<p>No, he had two adoptive parents and he dropped out because after 6 months, he couldn’t find the value of a Reed education, considering his parents were spending their hard earned savings to send him there.
You are correct- I misinterpreted because his birth mom was unwed and I had heard him speak before about his single mother.
However- while his adoptive parents were working class, it seems that either Reed didn’t meet 100% need at that time, or they met it with loans.
We are working class, and found Reed’s aid to be very generous.
Of course she graduated three years ago.
Jobs also thought enough of Reed even though he wasn’t ready for an academic career, to stay on campus and take their excellent calligraphy courses that he found invaluable when desighing the first Macintosh computer.</p>
<p>Yes, Jobs said in his commencement speech at Stanford that once he dropped out of Reed he could attend classes that he wanted to, rather than classes that he needed to. That made all the difference in the world to him. </p>
<p>But it isn’t like he wanted to continue at Reed and couldn’t because of financial reasons. I wonder if he would help Reed out with a couple of hundred million bucks right about now…</p>
<p>Well, there were financial reasons. He said:
[Text</a> of Steve Jobs’ Commencement address (2005)](<a href=“Stanford Report”>Steve Jobs to 2005 graduates: ‘Stay hungry, stay foolish’ | Stanford Report)</p>
<p>bclintonk,</p>
<p>I’ve enjoyed your statistically assessment of the Reed situation, and while I might quibble with some of your assumptions, I agree with your conclusions. There is one factor though that hasn’t been discussed and the information may not be available to we outsiders.</p>
<p>Is there a pronounced difference in the acceptance rates between “needy” and non-need admits? </p>
<p>My gut instinct tells me that an applicant who has had 100% need met is much more likely to accept their admissions offer than a no-need applicant who can presumably attend anywhere they like, (at least form a financial point of view). I suspect Reed will be faced with more than a few of these 100 “no-needs” withdrawing and attending other universities after they clear a competitor’s wait list.</p>
<p>Will that radically change the numbers? No. But it may force Reed to go further into its own (no-need) wait list and presumably offer spots to students even further below the 25th%-tile. An interesting and potentially spiraling problem.</p>
<p>Or to quote Fat Bast**d from the Austin Powers movies, “I eat because I’m unhappy and I’m unhappy because I eat. It’s a vicious cycle.”</p>
<p>“My gut instinct tells me that an applicant who has had 100% need met is much more likely to accept their admissions offer than a no-need applicant who can presumably attend anywhere they like, (at least form a financial point of view).”</p>
<p>This presumes that other schools are not making similar offers to top needy candidates.</p>
<p>From LiveJournal:
"NYT Reed article follow-up.
For those who are interested, Reed’s President has sent out a response to the New York Times article mentioned earlier.</p>
<hr>
<p>June 11, 2009</p>
<p>Re: Reed College financial aid policies</p>
<p>Dear alumni:</p>
<p>I am writing to provide some additional information and context for the discussion of Reed College’s financial aid policies contained in a June 10, 2009, article in the New York Times. The article was based on extensive research and interviews and open access to Reed’s budgetary decision-making process and used Reed College as a case study to explore how American private educational institutions are coping with the economic downturn.</p>
<p>Some who have read the story were left with the impression that Reed has changed its financial aid policies or awarded less grant support to prospective and continuing students for the coming year. In fact, the opposite is true. Reed increased its financial aid budget by 7.8 percent for next year; we were able to offer aid to 14 percent more applicants for next year’s incoming class compared to last year. For continuing students, we have increased financial aid awards as necessary to meet any adverse changes in their families’ economic circumstances… . ." MORE HERE: [damnportlanders:</a> NYT Reed article follow-up.](<a href=“http://community.livejournal.com/damnportlanders/14903397.html]damnportlanders:”>http://community.livejournal.com/damnportlanders/14903397.html)</p>
<p>Am I the only parent who sees a silver lining in the Reed article? I won’t rehash the “hard work vs luck” argument about why some parents are able to pay for college, but it has been disappointing for me to see the ability to pay tuition increasingly become a negative factor in admittance. Having low income has become an admittance hook, and I am glad to see that, while there is plenty of room for needy students at Reed, being able to pay for the education you receive there is being given at least begrudging credit.</p>
<p>Merry-- the advantage conferred by being needy is an illusion (or delusion) hyped by the upper middle class.</p>
<p>Spend half an hour scrolling through the college admissions stats at public HS in Scarsdale, Great Neck, Winnetka, Atherton, Wellesley (I could go on but I won’t.) If it’s so hard getting into college for these full pay kids, how do so many of them end up at Dartmouth, Stanford, Yale, Swarthmore, etc? SO MANY OF THEM. I won’t even touch the prep schools-- but it’s not like Groton and Andover are running workshops on how to make sure the Adcom at UNH notices your stats in that pile of apps on the desk.</p>
<p>here we go again with merryecho repeating the same old song on cc.
