<p>garland:</p>
<p>In one case, there was a sort of bidding war to attract a superstar. I was told that had MIT been willing to match Princeton, the student might have ended up at MIT; I'm not sure, but it's probable. In the other case, I don't know the details. Both stories involve Princeton and MIT.
I have been telling students that it is safe to apply ED to Princeton because P is known to be generous. I would not make the same suggestion in connection with other ED schools.</p>
<p>"my question about these differences in aid--were they caused by a school offering less than the EFC, or by another school offering more? And were they at all meets-all-need schools, or some not?"</p>
<p>They were all "meet-all-needs" schools, a few with merit aid (but, again, in our case, that didn't make any difference whatsoever, or so we discovered, as they simply cancelled out need-based aid with merit), a few without. No pattern to them - the very lowest had a significant merit award; of the two highest, one did and one didn't. The expected loan amounts didn't seem to follow much of a pattern either As to the EFC, well, they all obviously came up with different EFCs, didn't they? (and ours wasn't all that difficult - nothing unusual - no real estate outside of an inexpensive house, no outside businesses, no investment income to speak of.)</p>
<p>I don't think, from talking with other parents, that our experience was at all unusual.</p>
<p>"Hmmm, Mini, that seems to indicate that Smith shows quite a judicious talent in selecting its Zollman awardees. Does this mean that the much heralded merit aid awards have little value--except for inflation adjusters--to anyone with a low EFC in Northampton?"</p>
<p>Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. That's what they told us, and that is, in fact, how it has worked out in practice. Did they manipulate it to work it out that way? I wouldn't put it past them - they claim it all comes from a differently endowed pot of money (Swarthmore and Williams have ones like that too), but how would I know, and why would I care? Except...you missed the biggest value of all - the academic value of the paid research assistantship that they created specifically for her. No school came even close to matching that. She didn't choose Smith because of the financial aid (we could have well afforded several of the other schools), but because of the academic opportunities. Smith claims to be "need-blind" except in the last 3-5% of the acceptances (and only in some years); the Zollmans are chosen by a committee separate from both admissions and financial aid, or so we are told. (I take it all with two fist fulls of salt.)</p>
<p>"Let me cite another applicant who was/is a superstar. Her parents did not let her apply ED because they wanted to apply for finaid. She got into every school she applied to. But the offers from Princeton, Harvard and MIT, among others, differed widely."</p>
<p>I find this not at all surprising. So did she have the same "EFC"? It's really not a meaningful question. is it?</p>
<p>Yes, I have been on CC long enough to see that financial aid offers differ wildly from school to school.</p>
<p>I haven't read every post in this thread...but on the topic of schools matching or not matching each other in financial aid, this was the focus of a law suit against the Ivies and MIT several years ago. The conclusion was there was collusion to keep the offers in line from the various schools. The resolution was such that now students are, like free agents in sports, at liberty to try to secure what is best for them-- in the case of the ARods of the college applicant set that is.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, the colleges were trying to avoid bidding wars for URMs which sometimes ended if these very desirable applicants getting more money than was the COA. The US threatened an anti-trust suit.</p>
<p>mini...Stop the Pton bashing. Again a poster says Pton is the most generous of all schools and you twist it to some perverted agenda. Yes, they have given financial aid to someone with a family with an income over a $100,000. However, I would hardly call this rich. A teacher/nurse father/mother in a big city with 3 kids can easily exceed a $100,000 income and be a worthwhile candidate for financial aid. 55% of the first years are on financial aid and they have various income levels with only one common denominator...they deserve help. Pell Grants are not the only indicator of financial need. I really don't think a school that lead the way in eliminating loans as 'financial aid' should be attacked as worrying about what Vanderbilt does. With an average SAT score in the top 1%, Vandy is not on their radar screen. I think you miss the Pton Board's goal of economic diversity being the absolute best for Pton...that is their only motivation</p>
<p>My experience is that financial aid offers vary widely between schools that claim to provide for 100% of financial need. Another area to look at is not just the EFC but the overall cost of attendance. Some of the schools provide more of a budget for travel or even health insurance.</p>
