<p>
[quote]
Most colleges claim to be "need blind"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rather few colleges claim to be need-blind. What specific counterexamples do you know of colleges that claim to be need-blind that plainly aren't? </p>
<p>After edit: I think garland's</a> reply is factually correct.</p>
<p>The ivies have revenue sports?</p>
<p>The Harvard v. Yale game is televised?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some other admissions selection criteria that skew towards the wealthy:<br>
--Legacy at Ivies and other elite institutions.
--"Development cases," typically few in number but clearly skewed toward extreme wealth.
--"Strength of HS educational environment/strength of HS curriculum." Who has the strongest HS "educational environment" and the most opportunities to take AP courses? Kids at elite private high schools and in public high schools in the wealthiest districts, not all of whom will be affluent, but they'll certainly skew that way.</p>
<p>As for Mini's story about the journalist's hearsay about an adcom at a supposedly need-blind school inquiring about the "socio-ecs," I wouldn't read too much into this. Many schools are looking affirmatively to increase socio-economic diversity by recruiting (at least a certain number of) kids who are first-generation college or have "overcome significant obstacles" to reach the eligibility pool. The latter is often thinly disguised code for those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum who despite disadvantages like lack of parental support/knowledge, weaker schools, less guidance on the college admissions process, fewer opportunities to participate in ECs, and so on, nonetheless have managed to get good enough grades and score well enough on their SATs to be competitive for admissions. So an admissions officer inquiring about the "socio-ecs" might easily have been inquiring about the socio-economic background of a kid whose borderline stats might make her a doubtful admit if she came to it with a lot of socio-economic advantages, but whose accomplishments will be viewed more favorably if they involved overcoming significant socio-economic disadvantages. </p>
<p>Is that "need-blind"? Well, it's a matter of terminology, but I suppose that adcom would argue they weren't making "need" per se an admissions criterion, but that they did find it helpful to take socio-economic obstacles into account as part of their "holistic" review of the applicant's accomplishments, and as part of their affirmative effort to increase socio-economic diversity. But these socio-economic affirmative action cases will end up being a tiny fraction of the entering class at elite schools, where the "non-affirmative action" cases will be heavily skewed towards the wealthy by the use of SAT scores, strength of HS, strength of HS curriculum, legacy, and other facially neutral factors as the dominant admissions criteria. That's why median family income for Yale undergrads is well over $200,000/year.</p>
<p>Where did I read recently about "financial aid leveraging" Oh, I just can't remember, maybe someone could find a good article and post the link for it. Many of the schools seem to engage in "financial aid leveraging" where they try & decide how little they can offer you to get you to enroll. Also I read that many schools now have "Enrollment Managers" whose job it is to oversee financial aid and admissions. So it is a business as we all know and as far as "need blind" is concerned, I think the "Enrollment Managers" know what applicants they want & exactly what their need is! And if they can persuade that desirable applicant to enroll at their school & not with a school that they compete with, then they have certainly done their job.</p>
<p>^ </p>
<p>Maguire</a> Associates - Services - Strategic Financial Aid Modeling</p>
<p>"...I suppose that adcom would argue they weren't making "need" per se an admissions criterion, but that they did find it helpful to take socio-economic obstacles into account as part of their "holistic" review of the applicant's accomplishments, and as part of their affirmative effort to increase socio-economic diversity. But these socio-economic affirmative action cases will end up being a tiny fraction of the entering class at elite schools, where the "non-affirmative action" cases will be heavily skewed towards the wealthy by the use of SAT scores, strength of HS, strength of HS curriculum, legacy, and other facially neutral factors as the dominant admissions criteria..."</p>
<p>The argument that the SAT, development and legacy admissions, and other factors in the admissions process are skewed due to socioeconomics is a very valid one. But there is a lot in a student's application that helps admissions officers get the full context of a student's achievements that helps to balance social/economic inequalities out. For example, we know from much educational research that kids whose parents did not attend college tend to know less about the admissions process, what classes are important to take in high school, and how to prepare for the SAT (and I don't mean paying thousands of dollars for a prep course - I mean just doing something as simple as familiarizing oneself with the exam and how questions are asked on it). All of this sometimes lends itself to softer SAT scores or softer curricular choices. This is why schools ask for parental education information on the application for admission. </p>
<p>We also know that students coming from poorly-funded public schools tend to have fewer academic opportunities and less guidance than those students who attend well-funded public schools or private schools. Many of the students at the poorly-funded schools simply don't have access to the information or guidance they need to do an informed college search or to know what courses they should take in high school to be prepared for college (at any level - Ivy League, Big State U, etc...) or "competitive for admission" at a particular school. Frankly, the expectations aren't the same for a kid coming from a poorly-funded public school versus a private-schooled kid or a kid coming from one of the prominent, nationally recognized publics (like those in the wealthier 'burbs of Boston, Chicago, NYC, LA, Seattle, etc...). </p>
