<p>I would agree with DAndrew that knowing whether FA is the reason isn’t very helpful. All it says is that you are coming short, but not why.</p>
<p>If I were the Director of FA, I would probably do the following things after getting the admissible pool from AO:</p>
<ol>
<li>Look into the pool, and calculate the EFC for all those applying for FA</li>
<li>If the school has enough money, most of my job is done. The rest is just paper work</li>
<li>If, however, the total FA need is greater than the FA budget (almost always the case), I will have to cut from the bottom (by desirability with everything factored in) of those who need FA the most till I have a balanced budget. </li>
<li>I will make sure I still have some FA money left in case I need to make adjustment after 3/10.</li>
</ol>
<p>So, the money is always there. Instead of telling the applicant FA is the reason, it may be more helpful to point out why they chose not to give him/her the money.</p>
<p>I don’t think they ever calculate EFC for applicants they are not interested in. They’d either first admit students without consideration of their financial need, and then based on their financial need and the school’s FA budget drop some that need FA and go back to the pool and pull up some full pays; or they’d put FA applicants in a separate pool in the first place and only admit a designated number of applicants from that pool.</p>
<p>I believe schools that separate full pay and FA candidates segregate the FA pool further. A candidate that needs $5-10K should not be lumped in with someone who needs $40+K.</p>
<p>Not certain of the prep school admission process but did get the sense that interviewing admissions officers were responsible for files. I suspect that they make an admission recommendation and that it carries some significant weight in the process.</p>
<p>Met with a college admissions officer, formerly at a top 30 university who explained the college process. He indicated that admission officers are assigned files and are allotted an average of 12 minutes per files, after which they make a recommendation. The file then gets a second read from another ao, with 6 minutes per file allotted, followed by a recommendation. The file, with the recommendations, are presented to the committee. If the readers agree to admit/defer/reject then that decision is highly to be adopted by the committee.</p>
<p>It seems harsh, four years of work analyzed in 18 minutes, but with 30,000 applications in the pipeline speed is critical.</p>
<p>I agree with you, CKSABS. These schools are usually the ones with smaller FA budget and have providing FA as a low priority. OTOH, I am guessing that “designated number” could change with the need level (e.g. 5 - 10K or full tuition) of the admissible FA applicants.</p>
<p>Judging by the fact that most elite BS has rather stable % of FA students and stable average FA $ amount, I believe those schools most likely not using separate pools for FP and FA candidates.</p>
<p>It is a given that those BS need the best candidates and that they do have a sizable FA budget to help them getting there. It would make their work harder and more inconsistent were they to use separate pools. One pool will ensure they get the best candidates while deploying their money most effectively. Statistics is behind the stable % and avg $ only when one pool is used.</p>
<p>I also took a look at SPS web site. It says " the admission process is not 100 percent need-blind. In limited cases a family’s need for financial aid may influence an admission decision". It seems to me they are referring to having to drop off few FA candidates, who would otherwise be admissible from the bottom to stay within their budget.</p>
<p>Agree that they won’t waste time calculating EFC for candidiates they don’t want. The pool I meant above is not the total applicant pool, but the admissible applicant pool after the initial AO processing. </p>
<p>Just my guess anyway, but it is interesting to speculate though.</p>
<p>Either Andover or Exeter had a full explanation of “need blind” on their website last year–probably still. Even when a school states they are “need blind,” it doesn’t mean what one may think–check out the websites of the two schools.</p>
<p>My understanding is that they come up with a desired pool, then go to the stated financials and FA apps. They go back and forth at that point to fit the budget of FA approved by trustees etc. to the final applicant pool to create acceptances.</p>
<p>@ifax, it’s a hard thing to do. But I asked my son to call the school that was at the top of his list who had rejected him and to ask why. After a little telephone tag, he did get to speak with the Assistant Dean/Director of Admissions who gave him very specific feedback which he thought although difficult to hear was invaluable and he has already made some “corrections” in response to some of the feedback on how he’ll approach college apps.</p>
<p>I think it’s got to be difficult hearing negative feedback or “constructive feedback/criticism” but if you are open to hearing it, it can really make a difference.</p>
