<p>Now that the applications are in and we have some time to wait around and think about things, one of the things that I'm wondering about is how honest are the colleges that claim to be need blind. From what I gather they don't look to see if applicants have applied for financial aid, but they do lots of other things to find out.</p>
<p>This could affect us in that even though we aren't rich, we're not going to qualify for need based aid either. The colleges we're waiting to hear from are all stretches, so there won't be any merit aid, so we're wondering if they really do take need into account, and how they might do it.</p>
<p>There isn’t a need-blind school in the country (other than maybe the military academies.) The only question is how they use the information they have.</p>
<p>While I don’t know to what degree I disagree with Mini, I think the statement, “There’s not a need blind school in the country” is a little strongly worded. When you look at the financial aid budgets and the number of applicants at some of the “need blind” schools, it’s clear they could fill a class on full pays if they really didn’t hold socioeconomic diversity and diversity in general in high regard. However, I will agree that if, in order to submit an application, you have to check a box as to whether or not you are applying for financial aid, it is aware that you may have need. However, if kid checks the box that says we will not be applying for financial aid and the family name is not Rockefeller, there is no way they will know whether I am rolling in it or hanging by a thread. Sure, they can look at where my kids went to high school and even google earth my house if they even cared that much, but even that doesn’t tell them my investments, savings or income (or for that matter whether I have any at all). So… do I think it works in your favor to be a strong student that fits the data and not be applying for aid? Yes. However, I think there are a lot of things a need blind school does that a school who may offer merit aid (but is very much need aware) does not, can not and would not do.</p>
<p>The very fact that a school could hold socioeconomic diversity in high regard REQUIRES a school to be need-aware. At Williams, supposedly need-blind, a reporter sat in on the admissions process, and his article published in the alumni magazine. The dean of admissions literally counted the number of “socio-ecs”- they clearly had a target, set in advance of looking at any single application, and made sure to hit it - not too high, and not too low.</p>
<p>Amherst’s Pres. made a speech committing the school to more socioeconomic diversity. He did so after applications were already received. Like magic, the number of lower-income students accepted and attending grew almost 25% in a single year (from 13% to 17%) with no change in the applicant pool. They were, all of a sudden, “more qualified”.</p>
<p>Unless you are a college admission’s counselor, I really don’t think you can fully speak to the process, if at all. However, I do know that need blind admissions does not apply to waitlist or transfer students. And frankly, if you need aid, according to your cynical viewpoint, you actually make out better than merely being able to pay the full sticker. Seems to me that by this logic, the only people who really have a “right” to complain are those who pay the sticker price and are also asked to contribute to the annual fund and the parent fund and the capital campaign as well! Lucky them! And if you are accepted at a school that will also cap your loans (if you even need to take them), you are getting quite the deal of an education AND at the best schools as well.</p>
<p>My school (supposedly) did need-blind this year for the first time in a long time but only for the early decision round applicants. They said they won’t be doing it again for some time.</p>
<p>@mini: Thanks for that information, I wasn’t aware of either of those facts about Williams and Amherst. Not surprised either, of course. That’s what I was asking about. So I guess it follows that in these tougher economic times those numbers can easily be adjusted downward without making a big public stink about it.</p>
<p>You have to wonder that if they were truly need blind, wouldn’t one college end up with a class that is wildly disproportionate as to FA. Why is it that their percentages of FA always somehow come out in the same proportions. It just isn’t credible that they aren’t aware of that.</p>
<p>Schools have fixed ranges for the financial aid budgets, set every year by the Board of Trustees (or President’s Office). Admissions offices get to operate within, but not outside their bounds. (And, yes, every year, unless an order comes down on high, as in the Amherst case, the same percentage of students within a point or two receive financial aid).</p>
<p>Consider as well that the top LACs also have low-income diversity recruitment weekends. This is something of a pre-screen and gives admissions a chance to sell the school, and attract ED apps from well-qualified kids with need. There is absolutely an awareness of socioeconomic background.</p>
<p>Agree with Mini… I’ve always viewed that claim as purely a marketing claim - basically saying we’ll look at everyone’s application regardless of your apparent socio-economic status. As far as it being a factor - heck yes. They need athletes, they need high scorers, they need student leaders, they need diversity…every factor comes into play at one time or another…just not at the point of opening an application file and reviewing it. Look at it from the prospective of the “buyer”, if you’re looking for an angle, believe me there are literally thousands of other people looking for an angle so it’s pretty much an even playing field at least at the point of hitting submit on the button.</p>
<p>The issue of socioeconomic diversity works in the reverse as well. As much as schools want to increase their socioeconomic diversity (and honestly, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for students to meet kids from lots of different economic backgrounds in college), they also want enough kids whose parents can pay full freight to make it not detrimental to accept kids who need a lot financial aid. And that doesn’t just mean people who can pay full tuition for room and board, but also people whose parents are likely to donate to school fundraising drives, who will be able to pay to send their kids to study abroad programs (especially those run by the school), and who will continue to donate after their children graduate. Yes, socioeconomic status is a factor that adcoms keep in mind, but they pay attention to how much money a person has, just as much if not more to how much money a person does not have.</p>
<p>I would just like to ask that as students who needed FA both of my kids fared much better in admissions at “need-blind” schools than they did at “need-aware” schools.</p>
<p>They were rejected at many schools where they had way above the median stats or waitlisted and accepted at need blind schools that were on target or reaches.</p>