<p>The point is, there is a lot of information gathered in the application that gives admissions officers at selective schools the contextal information they need to fully understand the academic, extracurricular, and personal accomplishments of each applicant - this information is not used to skirt a need-blind policy or redefine one, nor is it used as some neo-affirmative action policy for less-privileged students (which many wealthier parents believe). Students and their parents often want to know who they will be compared to in the applicant pools of the schools to which they apply, but the fact is that most students are evaluated based on what they've done with the opportunities they've had in the admissions process of the most selective colleges and universities because that's the fairest way to evaluate their achievements and potential.</p>
<p>^ AdOfficer,
Thanks for that very helpful intervention. As for "neo-affirmative action policies for less-privileged students," I think some school are quite candid about their policies aimed at boosting enrollment of socio-economically less-privileged students. Here, for example, is Yale's recent description of some of its efforts:</p>
<p>Yale</a> & Socioeconomic Diversity | Financial Aid | Freshmen | Office of Undergraduate Admissions</p>
<p>This sure sounds like an "affirmative action" effort to me. But that's not a negative in my book; I think it's something to be applauded. So far it hasn't done anything to bring the median household income of Yale students below that $200K + mark, however.</p>
<p>I'm a parent on the outside looking in, so I don't really know anything about what goes on in there. But my guess is that most "need blind" schools are as need blind as they can be - that is until the money runs out. They start out making admissions decisions need blind, but when the finaid budget is exhausted they fill in the remaining slots with kids who can pay. How else to explain the schools that somehow keep coming up with exactly the same precentage of kids on finaid year after year.</p>
<p>Call me a Pollyanna, but here's another reason I think students and parents can trust the need blind promise. There are lots of ways in which a college can overrun their financial aid budget besides selecting the admitted class, and ways to make up for it if they do. </p>
<p>The most obvious way to go over budget is common to all colleges, not just need-blind ones: the impossibility of predicting the need of the students who will enroll from the admitted pool (and students' decisions obviously take place after FA commitments have been made). There are other big variables, like an unanticipated number of students returning from leaves, too many studying off-campus, or changes in family incomes. Schools that are need-blind but do not have nearly unlimited funds have ways of dealing with all this, too, particulary the transfer round (where some schools are not need blind), a reduction in the use of preferential packaging, and contingency funds.</p>
<p>My sense is not that bclintock was talking about affirmative action for underprivileged kids negatively. However, there are a lot of folks out there who aren't keen on this idea and assume that it's going on when they hear about programs like Questbridge and the interest of elite colleges to expand access to their finite resources to students who have been traditionally under-represented on their campuses.</p>
<p>I am constantly saddened by the observation I have that many people do not see higher education (or education, in general) as a social good. Most students and their parents seem only to be interested in what an elite college education can do for them. I can certainly understand, I suppose, how a parent would feel angry, should their student/child (for whom they have done everything in their power to support) get denied from their dream school. But colleges and universities have social missions and are interested in being engines of change, innovation, and equality. So, parents, however you feel about education, remember that it's not always just about your kid. Perhaps that sounds/reads harsh, and I don't mean it to be, but it's the truth!</p>
<p>There are really A LOT of parents out there who are completely blind to their privilege (and hence their kids' privilege) and really don't care about access and equity in higher education, nor do they care about diversity. It's been my experience that there's a lot of sour grapes out there in certain communities with respect to schools' interest in maintaining a diverse student body, which seems antithetical to the whole learning process IMO - if everyone in the classroom has had the same life experiences (which are influenced by one's race, class, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, geographic origin, etc...), what do they learn from each other? </p>
<p>Admissions folks try to be as fair as possible when reading applications. We are human, however, and have our biases, preferences, emotions, soft spots, yadda yadda. Nevertheless, if an admissions officer is truly doing their job well, they check these and try to remain objective and give applicants the benefit of the doubt by understanding the context within which they live and achieve. This can often times be frustrating, as there are many, many great students out there who have done wonderful things who you ultimately have to deny admission. I assume, though, that if a kid was in the running at my school (with it's minute admit rate), they're going to end up somewhere fabulous - this definitely helps get you through the work!!</p>