<p>For us, the finaid packages across 2 cycles varied on the order of $5K/year. A pretty significant amount. Then again, neither of my sons decided to go to the "least" expensive school to which they applied.</p>
<p>Mini, it's not so much that I missed the very meaningful part of the special postitions that were created, as much as I did not think it was my place to mention it. If you wrote about it once on CC, I probably would remember, and I did. :) </p>
<p>However, were the positions considered work-study or outside work/internship in determining your award?</p>
<p>Marite, I believe that the predecessor to the 568 group got into trouble for colluding in creating packages that would be TOO equal, not for bidding for candidates. And, FWIW, it is not possible for a school that receives any form of federal funds to offer a package that would exceed the amount of the COA. That is why schools are forced to decrease amount of aid when students earn outside scholarships. Some schools, however, amend the public COA and add the cost of a computer or the cost of carrying private health insurance to avoid "losing" the outside money.</p>
<p>PS It is a technicality, but the EFC is established by computing the FAFSA and does not change. The schools that do not meed 100% of need create a financial gap, and the schools that use the CSS and create unfunded and unmet needs.</p>
<p>Mini, last I checked Princeton was the least expensive Ivy, so I don't understand your comments about loans. And quite frankly, these schools have long complained -- even back when I was at Brown -- that their student bodies increasingly consist of the very wealthy and the very poor. That is a very strange environment, and to my mind finding ways to help middle-class people afford to attend is not a bad thing, for a variety of reasons. </p>
<p>Marite, I agree with you that financial aid applicants need not worry about applying early, but there is only one reason Princeton is a reliable place for a financial aid student to apply ED, and that is not its generosity. It is the fact that it offers an online estimator that tells parents within $100 what the aid would be. And if you don't trust the estimator, you are encouraged to call financial aid and they will go over your figures with you. There need be no unpleasant surprises.</p>
<p>A bit of a detour into history:</p>
<p>aparent: You are right. But it is also well known that Princeton is generous both for undergraduates and graduates.</p>
<p>First of all, I think what Princeton has done is wonderful! But I am under no illusion as to whom the majority of the current beneficiariies are, and why that would prove beneficial to them. And there is absolutely no reason why a school with such resources should not use them to advance their institutional agenda. (I know I would, if I were in that position.) (I also have no problem with Vanderbilts trying to steal them away!) I would like to see all schools follow their lead, and I would note that they have also increased their number of Pell Grant recipients. I also think what Brown has done (eliminate first-year work-study requirements, and some summer work requirements for low-income students, either so they can contribute to family income, or take low-paying internships) is wonderful as well. But I'm under no illusions - the data I've seen suggests that virtually all of these places are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago. That's not frankly a big concern for me - all of these schools, including the one my d. attends as well as my alma mater - are "luxury items", and I'm much, much more concerned with trends at public colleges and universities than these places.</p>
<p>"However, were the positions considered work-study or outside work/internship in determining your award?"</p>
<p>The positions are in lieu of work-study. For other STRIDE students they also carry $5k scholarships for four years. This might be a talking point for folks with little or no financial need, but irrelevant for higher need ones if the "100%-of-need" actually meets their need (which I am in no position to determine.) (They have a different program, Kahn Fellowships, for students who undertake senior research and participate in a series of seminars with the faculty - not classes, but rather like graduate colloquia - for which they are paid rather handsomely.)</p>
<p>"PS It is a technicality, but the EFC is established by computing the FAFSA and does not change. The schools that do not meed 100% of need create a financial gap, and the schools that use the CSS and create unfunded and unmet needs."</p>
<p>This perhaps should be the case, but all the schools my d. applied to were 100%-of-need schools. So, at least in our case, it is all a bunch of doublespeak, and frankly, I didn't (and don't) care to understand it - the only real issue with all of this - "merit" vs "need-based", "100-of-need" or not - is how much the bill comes to and whether one can afford it.</p>
