<p>well, if you're applying for fall 2008/spring 2009, this is not going to affect your chances. if you're applying after, however, then your chances might be almost impossible, since the yield is presumably going to be higher for the class of 2012, therefore lessening the space available for transfers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard, Stanford, etc. do NOT mean to give any tip at all to students from families prosperous enough to be able to pay full list price.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By giving tips to legacies and big donors and accepting sufficient kids from well known school systems or private schools Harvard can make sure they accept as many full payers as they like.</p>
<p>'The adcoms would now have to pick their "spots" more effectively than before (although admittedly that was hard enough to begin with lol) in order to produce the diverse pool they want, that's what I was trying to get at.'</p>
<p>I think that in many respects the admission officers' jobs will be easier now because due to the change in financial aid, there's an even better chance that the students offered admission will come. Consequently, the diverse, well rounded class that is offered admission in April, is likely to be pretty much the class that arrives in September.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think if two students are almost idential in terms of their stats, the one who can afford to pay full list price will be chosen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree with this statement insofar as it applies to Harvard. (This is the Harvard Forum, which establishes the context of the statement.) I should note for the record that I have NIL inside knowledge of the workings of the Harvard admission office. I could be flat wrong about this, but I am replying on the basis of public statements by Harvard admission officers that I have heard at public information meetings, and press accounts and news release from the Harvard admission office indicating the admission office priorities. </p>
<p>For example, </p>
<p>Online</a> Extra: How Harvard Gets its Best and Brightest</p>
<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: New Possibilities in the Post-Early Admissions Era</p>
<p>Talent</a> scouts — The Harvard University Gazette</p>
<p>My sense, which I formed already last year by observing the CC threads about Harvard's admission decisions in the early round last year, is that if there are two or three or four applicants who are almost indistinguishable in terms of their high school grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, and other relevant characteristics, the tendency of the Harvard admission office will be admit the poorest applicant, wait-list the next poorest, and deny the richest. It is quite debatable how often applicants are ever really indistinguishable, and it is also debatable just how generally any one principle of selection is applied to Harvard applicants (because the committee consists of multiple individuals, considering multiple criteria to apply to multiple, varied applicants), but that is my sense of the intention of the admission office, based on public statements from its leaders. </p>
<p>Perhaps after the spring 2008 admission results are announced you or I or somebody will have a new opinion.</p>
<p>Tokenadult, you could be right. Maybe full payment of tuition is not enough compared to donation of a libary wing or something in that magnitude.</p>
<p>"I think if two students are almost idential in terms of their stats, the one who can afford to pay full list price will be chosen."</p>
<p>Unlikely. A few years ago, the head of Harvard's library system was interviewed by Harvard Magazine, which asked him what he'd do with a $1 million donation. The reply was, "not much." He said he'd need at least $10 million to make an impact on Harvard's 100 libraries, which combined are the 3rd largest in the country (behind the NY City public library and the Library of Congress).</p>
<p>So... being able to be a full pay student wouldn't be a tip factor. What would be a tip factor in that example would be if a student were first gen college, came from a school that had never sent anyone to Harvard before, lived in a poor area, etc. After all, the point of Harvard's change in financial aid policies is to attract more low income students, not attract more high income ones.</p>
<p>Prefer Northstarmom's reply to mine. The point remains that there doesn't seem to be any tip factor in being a full-pay student.</p>
<p>According to my friend who is a Peer Advising Fellow and works with an admissions officer (who also is a freshman proctor), that person told me that H is projecting a 6% acceptance rate this year.</p>
<p>this sucks... why couldnt i have applied just last year??? im never going to get in to ANY of them and i want to soooo BAD!</p>
<p>This article gives some statistics.</p>
<p>Bloomberg.com:</a> Worldwide</p>
<p>"I think if two students are almost idential in terms of their stats, the one who can afford to pay full list price will be chosen."</p>
<p>Decentralization is a big part of the reason why this isn't true. The people who make admissions and fin aid decisions bear no responsibility whatsoever for the financial health of the college. That means admissions officers have no incentive to worry about the overall FAS budget. In other words, let's say they admit a poorer class than last year. They tell the budget people that the total cost of fin aid this year is going to go up 10%. It's the BUDGET people's job to swallow that cost and then figure out where the money is going to come from. The admissions people are judged on the quality of the class they recruit, period. So it's not in their interest to pay attention to who can pay.</p>