<p>FYI - many of the schools I have worked at have been need-blind and, truly, we NEVER spoke to the financial aid office when making decisions. It is a privilege to work at a need-blind school - I say that after also working at a need-sensitive place, where "pull-downs" were heartbreaking. However, one of the need-blind places I've worked at gapped kids in their financial aid packages all the time...I'm not sure which was worse: denying admission to some kids who couldn't pay who we wanted at the one place or admitting kids at the other knowing that they probably wouldn't get the money they needed to matriculate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am constantly saddened by the observation I have that many people do not see higher education (or education, in general) as a social good. Most students and their parents seem only to be interested in what an elite college education can do for them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a pervasive attitude here on CC, and I'm glad you're pointing out another way to look at the issue. </p>
<p>I might add that EVERYONE from a prosperous family can get into a decent college, as long as the family is willing to pay. That's everyone, even a child who doesn't graduate from high school, or who graduated at the bottom of his class. Children from poor families have substantially more limited choices, no matter how bright and how hard-working they were in high school, because hundreds of colleges are unattainable to them. (Sometimes children from such families become some of the smarter members of the enlisted ranks of our armed forces--I know several examples.) Yes, perhaps a college admitting person A results in person B not getting an offer of admission, but if person B is moderately well off, person B will be able to get a college degree, for sure.</p>
<p>I don't think we are blind to our degree of privilege, but what about the kids who go to their private elite high school on serious scholarship? How about the full pay kid at the same high school who cannot afford the SAT prep classes? I agree that diversity benefits all of society (especially if those from poorer communities actually do something to benefit said community -- my son wrote about Geoffrey Canada and his attempts to lift entire families out of poverty). His career has become about the larger societal good.</p>
<p>And this is also why I think some of the perfect SAT's and GPA's get rejected from some of the most selective schools. I've said it elsewhere, but if all you're going to do is continue to get your perfect grades and dedicate no energy into the larger college campus, you won't be looked at nearly as hard as the lower scored student who has a real connection to their school community.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>FYI - many of the schools I have worked at have been need-blind and, truly, we NEVER spoke to the financial aid office when making decisions.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>So then how DO many supposedly need-blind schools end up with the the same percentage of students getting financial aid year after year? They are apparently managing quite effectively to hit a target number.</p>
<p>coureur:</p>
<p>It's a formula. If you go to a Chinese restaurant and always order one from column A, three from column b, and two from column C, you pretty much know what kind of meal you are going to get.</p>
<p>Same with colleges. They are taking students from the same schools, 25 from column A, 45 from column B, and so forth. They know, without even adding it up, what class that is going to cost (on average). It doesn't matter if you order the kung pao chicken or the hoisin chicken -- you pretty much know what a chicken dish from column A is going to cost you. In essence, to change the mix, they would have to intentionally put a heavier than usual thumb on the scale, skip the chicken and double up on the seafood or whatever.</p>
<p>As long as they are tracking diversity numbers, they pretty much know where they stand on financial aid (in a normal year).</p>
<p>In fact, I would argue that the only schools that can be need-blind are schools that already have a good idea what their fiancial aid costs will be in any given year.</p>
<hr>
<p>BTW, Swarthmore's President Al Bloom was asked your exact question by a student at a student forum on financial aid recently. Bloom replied that he thought that would be an excellent topic for a senior thesis. </p>
<p>(My hunch is that Bloom knew the kid was writing his senior thesis on fiancial aid....)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Same with colleges. They are taking students from the same schools, 25 from column A, 45 from column B, and so forth. They know, without even adding it up, what class that is going to cost (on average).<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Which says that they are not really need-blind. They are using social and geographic factors as a surrogate for financial need. They aren't need-blind so much as they are need-aware by proxy or need-aware once removed.</p>
<p>But, I don't think it's even a matter of picking the class. I think the elite colleges get what they get. The applicant pool is what it is.</p>
<p>They are taking all the qualified minorities and first-generation students in the pool. It's not like any of these schools are leaving another 100 qualfied African Americans on the table because they need financial aid. It's all kind of dictated by the admissions criteria (SATs and so forth).</p>
<p>How much can it really change, year to year? Swarthmore is only enrolling 375 kids a year. What's the most the mix could possibly swing? 30 more need students? That's only $1 million on a $116 million operating budget. Need-blind full-need means that the board has pre-authorized spending whatever it takes in financial aid to meet the need. But, it's easy for the board to do that, because what's the most it could swing, even if you just threw darts to pick 'em in the admissions office?</p>
<p>
<p>They are taking all the qualified minorities and first-generation students in the pool. It's not like any of these schools are leaving another 100 qualfied African Americans on the table because they need financial aid. It's all kind of dictated by the admissions criteria (SATs and so forth).