<p>From experience, (and from listening to 3 years of experience of others on these boards, including those accepted to HYPS), I still think that it is generally speaking a mistake for a high-need candidate to apply ED anywhere unless prepared simply to accept what the school happens to offer. I think H. came to understand that reasonable (but lower-income) people could come to that conclusion, and, for their own institution, have chosen to change it. Seems okay to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think H. came to understand that reasonable (but lower-income) people could come to that conclusion, and, for their own institution, have chosen to change it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except that they aren't changing anything. Harvard's Early Action program wasn't binding to begin with. It allows rich and poor applicants to apply to a hundred schools and shop aid packages.</p>
<p>So the "change" is really more for PR purposes than anything else. Quiet a few critics. Actually, Harvard has a pretty decent track record in admitting lower income students. If they really wanted to increase the percentages, they'd have to relax the median SAT requirements and we all know that ain't gonna happen. Not going to get too many more poor folk with median SATs from 1400 to 1580, early action or not.</p>
<p>mini, I think the quote that i'dad just boxed in his reply contradicts comments you earlier made. And other than your conclusions based on known statistics combined with assumptions, I don't see how you make the claim that HYPS are so much less economically diverse than 25 years ago. Just look at the CC threads. Many of the early admittees have been low-income but high performers, often beating out wealthier applicants; I doubt very much that existed 25 yrs. ago. It's just very hard to believe.</p>
<p>I think that 40 years ago, they were less economically diverse. But I think most of the campuses, including my alma mater, opened up signfiicantly in the years following. This was true for race (specifically, African-Americans, as well). Karabel notes, for example, that there were more African-Americans at Princeton in 1972 than at any time up to the publication of his book. Mortenson's data on Pell Grants shows that, in the main, and with some notably exceptions (Princeton being one of them, for which I think they are deserving of great praise), there were percentagewise fewer Pell Grant recipients at the majority of these schools in 1993-1994 than in 2003-2004. At Amherst and Williams, the percentage of students receiving needbased aid have been relatively stable (under 50%) for some twenty years, this at a time when the full-freight price has soared well past the rate of inflation (but not as high as the rate of asset increase among the top 3%.) I think analysis at the vast majority of these schools would show the same. It was possible in 1971 at my alma mater, when the tuition was, as I remember, $2,950, for a policeman to pay the full freight. In 1970, by working 75 hours a week as a waiter in the summer, and carrying two jobs at the campus bookstores, I was able to pay my entire tuition, and a little more, and a small scholarship took care of the rest. Just isn't the case anymore. So when the percentage of folks receiving need-based aid remains constant, while the prices rise, virtually by definition the schools become less economically diverse. This is indeed what Princeton and others have been trying to tackle.</p>
<p>ID is absolutely correct, though. H. was dealing with the "perception" of poorly informed low-income students (and their guidance counselors! - if they had any), not the reality. It was, after all, EA. But they believe (and they should know) that this perception was driving off students, and providing "advantage to the advantaged", and I really don't have any reason to doubt them.</p>
<p>As Harvard's Dean of Admissions stated:</p>
<p>"Thus students from less advantaged backgrounds either fail to take advantage of early admission because they are less well-advised overall, or they consciously avoid our program on the mistaken assumption that they will be unable to compare financial aid packages"</p>
<p>Translation: there are certain "disadvantaged" applicants we would probably admit if they simply would have applied under our (pretend) "early admissions" program but they are either 1. too limited to understand our program or 2. unable or unwilling to locate a competent 3rd party to explain the program</p>
<p>
[quote]
Karabel notes, for example, that there were more African-Americans at Princeton in 1972 than at any time up to the publication of his book.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is true, not just at Princeton, but at all two dozen early adaptors of aggressive affirmative action -- the northeast schools participating in the early Rockefeller grant 10% program and similar efforts.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<p>Williams' Af Am enrollment in 1976 was 6.9%, a number that has fluctuated over the years with a low of 5.1% in 1984.</p>