<p>For those of you who don't regularly read the Wall Street Journal, Harvard's endowment was reported to be $35-36 BILLION, the highest in the US. It earned around 10% last year, I think I recall, or over $3 billion. Income from tuition is therefore a drop in the bucket; Harvard could mandate free tuition for everyone, become truly egalitarian, and feel no pain financially. Furthermore, the Admissions Office is evidently becoming a profit center (27,000 applications adds up to a lot of money from application fees). It seems unlikely that declaring no need for financial aid will help gain admission at Harvard, but I think it definitely helps at most schools.</p>
<p>To get a fee waiver from Harvard is extremely easy. One need only submit a counselor's letter. Application fees make up such a small percentage of the overall operating budget at any admissions office -- or at least, for Harvard, that is the case.</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm sure anyone privy to the budget of a college admission office would not describe application fees as a source of profit.</p>
<p>While Harvard wants many intellegent yet poor kids. But the fact reamins that majority of students comes from a very well to do families and if someone has $10 million they can not brag there that tey are rich. Of course a lot of kids hail from familie with net worth way below this high figures.</p>
<p>I really thought I had seen it all. Top colleges becoming everyone's new best friend (until the rejection/wait list letter arrives and then you can't even get through to a secretary); encouraging everyone to visit, no matter how marginal the chances, emails encouraging applications, etc. But now I hear this:
We all know that Harvard has had, for at least 5 years, more top applicants than they can possibly handle. They could fill 3 freshmen classes with 4.0 plus, talented students. Yet, this year I know at least two students (midwest) WHO WILL NEVER BE ADMITTED (bright but not exceptional in any way) who received letters from Harvard and Princeton encouraging them to apply! These kids were very surprised but of course, are applying and now have their hopes up (after all, they got an unsolicited letter). Harvard must be sending these letters to kids who had above a certain test score. This is a new low for these schools - it is all about them and their numbers. Now Harvard's accept rate can be even more absurd. The LAST thing Harvard needs to do is solicit applications - especially when they know too well what the real chances are.<br>
Does anyone think of the kids at all? Their money, time (interview required!),
emotional investment and complete disappointment later? Enough already. This is beyond crazy. Harvard - get a grip.</p>
<p>I think a high school student with a modicum of research skills can Google up articles about Harvard's recruiting practices, e.g., </p>
<p>Online</a> Extra: How Harvard Gets its Best and Brightest </p>
<p>that put those letters into perspective. Certainly any student with enough arithmetic skill to recognize that 70,000 (the number of recruiting letters in a recent year) is greater than 2,000 (the approximate number of admitted students in a recent year) will know that an applicant to Harvard should also apply to a "safety" college. </p>
<p>Beyond that, the letter should be treated just like any other invitation to apply. If the college is of interest to the student, the student should fill out an application and see what happens. If the student has his or her heart set on a different college, apply to that one. But always apply to a sure-bet safety college if you are applying to any highly selective college.</p>
<p>Speaking as someone who was rejected twice...the kids get over it. Yes, the rejection feels terrible at first. It sucks and it's no fun. But it's not a secret that it's hard to get into Harvard. Any student who has an "emotional investment" in a long-shot school, followed by "complete disappointment" when that ONE school doesn't pan out, will probably benefit from a wake-up call. They'll go to another college, and they'll be fine.</p>
<p>I'd have a problem with Harvard sending recruiting letters to kids whose numbers make it clear that they have no shot. But if kids have the scores to put them in contention, what's wrong with inviting them to throw their hats in the ring? Ultimately, it's not Harvard's job to protect kids from disappointment. If parents want to discourage emotionally fragile kids from applying, that's their business, but I don't see why Harvard has a responsibility to do that.</p>
<p>But you miss my point - Harvard already has too many qualified applicants - why solicit more (especially those who have zero chance)? It can only be to improve their admit numbers. Further evidence that this whole application process is way out of control and being fuled by the colleges desire to increase their applicant pool for no sensible reason. You on't address that point. By the way - are you serious that they send out 70,000 letters? What a joke. Perhaps they should mention that in the letters - full disclosure! But if they did, the recepients would simply laugh and throw the letter away - not their plan. I can assure you the proud mother who told me her daughter had gotten such a letter had NO IDEA
her daughter was one of 70,000 - she actually thought this was something special.</p>
<p>P.S. I didn't say the kid was fragile or wouldn't get over it - she isn't and she will. But she did spend time money and effort she would not have but for the letter. And - she will wait hopefully for that rejection letter.</p>