My Dinner With An Admissions Officer

Parents Forum
161

<p>On wait-lists again ...
the Bowdoin wait-list letter last year specifically mentioned that the waitlist was not ranked. My son sent his card in declining the place ... then received another letter saying that a limited number of places would be filed from WL, and did he want to be included. The Carleton WL was a little different ... you had to write a letter to be placed on the WL. When son didn't write the letter, he got a couple of more letters from Carleton reminding him that he could be on the wait-list.</p>

<p>Anybody know what gives with this? I'm helping a couple of my son's friends out this year, and am curious if additional contact from admissions signifies anything.</p>

162

<p>ephiphany - I really respect your views, especially in regard to students with low test scores who have everything else going for them and for strong performers who may not get the few BFA spots - you have such insight and understanding - please don't leave the PF!</p>

163

<p>
[quote]
I'd wager that it's not just "gamesmanship" at work, if colleges admit only those waitlisted students that they believe are most likely to say yes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I were an admissions dean, I would use the waitlist as insurance that I could enroll the targeted number of full-pay students each year, i.e. a mechanism for topping off the class with full-fare customers.</p>

164

<p>epiphany - an alternative to bowing out is to go hide in Sinner's Alley in the parent's cafe for a while. The general outrageous silliness over there usually provides welcome relief.</p>

165

<p>
[quote]
I could enroll the targeted number of full-pay students each year

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I haven't heard of this. What schools have specific full-pay targets?</p>

166

<p>All colleges have a specific "target" of full pay students they need to enroll in order to make ends meet. Some meet it via statistical probability (marketing & recruiting practices, admission criteria, etc.) rather than a case-by-case basis -- but the bottom line is that they need to bring in $X revenue from tuition each year.</p>

167

<p>
[quote]
All colleges have a specific "target" of full pay students they need to enroll in order to make ends meet. Some meet it via statistical probability (marketing & recruiting practices, admission criteria, etc.) rather than a case-by-case basis -- but the bottom line is that they need to bring in $X revenue from tuition each year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh yes, I understand that. You're absolutely correct. But I've not heard of an actual quota number of "full-pays" who are needed, which is what was claimed above.</p>

<p>Frankly, I don't know how a college could do that. Need can be so variable, and you don't find out how needy your needy ones are, and how much outside scholarship money is coming in, and so on, until pretty late in the game--too late to make specific targets for Rich-kid admits.</p>

<p>Rather than attempt to recruit a specific number of wealthy kids, in my experience colleges know historically how things shake out. If things are trending in a troubling direction, they may do exactly what you say--change recruiting a bit, tweak some things, to up the number of full-pays. But set a hard goal? I've not heard that (although I confess it's been a while since I've sat in on a presentation from, say, Noel-Levitz!)</p>

<p>If needy students are killing the aid budget, there are a few safety levers that a school can use, and I think these are more palatable than setting a crass number of full-rides that you have to get. For example, a school can offer fewer (or smaller) grants (increase the self-help), do some preferential aid packaging (offer lousier packages to some students, the ones they are least likely to lose), offer less aid to students who don't meet the deadline (there are always a few!), and so on.</p>

<p>Certainly, it is entirely possible that a dean of admissions could be forced to admit only full-pays off the wait list, because the aid budget has been expended already. I'll bet that isn't rare. I confess the effect would be the same as if there HAD been an unfilled quota. But in my professional experience (FWIW) a "rich kid quota" isn't the way it's done. There are other ways to improve the balance sheet, and there are other ways to boost the number of full-pays. </p>

<p>Hence my curiosity about which schools actually do that, have a specific quota of full-pays.</p>

168

<p>
[quote]
What schools have specific full-pay targets?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What schools don't?</p>

<p>And, don't say "the need-blind schools". I'm not buying that they have exactly the same percentage of full-fare customers, year after year after year, by accident.</p>

<p>Swarthmore is as "need-blind" as they come, both in terms of philosophy and the financial resources to back it up. They meet the strictest definition of need-blind. 100% need-met: the Board of Managers grants unrestricted spending authority to increase the aid expenditures to meet the full need of the enrolled student body.</p>

<p>The percentage of full-pay customers in the student body in each of the last six academic years has ranged from a low of 51% to a high of 52%. Pretty narrow range, I would say. Pure coincidence? Six years in a row? I don't think so.</p>

<p>A similar need-blind, 100% need, big endowment school, Williams, showed an equally tight range over the same six acdemic years with a low of 60% full-fare to a high of 62% full-fare. Pure coincidence? Six years in a row? I don't think so.</p>