<p>Amherst's Af Am enrollment in 1976 was 8.1%, a number they did not equal again until 2002.</p>
<p>Swarthmore's Af Am enrollment in 1976 was 7.4%, a number they did not equal again until 2000.</p>
<p>The reasons are hardly nefarious. The biggest factor is that you only had a dozen or so elite colleges competing for these students in the early 1970s. Heck, many colleges and universities had barely opened their doors to "Negro" students, period. In case anyone has forgotten, George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama in 1963.</p>
<p>In the intervening years, you saw a massive increase in the number of schools aggressively trying to increase diversity and using affirmative action to do so. For example, Davidson had only 1.8% Af Am students in 1976, a figure that has now grown to 6%. That 4% gain, along with similar gains at hundreds of elite colleges and universities came directly out of the applicant pool that had been the sole province of the earliest AA adaptors. Divide a limited supply of students by more schools and, guess what, the enrollment at each school decreases.</p>
<p>As second part of this equation is that the early adaptors of affirmative action admitted extreme risk students -- a practice that led to disasterous graduation rates and the implementation of remedial programs. While today's percentages have only recently matched or exceeded the percentages of the early 1970s, the success rate of Af Am students at the top schools has skyrocketed. In many cases, the grad rates equal those of white students. Sometimes progress isn't only measurable by enrollment percentages.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Amherst and Williams, the percentage of students receiving needbased aid have been relatively stable (under 50%) for some twenty years...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt this is true, but I'll task you with digging up the Williams and Amherst numbers.</p>
<p>Swarthmore publishes theirs in the annual financial reports.</p>
<p>Here are the percentage of students receiving need-based aid by decade:</p>
<p>1970: 36%
1980: 39%
1990: 45%
2000: 50%</p>
<p>The percentages may vary, but I doubt that the trends at similar colleges are much different.</p>
<p>Swarthmore also gives their average aid package as a percentage of student charges by decade and also the total tuition charges adjusted for inflation (in constant 2005 dollars) starting with the 1970s.</p>
<p>The comprehensive student charges (sticker price) in constant inflation adjusted 2005 dollars has increased from $17,000 in 1970 to $39,000 in 2005.</p>
<p>The average financial aid grant in constant 2005 dollars has increased from $7500 in 1970 to $21,200 in 2005.</p>
<p>On a percentage basis, the average grant has increased from 44% of students charges in 1970 to 54% of student charges in 2005.</p>
<p>The problem with meaningful analysis is trying to decide what constitutes a low income family today compared to 1970 the polarization of the incomes and the shift from a single earner family to a dual-earner family make those comparisons complex at best.</p>
<p>From Today's NY Times Letters to the Editor:</p>
<p>Getting In, the Harvard Way (6 Letters)
Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Save </p>
<p>Published: September 14, 2006
To the Editor:</p>
<p>Re “Harvard Ends Early Admission, Citing Barrier to Disadvantaged” (front page, Sept. 12):</p>
<p>Praise the gods of Harvard for their groundbreaking and courageous decision! I only pray that other fine institutions will follow. </p>
<p>Early admissions policies have not only created an economically stratified selection process, but they have also eroded the high school experience — one of undue stress and obsession with the next four years of education.</p>
<p>As a guidance counselor at Rye High School, I rejoice!</p>
<p>Barbara Finder</p>
<p>New Rochelle, N.Y., Sept. 12, 2006</p>
<p>•</p>
<p>To the Editor:</p>
<p>Students at my daughter’s high school are encouraged to attend college fairs in ninth grade, to start taking Advanced Placement classes in the 10th grade and to participate in numerous extracurricular activities to make themselves more attractive to colleges.</p>
<p>As a high school student in the mid-70’s, I was accepted to a number of top schools that today would never take someone with my credentials. </p>
<p>Everyone involved in the process seems to have lost sight of the fact that where one goes to college is not the final word on how one’s life will turn out. </p>
<p>One of the significant benefits to early admissions programs, assuming that a student has found a school at which he or she will be reasonably happy, is that it puts an end to this ridiculous pressure and provides teenagers a few months to have a more relaxed life. </p>
<p>My daughter plans to apply to her top-choice school through early decision. We all hope to see an end to this madness by mid-December. </p>
<p>Karen Adler </p>
