifts restricted. This sage is a perfect example WHY gifts should be restricted and avoid the utmost cavalier attitude of a few fossilized minds when it comes to spending other people's money. Without the restriction, there is little doubt that more funds would be spent for the benefit of a few chosen ones as opposed to the benefit of the students.</p>

240

<p>"Brown is "need-aware" (as is every other school I know of, with the exceptions of Cooper Union, Olin, the military academies, and Deep Springs), just in other ways. (But I wouldn't be surprised to see Simmons, if resources increase at Brown, to see it move in the direction of her former Presidency.)"</p>

<p>It is really, really sad to see how you constantly have to post misleading information and pretend to have some authority in the matter. While it is acceptable to filter existing information through your own ultra-biased criteria, there ought to be a limit to the madness.</p>

<p>Brown is NOT need-aware as your spurious claim would intimate. Brown is a member of the 568 Group. I realize that your own cynical views forces you to automatically question the statements from every school - of course, short of Northampton. Oh yes, we have have been blessed by some of your gems that intimate that the schools that hold themselves to the standards of the 568 group are really lying through their teeth, while the Mother Teresa of higher education (Smith and Mt Holyoke) dole out their financial with absolute altruism. The reality is that YOU do not know how the schools process the need-blind applications and that your reclassification of need-blind schools as disguised need-aware is purely anedoctal. </p>

<p>Well to all of that, I can only take a similar shortcut, and call your line of reasoning absolute self-serving intellectual horse manure!</p>