169

<p>
[quote]
I confess the effect would be the same as if there HAD been an unfilled quota. But in my professional experience (FWIW) a "rich kid quota" isn't the way it's done. There are other ways to improve the balance sheet, and there are other ways to boost the number of full-pays.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aren't we splitting a pretty fine hair? Of course the targets are couched in polite language, just like targets for minority enrollment are euphemistically refered to as "achieving critical mass".</p>

<p>The actual target that is discussed is probably more along the lines of "how many financial aid students can we afford?" But, I learned the inverse relationship of fractions at a very young age. Saying that we can afford 48% financial aid students is the same as saying that we need 52% non-financial aid students.</p>

<p>If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it's probably a duck.</p>

170

<p>
[quote]
do some preferential aid packaging (offer lousier packages to some students, the ones they are least likely to lose)

[/quote]

How can a college guess at something as personal as this?</p>

171

<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>I know someone who got a very nice aid package at Smith because Smith was under the reasonable but incorrect assumption that they were competing against Harvard (I think it was). </p>

<p>D got a decent aid package but not nearly as good as their competition was "only" Wellesley and Barnard. Actually, I think my D is a good example: they wanted her, but not at any price, but not for no price either. They calibrated accordingly.</p>

172

<p>Some schools also have sophisticated computerized "contact-tracking" mechanisms. For example, apply to Emory and list three potential majors you might be interested. Then, count the days until you get separate info packets in the mail from each of those departments. Their system is amazing...and includes postage paid postcards with the mailing along the line to confirm continued interest.</p>

<p>That database could be used to make predictions. For example, say that a mid-pack applicant had demonstrated unusually high interest. That student could be predicted to be a very likely enrollee. Or, conversely, take a super-high stat applicant (likely to get acceptances to many elite colleges) who had demonstrated only moderate interest. That student might be a candidate for a particularly attractive aid package as an inducement to seriously consider Emory.</p>

173

<p>I've read many posts about how important it is to show interest in a college to gain admission. But it also seems that too much interest may have a negative impact of financial aid since the college may feel that they "have" you regardless of their FA offer.</p>

174

<p>I just don't see the financial aid thing you are opining. Sorry.</p>

175

<p>"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it's probably a duck."</p>

<p>It's a duck. The odds of one so-called "need-blind" school coming up with virtually the same percentage of full-fare customers year after year, given the vagaries of the applicant pool AND the vagaries of acceptances, is very low. The odds of TEN so-called "need-blind" schools doing the same year after year are much, more worse than the odds of an applicant with 1,000 on the old SAT getting into Harvard. And, most amazing of all, when a college (Princeton is best example) has its President announce a new commitment to lower-income students, miraculously the percentage changes in the following year. It's quite amazing. </p>

<p>Is this what is meant by "intelligent design"?;)</p>

<p>"I know someone who got a very nice aid package at Smith because Smith was under the reasonable but incorrect assumption that they were competing against Harvard (I think it was)."</p>

<p>You're talking about my d. But, it should be noted, the package didn't change as a result of the competition. Yes, she received their largest "merit" scholarship. But it didn't affect the size of the package, because she would have received it anyway in need-based aid. (The way we looked at it, ALL aid was merit aid.) 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. Who they were actually competing against was Williams, which put on a full-court recruiting press, and which offered a package almost as good, and I am convinced that, had we chosen, Williams would have been happy to make us poorer (and the package larger) if we had chosen to push the issue.</p>

176

<p>Mini, I am quite perplexed by your statement, "The way we looked at it, ALL aid was merit aid." Inasmuch I am used to being perplexed by your positions on financial aid, I do not really know how to interpret this latest one? I would understand you saying that all aid was based on NEED, but I do not see how the opposite could be applicable. </p>

<p>For example, it makes little difference for a student with an EFC of zero to seek merit aid from the college itself. Outside scholarships play a different role as, depending on the school policies, the outside scholarship might eliminate loans and work-study. Scholarships that could reduce the EFC will probably make little altogether since most schools would simply reduce their grants by a similar or almost similar number. At the end of the day, at schools that meet 100% of need, merit and need aid are the same. However, this does not transform need aid into merit aid. </p>