<p>Short Hills, N.J., Sept. 13, 2006</p>
<p>•</p>
<p>To the Editor:</p>
<p>Harvard is now the No. 1 choice for the brightest high school seniors.</p>
<p>Harvard’s yield (percentage of accepted students who decide to enroll) is nearly 80 percent.</p>
<p>Thus, Harvard is not concerned that it will lose top-flight applicants to another school by eliminating early admissions.</p>
<p>But other elite schools have a much lower yield; some are lucky to have 50 percent of their accepted applicants enroll.</p>
<p>If they eliminate early admissions, many top-flight applicants who want an early answer will apply to a competitive college that will satisfy this need.</p>
<p>And that’s one concern that Harvard doesn’t have.</p>
<p>Elliott S. Kanbar</p>
<p>New York, Sept. 13, 2006</p>
<p>• </p>
<p>To the Editor:</p>
<p>Removing educational barriers for socioeconomically disadvantaged students is unquestionably good. We should applaud Harvard’s path-breaking decision to end early admissions.</p>
<p>Early applicants are statistically favored but unable to weigh financial aid packages. Derek Bok, the president of Harvard, cites another benefit: it will “improve the climate in high schools” by postponing frenzied preoccupation with college until senior year. </p>
<p>This ignores a large group of students: those who, whether from school, family, friends or personality, feel overwhelming pressure early on. </p>
<p>Eliminating early admissions will only prolong this period of distress, especially for students, typically girls, who can have debilitating feelings of intellectual insecurity.</p>
<p>I was one of those students. Early acceptance left me mentally free and more confident to engage with challenging courses I couldn’t take until senior year, like calculus-based physics — the class that impelled me to major in physics and philosophy in college and now to share this excitement for physics with my own students. Jill North</p>
<p>New Haven, Sept. 12, 2006</p>
<p>The writer is an assistant professor of philosophy at Yale.</p>
<p>•</p>
<p>To the Editor:</p>
<p>According to Derek Bok, the interim president of Harvard, many potential applicants did not understand the distinction between Harvard’s early admission program and those that require an upfront commitment and were discouraged from applying. </p>
<p>I’m sure that the differences between Harvard’s nonbinding early action and the binding programs used by other schools were clearly stated. </p>
<p>If potential applicants were incapable of grasping these differences, they should probably not have been considering applying to Harvard in the first place. And Harvard should probably not be considering them for admission. </p>
<p>Richard Zimmer</p>
<p>South Orange, N.J., Sept. 12, 2006</p>
<p>•</p>
<p>To the Editor:</p>
<p>I applied early to Harvard and got turned down. But my application wasn’t rejected outright; it was advanced to the general admissions pool for another round of consideration. That is what happens to most early-admission rejects.</p>
<p>In my senior year of high school, the lucky “early admits” got to bask in a secure future while the rest of us sweated through months of helpless anxiety, waiting for the thick or thin envelopes to arrive in April.</p>
<p>Maybe colleges should drop their early admissions programs out of fairness. But let’s not kid ourselves that it would reduce stress levels for applicants and their parents. It would increase the stress for those who have a definite first-choice college in mind.</p>
<p>As it turned out, my Harvard envelope was thick, and the rest is history. Peter Gray</p>
<p>Madison, Wis., Sept. 13, 2006</p>
<p>
[quote]
As second part of this equation is that the early adaptors of affirmative action admitted extreme risk students -- a practice that led to disasterous graduation rates and the implementation of remedial programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>idad: This was probably the straw that broke the camels's back. When crisps & bloods were admitted to Dartmouth. Or was it Stanford? (My memory is foggy.) At any rate, the outrage in middle class white neighborhoods and schools was intense. How much better AA would have been accepted if this idiotic idea had been nipped in the bud! AA candidates are STILL tainted by the at risk admit experiments. I never had gang members in my classes, but I do remember how angry the class would get if we entered a room where the remedial math problems were still up on the board. Third grade math being taught at Rutgers to college students. We all wondered how that was possible.</p>
<p>CITATION: I agree that the condescending attitude of Harvard toward low-income people is sickening.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If potential applicants were incapable of grasping these differences, they should probably not have been considering applying to Harvard in the first place. And Harvard should probably not be considering them for admission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Richard Zimmer is my hero.</p>