Low income apps are at some sort of advantage - nothing could be
further from the truth.
[Disappointing</a> Progress in Enrollments of Low-Income Students at America’s Most Selective Colleges and Universities](<a href=“http://www.jbhe.com/features/61_lowincome.html]Disappointing”>Disappointing Progress in Enrollments of Low-Income Students at America’s Most Selective Colleges and Universities)</p>
<p>Interesting table. Washington and Lee University should be ashamed of itself–only 4.1% of its students receive Pell Grants; by far the lowest of any college or university listed. So much for social mobility.</p>
<p>It’s ironic in this thread that Reed is not included in the referenced Pell table. The only Pell data I could find on the Reed site is 19% for the academic year 2003-04.</p>
<p>One of the reasons this news is disturbing is that Reed traditionally has
been welcoming to low income students. Pell grants 2000-1 16%
2006-7 14%. Also fairly low loan averages. We’ll probably see Reed
falling into line with other “need aware” colleges. Pells in the 10% range
and loan averages rising to the mid twenties. The reality for almost all low
income families, unless the app has super stats and ecs, is the local
state college, community college, likely commuting - if college at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, the high-income families have kids with many more second chances and plan B choices.</p>
<p>And choices growing better and better by the day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve never understood why this is considered a negative reality. I would venture to guess that most, if not all, full-pay students’ families evolved over generations from little/no college, to state college, to private u. It has never been made clear to me why it is so important for students who come from low-income homes to jump to the head of the “food-chain,” or else be the subject of pity.</p>
<p>^^I agree. My great-grandfathers were both peasants and came to the US so they could become, well peasants. My father owned a small business. I went to a state school - actually a few state schools, till I found the right fit. It was good enough for me to enter the job market and kick some butt. And I never begrudged the kids from richer families that got to go to the private schools. Their dads earned the money; they can spend it however they please.</p>
<p>It’s quite interesting to read the commentary on the NY Times article at their web site. Lots of former Reed alumni chimed in, nice to see their take on this. My son, who was admitted to Reed this year with a very good financial aid package chose to go to another school because he did not want to carry any loans. His choice, and I think it’s a good one, was another private small LAC with a price tag a bit higher than Reed’s. I do not think Reed is much different than any other small LAC in their juggling of need vs. full tuition enrollment. They did at least fess up to their dilemma. I do wonder, however if the president’s half million per year is necessary, but then I also wonder how a hedge fund mgr in Texas can justify 1.5 billion (yes with a “b”) per year.</p>
<p>The NYT article says that Reed cut its budget by 5%, except for personnel- easily the largest expense. It seems like the school opted for richer students rather than to trim the feathers in its nest. Admirable in being open to the NYT journalist, not so admirable in its later spin or in its lack of selflessness. It is naive to imagine that Reed is unique in the way it is dealing with “adversity”.</p>
<p>The reality is that, after the policy is implemented, Reed will provide a higher percentage of its students with need-based aid than Williams, Amherst, Yale, and most of the Ivies, and will enroll a higher percentage of Pell Grant students than all of the Ivies (except, perhaps, Cornell), Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Pomona, Stanford, etc., etc.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree with Bay! This is reality, and not necessarily a bad reality. I lived at home and commuted to a cheap college. Now, H and I are full payers, sending our kids to expensive private schools. Today’s attendees to lower cost commuting colleges can become the full payers of tomorrow, if that is how they want to spend their money.</p>