<p>This sounds reassuringly egalitarian. For the class of 2013, however, prospective students who demonstrated need were subjected to a tougher standard for admission, which favored candidates who didn’t need financial aid. Reed did what was necessary to meet its bottom line–I am not making a judgment here, but pointing out that financial aid at Reed is not the caring, accomodating situation which Diver’s statement (made last year, before this happened) implies.</p>
<p>Here is an excerpt of what President Diver said this year, after the endowment drop:
[Letter</a> from the President of Reed College](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/president/email/june09_email_web.html]Letter”>http://www.reed.edu/president/email/june09_email_web.html)</li>
</ol>
<p>Prairie: Nothing happened that hasn’t previously happened. Even in past years, the Reed website and their FA office was clear that they’re not need-blind, they’re need aware. Parents and applying students were repeatedly told (I think we heard this about 5 times) that when they get to the lower end of the admission pool, so to speak, and they’re looking at two similar candidates, the one without the aid need would be more likely to be admitted. What happened that was different this year was that they were interviewed about the process, and it made it into a big NYT article, and the rest is history. </p>
<p>Students who are strong candidates for Reed get admitted and get their need met. Students who are squeaking in are scrutinized financially. This is absolutely no different that many (probably MOST) LACS. The difference is that Reed is <em>honest</em> about it. I think that kind of honesty <em>is</em> caring, much more so than pretending that it’s not a factor.</p>
<p>Ok–I stand corrected here.</p>
<p>One thing that may impact the 6 year graduation rate is that after 8 semesters of attending college, a student is no longer eligable for Reed Grants. (the limit is twelve semesters for Federal aid). If you are on aid and don’t graduate in the first four years - you may find you can no longer afford it</p>
<p>As a clarification, Reed has no aid requirement to graduate in the first four years. Taking a semester or two off does not reduce or jeopardize a student’s aid. Very, very few students who graduate (even in six years) actually attend Reed for more than 8 or 9 semesters.</p>
<p>…but we were talking about why students don’t graduate.</p>
<p>It can take careful planning to get through any school in 8 semesters - not a lot of wiggle room for things like study abroad or changing majors.</p>
<p>“If you are on aid and don’t graduate in the first four years - you may find you can no longer afford it”</p>
<p>This is the part I found misleading. Taking a semester or two off, resulting in not graduating in the first four years, cannot result in no longer affording it where aid is concerned. Aid is for eight semesters, no matter how many years it takes (within limits I’d have to look up).</p>
<p>Taking one or two semesters off has no impact on the six-year graduation rate (assuming the eight semesters are indeed carefully planned), and does not affect aid. Major changing has a delaying potential at any school.</p>
<p>not meant to be misleading - just poorly phrased.</p>
<p>My point still is - that if you do not graduate within 6 years you won’t show up in the statistic, and that you are only eligible for institutional aid for 8 semesters (I don’t think there is any limit on the number of years it takes to accumulate those eight). Not all schools have an eight semester limit.</p>
<p>Aside from that - I’m not convinced that this is an important statistic - even as a parent making sacrifices to send a student to Reed. I went to a small art school where it was a given that about 1/3 of the freshman class left before graduating for one reason or another. In many cases it was just a poor fit. I know many people with successful lives who took 5 to 10 years to finish an undergraduate degree. Sometimes I think this is even the better way.</p>
<p>Well, I was concerned with this statistic only in the context of what could possibly cause it. I mean, if the stat just reflects that the college wasn’t a “fit” for many students, who would then transfer out, it isn’t an issue (although I still might wonder why many people don’t feel that they belong there). However, if the stat was a reflection of inadequate academic support, a overwhelming workload, or a less academically serious student body, then I think that my concern would be legitimate.</p>
<p>Of these four, I think it’s more caused by lack of fit and heavy work load, and less caused by lack of academic support and fewer serious students.</p>
<p>The year-long freshman Hum 110 course is mentioned 19 times in the current view book, along with the lengthy reading list. This award-winning view book accurately tells the Reed story, I think, and should be required reading cover-to-cover for all who apply, helping to assure a good fit (or not!). The graduating 2009 cohort did not see this version (much better than the previous, IMHO) before they applied. It can be ordered at [Reed</a> College Admission Office](<a href=“http://admission.reed.edu/inform.taf]Reed”>http://admission.reed.edu/inform.taf).</p>
<p>I think that Reed is not looking for cookie cutter perfect students. That means they take some chances on very bright kids who may or may not be ready for the challenge. This makes for a very interesting student body, where some may take time off or change the direction of their studies. This does not mean that Reed is not supportive of their students (unlike in the 70’s). The student support facilities are amazing, in fact. Fitting in may be an issue for some, but I don’t suspect it’s a huge factor. People transfer for a variety of reasons and Reed may be too small for some, too far, too weird, too rigorous, too many requirments, not enough majors etc.</p>