<p>So even if “need blind” is a euphemism, the tag does give information about school’s attitude toward kid who needs FA.</p>
<p>We are very grateful for the admissions results we received and the FA we received. Both kids got to attend the perfect school for them and we were able to send them.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini in that “need-blind” schools can be actually need aware in *favor *of FA applicants. but since the common terminology of “need-aware” means something along the lines of “preference given to students who don’t need FA”, then the meaning doesn’t then apply to schools that are “need blind”. In common usage, what someone wants to know in most cases is if they apply for FA, will that be held against them, and vice versa. And I’ve seen no evidence, including what mini presents, to suggest that, ever, in regards to need-blind schools. And Mythmom’s experience bears that out.</p>
<p>The comment about need-blind admissions not applying to waitlist or transfer students - my daughter was waitlisted, then admitted, and is now a freshman at a school that meets full-need. Our income qualifies her for no loans - she has over 93% of the COA covered by grants. We were amazed (and incredibly grateful) that she received such generous aid as a waitlisted student.</p>
<p>So are we saying it is impossible for a school to get close to its percentage FA targets without being need-aware in the admissions process? I believe it can. It “profiles” the applicants. As long as the committee is not weighing big need vs. small need in each admission decision, it is still “blind” even though it may try to fill, say, 50% of the class with kids who fit a full-pay profile. </p>
<p>Once the admission decision is made, the policy toward “full need” comes in. If a school is blind but cannot commit to full need, then the half of admits who are needy may turn out to be much more needy than expected, in which case you’ll get a drop in the percent of needy kids who can afford to attend. The school won’t meet its target for percentage of FA kids. But if a school is both blind and rich enough to commit to 100% of need, then it is more likely to meet that target just by “profiling”. They’ll make individual profiling errors, but in a large applicant pool, the errors should tend to cancel out as predictors of ability to pay (since the rich school only has to predict full pay vs. needy, not the precise amount of need in each case.) If it winds up with an over-abundance of full pays, it can be generous to a few of them that year, in which case they are re-defined as “needy”. If it winds up with the opposite problem, it throttles back on grants, tossing more loans and work-study into the packages. In other words, it hits the target by using money to selectively manage yield, without compromising the claim to be “need blind” in admissions.</p>
<p>I’m just speculating. Not saying this is how it’s actually done.</p>
<p>In my statement about need-blind admissions and wait lists - it isn’t that they don’t apply the same principles, but it’s that they don’t have to. So, for example, if you’re looking to increase enrollment to increase revenue, pull them from waitlist might be the way to go. However, I agree with mythmom in that results from kids needing FA seems to be much stronger at need-blind schools.</p>
<p>Also… a lot of need blind schools increased financial aid budgets this year in anticipation of more kids asking for increased financial aid. Some have contingency funds that cover financial aid. And truth is, while their budgets from financial aid might remain the same, how much is a school requiring a kid to take out in loans and how to they parse that out? Who gets the grants, the loans, this award or that award? It is this method that HELPS to keep the numbers relatively stable in terms of dollars spent. The package itself, from what I understand, is a combination of awards and so can remain a somewhat stable in expenditures over time. However, if you actually look at what school’s spend, most budgets have increased HUGELY over the last decade and I think the student body diversity reflects that.</p>
<p>On the contrary, the percentage of Pell Grant recipients (low-income students) at the vast majority of high ranking private LACs and unis has actually dropped in the past 17 years. Unless one wants to argue that they became less qualified over that time (unlike the ones at Amherst who magically became more qualified), I can’t see how you can fail to come to the conclusion that low-income can work against one at a so-called “need-blind” school.</p>
<p>I think the reality is “in-between”, rather like the Williams case I cited. They have a “target” of “socio-ecs”, and are looking to meet it - neither over, nor under, and manage that number inside their total financial aid budgets.</p>
<p>Folks forget that admissions officers are in the business of building the best possible class to meet the institution needs of the college as defined by the board of trustees, not to choose among individuals.</p>
<p>I agree that there needs to be more discussions of what constitutes “need blind” and perhaps with more information out there, people would understand the limitations and the opportunities involved. But there are not trees of money in the back yards of campuses to pay for operating expenses so is it the terminology that is offensive or …? Certainly there are flaws, but instead of calling school’s liars (for lack of a better word), what could be done to make the process more transparent without discouraging applicants in general? In the end, there are a lot of kids who are benefiting greatly from generous financial aid policies who, for one reason or another, are not in a position to pay full boat. To be really honest, it irks me that because some people saved or have priorities that don’t include living beyond their means they do not qualify for aid whereas others within the same income bracket get money.</p>
<p>As for Pell Grants… I thought govt money was set by the govt and not the schools. Other grant money comes from their own coffers. I could very well be wrong. Usually am when it comes to this stuff since I don’t have personal experience. I certainly don’t understand the discounting some schools do with merit money either. It’s a complicated formula for all of these schools, but non-profit or not, these schools are still needing to run on a business model.</p>
<p>I have no knowledge or experience at all in this, so I have a question.</p>
<p>When you apply to these need blind schools, do they ask you whether you will be full pay or not on the admissions application? Do they ask you any financial information?</p>
<p>If it is truly need blind, why would anybody offer to be full pay? I would think everyone would try to get a little money.</p>
<p>Like I said, I haven’t filled out an application like this since I applied thirty years ago, so I can’t remember.</p>