<p>Sabbatical came from your remark on how many senior faculty don't teach at major universities. Generally you don't teach (at least at your own school) on sabbatical. I won't believe PR machines but I will take a serious look at a PWC audited financial statement as in Swat's case. You might like to try it.</p>
<p>Have a good day.</p>
<p>WSOX, </p>
<p>Care to explain how you read:
[quote]
most of those faculty that lead to the amazingly low 4:1 ratio are not involved in undergraduate instruction,
[/quote]
AS:
[quote]
your remark on how many senior faculty don't teach at major universities.
[/quote]
? </p>
<p>I hope you at least read those PWC audited financials better than statements you claim to rebut.</p>
<p>You allege that schools with a 4 to 1 ratio have faculty have faculty that "are not involved in undergraduate education." Therefore, I read that statement as senior faculty not teaching undergraduates. One plausible explanation why some faculty members are not teaching is sabbatical but that is neither unique to big schools or all that material. Your statement that most of the faculty creating a 4 to 1 (say versus a 8:1 or 10:1 at a lot of schools) would imply a majority of the faculty is not involved in undergraduate education. That is simply riduculous allegation at the schools I cited.</p>
<p>I think you are a way over the top absorbed in promoting your agenda, namely anti big universities and anti financial aid. I don't care to engage in such a discussion. I am sorry if my more fact based analysis is something you don't care to stomach. Your point yesterday about it was too nice a day to carry on this discussion is something with which I completely agree (frankly your only good point).</p>
<p>As I said yesterday, have a nice day and let's part amicably.</p>
<p>No, wsox, and others. The original issue was my desire to use money to get my kid into a better college ;-)</p>
<p>Calmom's answer is absolutely correct. Selective schools admit a higher percentage of ED applicants than RD applicants. And one cannot say that those ED applicants were necessarily the best applicants because a good, but poor, student cannot "afford" an early decision. And Calmon is right in pointing out that most schools, even some very good ones, are not totally need-blind. It is often the case that it is more fortunate to be rich rather than poor.</p>
<p>fpat: I am assuming your son is a junior right now and just starting the college process. My son is a senior and just went through the college application process. We found things to be quite different than what some people on this board have noted here. We live in an expensive part of New England and my son was adament that he wanted to stay in New England (quite unfortunate). Perhaps our experience was because of that. I believe it very definitely hurt that we checked yes to financial aid. You will hear that top LACs want high acheiving males. Perhaps yes if they can pay full freight. I don't like to post stats, but my son has very impressive stats with excellent ECs and great work experience. He had many awards, some quite impressive, others less so. He applied to 4 safeties and did get some merit aid from all of them (less than we hoped since his stats far above the 75%). We only applied for financial aid at his matches and one reach, since they all exceeded what we felt we could pay. For the two matches, his stats exceeded the 75% - he was accepted to one with no money and waitlisted at the other. He was rejected from his reach despite stats that were in the 50-75% (yet one of the athletes at his high school got in ED with far less impressive stats). Because money was an issue, he had to apply RD to the last three. In summary, if your son is not a minority candidate with no real hook and you need to file for financial aid, getting into a top school will require a great deal of luck.</p>