<p>Changing subjects, I do question the cynical view that schools that offer need-blind admissions and cover 100% DO determine admissions based on financial aid. Inasmuch as I-dad correctly points out that the numbers are eerily similar year after year, there is another thing that changes very slowly, and that is the socio-economic distribution of the population. If the school maintains the same policy year after year, it would not be irrealistic that their financial aid would stay in a given band. Your example of changes in financial AFTER the announcements by Princeton and Harvard support this notion and does NOT contradict it. The distribution of financial aid does not seem to change because of changes in the population's attributes but rather from changes in the policies. Hence, the same policy applied to the class of 2007 should yield similar results as for the class of 2011.</p>

177

<p>
[quote]
Along those same lines, thanks to DudeDiligence for relating the substance of your conversation with the Admissions Rep at the wedding. This spirit of sharing information, when there is nothing to be gained by the poster, is why I continue to spend WAY too much time here even though I don't have a Junior or Senior!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're welcome and thank YOU.</p>

<p>Believe it or not, Du[d]e Diligence is not my given name, simply my nom de plume. I have a very function oriented approach to taming the information overload beast (which is still a far less scary beast than the dark age monsters which have lorded over our spinning orb for most of our existence). To me, if you're bothering with due diligence, then do it in the manner most likely to unearth the type of information you seek. If this information (both fact and considered opinions) happens to be sprinkled with entertainment, humor, insights into the broader human condition, and good will towards your fellow humanoids, then so much the better.</p>

<p>CC has an incredible amount of information available to all explorers. I'm glad I could add the substance of this interesting albeit unremarkable conversation to our literature (in fact, while talking to Mr. AdWedGuest, I was thinking of CC, wondering about the "My Dinner with Andre" angle, and wishing our conversation was even one iota as intellectual and urbane as "MDWA"). But, entertainment value aside, I knew the INFORMATION would be useful/helpful and is exactly the kind of thing I hope to find on CC.</p>

178

<p>What school doesn't? Michigan doesn't, I can tell you that for sure. I know others don't as well, but they're not the selective colleges getting the attention here.</p>

<p>I'm not terribly surprised if the basic demographics of the class don't change much. Schools may see their "students-with-need" percentage remains largely the same barring any big change in recruitment. It doesn't make me suspicious about how those numbers are being managed, but then I'm less cynical about admissions in general! LOL</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. That's the source of my resistance to it, I guess, and my surprise at the assertion. </p>

<p>As for the question about preferential packaging--generally, the students admitted at the margins yield higher. You're their best-quality choice. So some schools--NOT ALL--will offer students like that slightly-less attractive packages. These students are most likely to find a way to make it work anyway, to believe the loans are "worth it" vis-a-vis their other choices. And if they don't, the loss of these students has the least impact on your overall class "quality" so it's not as difficult as, say, cutting EVERYONE's package and losing some of the best students as well.</p>

179

<p>mini and i-dad, the "duck" analogy also applies to schools that claim that they don't have quotas in their affirmative action programs (which in principle I favor, BTW). When UMich law school said its plan wasn't a quota, yet the number minorities admitted varied within a very narrow range from year to year, well, their admissions procedures walked like a quota system in action no matter what they called it. That program was declared unconstitutional, while their undergrad admissions procedures were allowed to continue (though it has been modified in practice).</p>

180

<p>"I'm not terribly surprised if the basic demographics of the class don't change much."</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, I am quite perplexed by your statement, "The way we looked at it, ALL aid was merit aid." Inasmuch I am used to being perplexed by your positions on financial aid, I do not really know how to interpret this latest one? I would understand you saying that all aid was based on NEED, but I do not see how the opposite could be applicable."</p>

<p>Quite simple, really. If they wanted her, they would have to pay for the privilege. "Seller's market". We couldn't care in the least how they characterized it. It's kind of like the difference between receiving a "scholarship" and a "tuition discount". I could care less about what the list price is, or the amount of the "tuition scholarship' - what I care about is how much I have to pay, and what we receive in return.</p>

<p>"The distribution of financial aid does not seem to change because of changes in the population's attributes but rather from changes in the policies."</p>

<p>EXACTLY. A school says it is "need-blind" and then decides it wants to bring more of a certain kind of candidate, based on their need. And they do so. They do so by being acutely "need aware". Nothing wrong with that - at the extreme, Berea has done that since it's inception; Smith since the late 1970s, and there are lots of other schools that do the same. I've got no complaints with a private college doing whatever it wants with ITS money - it's their money, and they can do with as they choose. If I were in their shoes, I might make the same decisions. My "complaint" (if I have one) is not about how they spend their funds, or about setting their spending priorities by policy, but rather from the rather disingenous idea that policy doesn't drive their spending.</p>