"Need blind"-Really?

Parents Forum
21

<p>I think calmom's anecdotal experience is likely the most relevant to families (and I think they are near-legion) wondering if they will be hurt by checking the "yes" box regarding applying for financial aid.</p>

<p>Because, let's face it, the low-income family is not thinking about "whether" - they absolutely need the aid. </p>

<p>It is the families who need "substantial financial aid, but [do] not fit the socio-economic demographic that might be the target of an effort to recruit low income students" who would be asking this question. As well as the families who think there's a good chance they won't get a dime of need-based aid, but are still hoping against hope or at least want the unsubsidized loan "aid," who wonder if they are hurting their kid's admissions chances in a futile attempt to garner some $$. </p>

<p>calmom's experience, unless refuted by others with counter experiences, answers the question for the former group. From reading this thread, I'm gathering that the latter group needn't worry either - their zip codes will put them on the enrollment management list of "we want these folks; they are potential full payers." </p>

<p>At least, that's what I'm getting from the more knolwedgeable folks on this thread. <em>standing ready to be corrected if I've misinterpreted</em></p>

22

<p>cpt, I agree completely with what you say -- which is why I don't think that colleges that claim to be need blind are focused so much on individual cases. Since year-to-year predictability is important, it is far more important for them to work with enrollment managers and focus on admission policies and practices that impact the financial aid budge, than to try to parse out things on a case-by-case basis. </p>

<p>All of the colleges which are need-blind are also extremely well endowed; the financially weaker colleges cannot risk need-blind policies. Colleges typically have most of their assets invested; only a small fraction goes to the financial aid budget. So if the financial aid budget gets overextended one year, they college won't go bust -- they will just have to liquidate some assets or borrow to make up the difference. But then they will reevaluate in order to make appropriate changes in their practices to increase revenues for the following year. I mean, as a parent, I am concerned about thousands of dollars; the colleges are thinking in terms of millions - ten thousand here or there is not going to make a difference.</p>

23

<p>Jmmom, someone recently posted a link to the web site of an enrollment management firm (Maguire - <a href="http://www.maguireassoc.com/services/financial_aid.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.maguireassoc.com/services/financial_aid.html&lt;/a> ) This includes some case studies and some charts showing the point at which colleges can increase revenues by giving out MORE financial aid -- quite simply there is a certain discount factor that coincides with optimum enrollment levels. </p>

<p>So for those upper-end families who are afraid that asking for a little bit of aid will hurt: they are exactly the aid level category that most of the colleges want to have. It's also important to keep in mind that typically aid shifts toward more self-help (loans and work study) after the first year, so a small grant in year #1 may give way to a package consisting entirely of loans and work study in year #2. Federally subsidized aid programs don't cost the college a dime -- to the college, a loan means a they receive a check; work-study is cheap labor for them.</p>

24

<p>I want to sincerely thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion. Although I have never discussed finances with my brother, I do think that his D falls into one of the categories mentioned. They will not need a full ride and will not fall into that certain "lower" socio-economic level that all the elite colleges and universities would be competing for to enhance diversity. I believe they could be pegged as solidly middle class.</p>

25

<p>"At the same time, as noted, the highest qualified applicants are likely to be the most affluent (as a group), so therefore the strategy to simply admit the best qualified/most desireable students by definition ends up to be the strategy that is also most cost-effective."</p>

<p>Now, you see, THAT is the slippery slope. The "most highly qualified", according to the colleges, are those they admit. So if they don't admit all those potential candidates who end up going to Berkeley or UCLA, these candidates are by definition "less highly qualified". </p>

<p>Remember that "as a group" does not mean all those within an income group, only those who theoretically could be attending a prestige private institution. After adjusting for the impact of family income on standardized test scores, there is no evidence that higher income candidates are any more "qualified" than lower income ones, except in the minds of admissions officers, who are, of course the ones that get to define the group. (They are not going to advertise that they admitted "less qualified candidates", are they?)</p>

<p>Let's not go overboard about prestige private colleges seeking low-income candidates. Over the past 15 years, according to Tom Mortenson's data, and with some exceptions (Amherst being the most obvious), the percentage of Pell Grant students has actually declined. For whatever reason, they are now seen as "less desirable" than they were 15 years ago, whatever the colleges might happen to say. </p>

<p>Of course, Pell Grant candidates are very special group - under $40k family income or so. Take the next group up, the middle quintile in the U.S. population - $40k-90k - and often where you'll find lots of vals and sals in small communites, you'll find statistically few of these at prestige colleges. (At Amherst, the numbers seem to work out to about 8% of the student body.) And I'd be willing to bet that a large plurality of these are recruited athletes. </p>

<p>"So for those upper-end families who are afraid that asking for a little bit of aid will hurt: they are exactly the aid level category that most of the colleges want to have."</p>

<p>That's definitely true. Here's where you have "merit aid" masquerading as "need-based".</p>

26

<p>regarding "prestige privates seeking low-income students," none of those prestige privates to which my low-income D was accepted were ones that sought her out. She had to do all the seeking. Two of the most prestigious to which she was accepted never even sent her the standard mailers. </p>

<p>Now, perhaps Harvard, for example, will engage in more aggressive outreach along with its new admissions policy. But in general I would not hold my breath about Ivies or other selectives doing a lot of recruitment. That's not a cynical observation, just a realization that there are already plenty of low-income students, actually, who really do know that privates are accessible to them & who really do take the initiative to try for them. (And thus, I wonder if such selectives need to really "look" for them.)</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
70% of the students at UCLA or Berkeley have the stats to attend ANY of the Ivies or other prestige private colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One can debate whether things like SAT scores should matter as much as they do, but using them as criteria, I do not believe the statement quoted above it true. In fact, well off the mark.</p>