<p>If you were not given a spot in any school, or any school that you are happy with, and you can still apply again next year, you should definitely call and find our why you were wl or rejected. Just dont do it right away since the adcoms are swamped. Let the dust settle and then call. You may get a very honest answer and be able to fix the issue for the next go around.</p>
<p>@DAndrew, When I think “need blind” it makes me conjure up the idea that the school makes their decisions to admit on the talent alone. A kind of variation on this is the idea that reportedly Exeter was thinking about giving anyone who could get accepted a ‘free ride.’ In other words, they were really looking at the students, and were making decisions based on credentials alone. Blind means “can’t see” right? Can’t see anything.</p>
<p>Well, I think we’ve stated very few schools assert that they are “need blind” but even the ones who do qualify it with the definition on their websites. In the end, even the need blind schools take into consideration whether or not a candidate needs financial aid and how much. Afterall, they have a FA budget which has to be prior approved. They are not given carte blanche to take anyone they want, then figure out what they’ll need to take from their endowment to make it happen.</p>
<p>It’s not that I don’t want to hear negative feedback about myself. It just seems in bad taste. Admission offices are already swamped with calls from parents confirming that their kid will attending the school, and parents who are screaming ,“WHY DIDN’T YOU ACCEPT MY KID? NOW MY KID WILL BE REJECTED AT COLUMBIA LIKE I WAS! ARRGH, I’M INSANELY INSECURE!” So, these admission offices are already pretty swamped. And, on top of that here’s a kid calling asking why he didn’t get in. These offices get thousands of applicants each year. So, they will have to take the time out of there busy schedule of dealing with ecstatic parents and insane parents to try to remember why one applicant out of thousands didn’t get in. I think I’ll pass. Idk, but it seems to me like calling the office is in pretty bad taste.</p>
<p>I can see how one might think that, but in actuality, in my son’s case, it was looked upon that he really wanted to go to this school and they appreciated that and also his maturity at being willing to hear feedback and wanting to improve his application.</p>
<p>“100% need blind” means a FA candidate has the same chance to get into the desired pool, from which his chance of getting the FA depends on whether there are enough FA candidates who rank below him/her and will be taken out so the school can stay within its budget.</p>
<p>From the school’s perspective, it is 100% need blind, which is not to be confused with “budget blind”.</p>
<p>The more you think about this, the more you realize this is not exactly rocket science. In the end, it is all about ranking and desirability. If a candidate is so good, the school will always find ways to get him/her in, which is another way to interpret “need blind”.</p>
<p>I don’t think when people call they’re horrible people. Most people who call do honestly want feedback on their application. But, I wouldn’t call right after admission season b/c it’s probably not the best time.</p>
<p>I think my son actually called sometime after the April deadlines of acceptances on the part of those who got offer letters. And btw had the good taste NOT to gloat that he had gotten an offer at their archrival school which he was very happy about.</p>
<p>In the “need blind” schools or otherwise, the FA people have done this forever. By looking at how many applicants are applying for FA and relating to prior years’ experience, they can come up with a close enough FA budge. More importantly, don’t forget that the top schools are supposed to be generous. They’d often exceed the minimum amount of aid needed as dictated by the documented EFC so the idea is to have “more than enough” money available. In a year with exceptionally high demand, they could simply tweak the amount offered to individual families to stay in budget.</p>
<p>“Need blind” is need blind. The process is basically accepting students without considering their financial need and meet the need of all admitted students. Does “need-blind” mean background blind, race blind, or geographical area blind? I don’t think so, and that’s why the admission process is not a purely talent based or merit based process. Note however that this process can work both ways - if they admit students purely based on talents and achievements, I don’t think the percentage of student body on FA would necessarily go up. It may remain about the same or even go down simply because the better off families may have more resources for their kids to develop their talents and build a strong profile with more impressive achievements. Just my 2c.</p>
<p>At least one school that I know of has an earlier deadline for FA candidates, with both the PFS and the app due on the 15th. Those not applying for FA have until the first. Sounds a lot like seperate pools to me.</p>