</p>
<p>Well, but that's just the point, isn't it? They've settled on admissions criteria that are clearly stacked in favor of the affluent. They're not deliberately trying to exclude anyone, but they're trapped in the comfort of their own meritocratic assumptions that the truly deserving and the truly qualified are those with the highest SAT scores and the highest GPAs from the strongest high schools who excelled in the most AP classes---and once they made those the criteria, they've unwittingly stacked the game in favor of the socio-economically privileged.</p>
<p>Maybe you're right. Maybe it won't change. But not because privileging the privileged is the natural order of things. It's because at some level these schools know where their bread is buttered and they're not going to start turning away large numbers of high-SAT, high-GPA, high-income kids from top public and private high schools who played by the rules and jumped through all the hoops they were told they needed to jump through to get there. Even if equally smart and capable kids from less privileged backgrounds are out there to be found and cultivated. </p>
<p>Providing a truly level playing field for the less privileged would be more costly, but not only because the schools would need to offer more FA. It would be more costly because it would cut them off from their natural donor base, the privileged whom they've always served. So it's much easier to rationalize it all by convincing themselves that the "deserving poor" are out there only in trivial numbers, and that they're doing the best they can under a "meritocratic" system that can't be changed.</p>
<p>^^I agree.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>...and once they made those the criteria, they've unwittingly stacked the game in favor of the socio-economically privileged.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Except that I'm not so sure that it's all that unwitting. I bet there is an institutional memory at many of these schools of that year a decade or so ago when they deviated from their tried and true social/geographic mix, let in a bunch of poor kids, and ended up paying a lot more financial aid than they wanted to. They are not going to make that mistake again.</p>
<p>Like I said earlier, they are as need-blind as they can afford to be. But they always hit their target numbers.</p>
<p>Coureur and bclintonk:</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying and, on a certain level of cynicism, I agree with you. However, I think you are being a little unfair to top colleges and universities. These schools and admissions offices are nowhere near as cynical as your portray. In fact, the employees are sometimes frighteningly commited to diversity. </p>
<p>The outreach programs at places like Harvard and Swarthmore are real. I know that Swarthmore's admissions office has a policy that every trip made by an adcom must include "x" percent (I think the number was 30%) high schools that are heavily diverse. There is a heavy finger on the scale to favor diversity, first generation college, lower socio-economic tags, and so forth.</p>
<p>This shows up in the data. If things were as cynically simple as you suggest, the curve would be a straight line. As you go up the academic ladder, schools would become less and less diverse. That is not the case. There is a knee in the curve. Schools at the very low end -- bottom tier privates have very high percentages of financial aid because they can't attract full-pay students. As you go up the ladder, the percentage of financial aid and the financial aid per enrolled student goes down, but only up to a point. When you reach the most selective colleges and universities (the Harvards and Yales and Princetons, the Amhersts and Swarthmores), the percentage of students receiving aid and the aid per enrolled student increases again. Why? Certainly not because Havard can't attract more rich kids, but because there is an outreach program and a heavy finger on the scale.</p>
<p>So, on one level I'm as cynical as you are. On the other hand, I think we have to give credit where credit is due. It's unfair to the admissions offices at places like Harvard and Swarthmore to suggest they aren't working hard to increase diversity. Swarthmore's admissions dean came from a single working mom family in Texas and arrived at Swarthmore as a financial aid undergrad. I don't think he has a cynical bone in his body. And, I know from the students I meet and the diversity numbers that the same is true at Harvard.</p>