<p>That’s fine. Most low income families and a lot of middle class families
know the score. It’s wealthier folks, the colleges, posters and moderators
on cc that perpetuatethe notion that colleges are accessible to everyone,
some ridiculously suggest that it’s an advantage to be poor! No, in the USA
college choice is largely determined by income and Reed’s latest moves only
reinforce that reality. Let’s stop fooling ourselves.</p>
<p>^ Part of not fooling ourselves is to realize that the only way the situation in the USA will change in this regard is through tax increases, the dreaded redistribution of income. As noted, the current system is just scratching the surface of accessibility. In some German states a university education is still “free” to all qualified students, but the overall tax rate (clearly covering many other services) is over 50%.</p>
<p>Bay, good point. My father dropped out of high school (a rundown inner city one to boot), and got a GED while serving in the army in Vietnam. He worked hard enough that he was able to put me full pay through a top private elite. Good for him!!</p>
<p>This is a point often missed by those desiring to attend the elite schools – the parents of their full pay classmates weren’t necessarily elite grads themselves. It’s like on cc there’s this odd belief that you just are doomed to mediocrity if you didn’t attend a top school.</p>
<p>Speedo- to paraphrase Michelle Hernandez (the super star college counselor-sorry, I don’t have her book in front of me) given a low income student with a 2000 SAT and a full pay student with the same score, the low income student will usually be accepted over the full pay student.
I call that a hook.
As to kids from the very top boarding schools being accepted at Ivys, these are likely to also be legacies and donors. So, in addition to working very hard (these schools are no walk in the park) and having a superb education (and why should they be penalized for that?) the ‘triple threat’ means they aren’t taking that many places, ie not 100 legacies, 100 large donors and 100 top schools, for a total of 300 places, but 100 total.
Elemenope- thank you for phrasing this better than I did. I too went to a state school, using money I saved working at dairy queen. I don’t begrudge low income kids having a chance at a world class education, it just seems a little unfair that my full pay tuition is going up (again) to pay for it. We need a total overhaul, so everyone has a chance at receiving the same benefits. You have to be pretty darn rich before $200,000+ in tuition isn’t a big sacrifice.</p>
<p>Merryecho, what you say may be true in a very small number of cases, but
for the vast majority of apps it’s baloney. Michelle Hernandez, whoever she
is, is perpetuating the same old myth. Low income is a “hook”, nonsense,
except on cc, certainly not at Reed.</p>
<p>
The endowment is subsidizing everyone.</p>
<p>I am not commenting on the capitalism vs. socialism debate, but:
And I can think of few cases (outside HYPS-level FA) where even–or especially–generous financial aid doesn’t still require a big sacrifice from the family. My EFC is approx. 20k. That is a big sacrifice for us; my parents would have to take out loans to pay it, no question, and I’m grateful that they’re willing to do that. And we live very frugally. Same goes for a low-income student whose income is needed to pay the bills; now FA is asking for the parents to pay out in addition to losing that extra income. The goal is not to help you so that 50k a year isn’t a big sacrifice; it’s to make it a possible sacrifice. Current FA rules sometimes achieve that and sometimes screw folks over, but that is the purpose.</p>
<p>What interested me about the Reed article was how blunt they
were about their intentions. We’re dropping 100 qualified admitted
students simply because of their income, or lack of. It is disturbing
but somehow refreshing in its directness. I wonder if they actually
sent a letter to those students telling them the reason they were
denied. That would be something</p>
<p>No, they are actually changing about 33 students or fewer. If the yield is about 1/3, a change of 100 students is, in fact, only 33 of those attending. Actually, I think it is fewer than that, as I believe Reed’s yield may be even lower. They still end up with a higher percentage of students receiving need-based aid than Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Yale, etc., and a higher Pell Grant percentage than Williams, Swarthmore, all of the Ivies (except, perhaps, Cornell), etc.</p>
<p>"We’re dropping 100 qualified admitted students simply because of their income, or lack of.</p>
<p>They weren’t admitted; they were simply denied with the usual notification. The issue seems to be the late (mid-March?) internal update due to the recession reducing endowment income, causing a last-minute change in planned admissions.</p>
<p>low income students tend to accept when offered a good package. The
yield numbers for this group is usually pretty high. We could be talking 50
or more students here. Wouldn’t it be fair to tell them, you’re qualified,
we’d like to admit you but we can’t because of the financials. I think they
deserve to be told the truth. The college changed it’s admissions criteria
at the last moment. The students applied in good faith, they should be told
the truth.</p>
<p>^ That’s the key. The students applied in good faith, knowing that Reed was not need-blind.</p>
<p>Low-income students accepted at Reed would likely have plenty of other schoolsto choose from.</p>
<p>^^^ That’s the case every year at every need-aware school. Perhaps someone who applied for FA and received a rejection from Reed could tell us what it said this time.</p>
<p>I vote withe mini. Low income students who have the academic record to qualify for Reed College would likely get a better package than Reed is able to offer elsewhere. This is a story more of Reed’s loss than the students’.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is a fair assumption that the student denied at Reed because they are low income will get a better offer at another college. What is happening at Reed is happening at other colleges too.</p>
<p>Also, it sounds great when you say that a student is getting financial aid to cover the costs of their eduction. But, to the extent that financial aid is made up of loans it is turning them into a modern day indentured servant.</p>
<p>^ Since this is mostly a Reed thread, I’ll just mention that Reed “aid” loans (Federal Stafford and/or Federal Perkins) are capped at $2,500 for freshmen, $3,500 for sophomores, $4,500 for juniors, and $5,500 for seniors, a total of $16,000 out of approximately $200,000. Whether this means “indentured servant” is in the eye of the beholder.</p>
<p><a href=“http://web.reed.edu/financialaid/programs.html[/url]”>http://web.reed.edu/financialaid/programs.html</a></p>
<p>I wonder why that source constantly modifies loan amounts with “usually.” Seems like the college explicitly will not guarantee such caps.</p>
<p>A guess: If they were guaranteed, they could never change (without some added lawyer-speak), but yet we would expect some eventual inflation of the limits.</p>