<p>In another thread, there is a discussion of schools that are "need-blind" for admissions and others that are "need-aware" or "need-sensitive." Here's a quote from another poster: "Those right on the line of acceptance/rejection are the ones whose applications become need-sensitive."</p>
<p>This implies--I'm sure correctly--that schools with a limited about of aid money try to use it wisely, i.e. by spending it on the kids they really want, getting two desirable but less needy kids as opposed to one more needy kid, etc. </p>
<p>But what's the alternative to this? Are there any schools that try to conserve the aid money by NOT spending it, i.e. by trying to get as many full-pay students as possible? I've never heard of this, and assuming it doesn't happen, or is very rare, it seems to me that the "need-awareness" of any school is likely to be pretty directly proportional to how much money they have available to spend on aid.</p>
<p>There isn't a need-blind school in the country. The only question is the degree to which they use need in making decisions.</p>
<p>Some of the aggregate "need-based" decisions among "need-blind" schools have to do with the need to maintain prestige/ensure yield. It costs less to provide small scholarships to five individuals whose families make $170k a year than to support one Pell Grant recipient. Without those scholarships, at least some of those five might be tempted to accept larger offers at lower ranked schools (where they would get equally fine educations, if not better ones). And accepting the five supports ongoing relationships with GCs, and communities containing wealthier future applicants. Accepting a Pell Grant student raises the risks of a future dropout (not for academic, but for financial reasons - a change in their family status might result in the student needing to return home.</p>
<p>It's not a matter of "not spending". There isn't a school in the country without a financial aid budget, and college admissions officers are well-trained professionals skilled in the art of enrollment management, and are expected to use thier budgets wisely and well.</p>
<p>mini, do you have any FACTS to back-up the amazing opinion that Pell Grant students are losers (i.e., likely dropouts)? Here's a fact for you: high-profile schools composed of brilliant faculty & who are highly protective of their visibility, ranking, public perception, are very careful about WHICH Pell Grantees they admit. Those students need to have already demonstrated a track record of success and the UN-likeihood of dropping out before a Reach school will extend an offer.</p>
<p>You continue to operate on & publish stubborn stereotypes that simply do not accord with the calculated decisions of the admissions committees at the most demanding of private colleges. Give it up already.</p>
<p>Not just academically are they not necessarily "likely dropouts," but economically as well. Very few Pell Grantees TO REACH SCHOOLS are the kinds that "need to return home to support the family." That's actually a very different culture from the culture of the poor but brilliant applicant to a reach school. In the latter case, the parents are much more likely NOT to assume "support of the family" (employment) as even in the mix for the next 4 years. If the student has been able to show academic promise during high school on a level to earn visibility to an admissions committee, it is highly unlikely that that student has had to earn significant money during high school, for example. The time would not allow for that, and the family has either come to terms with that absence of income (for a greater good), or has actively promoted education over employment, prior to college. When it comes to reach privates, you really don't know what you're talking about, but you keep advertising this on CC nevertheless.</p>
<p>Applicants to reach publics or to non-reach privates are another matter.</p>
<p>I have posted Gordon Winston's and Cappy Hill's study on the availability of lowi-income students who meet the qualifications of "prestige colleges" until I'm blue in the fingers. If you aren't willing to read them, or to do your own homework, you have only yourself to blame.</p>
<p>If facts bother you, it is a good idea to make believe that they haven't been made available.</p>
<p>But if reading hurts your eyes, the simplest proof is in the actual behavior of prestige colleges, beginning with your s'. Whenever a school makes a policy decision that they would like to have more low-income students, they "magically" appear, even though the school is "need-blind". It's an amazing trick!</p>
<p>It's probably not a coincidence that my son got in to all 10 schools he applied to. He delivered the goods, but he also didn't apply for FA. We will never know.</p>
<p>It does sound cynical, but I agree with Mini. Why else would they want to know the level of education of parents, their jobs, siblings level of education, etc. Ahh, diversity! </p>
<p>I know I often thought my DD should make up unusual careers for us that wouldn't give a clue about our income. Chimney sweeps? That would have had them guessing!</p>
<p>Ephiphany, I must disagree with you on this comment. I work as a college counselor at a high school where all students are Pell grant eligible. We get quite a few kids into the most selective schools, and every year many either turn down the offer due to family considerations, or return home because of them. Additionally, for many (not all, of course) students in the Pell Grant eligibility range, there is a good deal of culture shock to find oneself suddenly thrust into a world where your fellow classmates spend more on a spring break trip than your family makes in a month. Even the most talented and brilliant students can struggle when faced with that sort of culture shock. By the way, a great many of my students who go on to these colleges do indeed have to worry about helping the family make ends meet, and this is a major reason why many opt to stay closer than home, even after they get offers from "top" colleges. </p>
<p>I also have to agree with Mini -- colleges know exactly where to recruit to build up their low income ranks, and they do so quite handily when called to by alumni or say a congressional commission. Which begs the question: if they are truly "need blind" why are they giving "preference" to needy students in the first place? If even SOME students are recruited and accepted because they HAVE need, that is no longer a "need blind" institution in the sense of "we don't pay attention at ALL to need."</p>
<p>And, as Mini has pointed out in the past, if colleges were truly need blind, their financial aid budgets would swing wildly from year to year. They don't. That's because colleges colleges use sophisticated marketing models to target potential applicants. They do know which zip codes and high schools are likely to have more "full pay" or "almost full pay" students, and those generally get a fair amount of attention from even the most selective schools. Then, they round things out, for publicity's sake, by recruiting at high schools like mine, where they know they'll find a solid core of fairly well-prepared students. Programs like Questbridge are another "targeting" for low income kids. But, again, if you are truly "need blind" why do you need programs like Questbridge --- "need blind" implies you NEVER worry about family income in making admissions decisions, right?</p>
<p>I think need-blind as it's been traditionally used in admissions circles meant that no student would be denied admission because of inability to pay (primarily at colleges that promise to meet full calculated need). Now that there's increased attention to enrolling lower income and first generation students, some "need-blind" schools do target low-income kids in recruiting and admissions, but I'm sure that they see that as true to the original spirit of need-blindness, if not to it's literal meaning.</p>
<p>Agree with MarathonMan as to the meaning of the term need-blind. I take to mean as it pertains to an individual application. </p>
<p>However, I also agree with mini and Carolyn that the idea that this happens in a vacuum is a smoke screen and a facade.</p>
<p>I also think that some needy middle class keeps (business losses, job losses etc.) are shoved aside for URM's who are visible and necessary for schools. Not to target specific schools here (though I have one in mind), I'm sure school Z thinks, well we can have a boring white kid who fell on bad luck or a kid from the projects for the same money and point to our diversity. I'm pretty sure the URM wins the contest. And not a bad thing at all IMO. Just agreeing about the hypocrisy of the process.</p>
<p>And all I can say is, thank god my kids got into the schools they wanted and enough money to attend. Seems amazing.</p>
<p>I read an article with a dean of admissions at a highly selective LAC. He said, "Needs-blind doesn't mean we're actually blind. It means being disadvanged won't disadvantage you in the admissions process."</p>
<p>My kid is a "boring white kid" with very high financial need (but without the bragging rights of being low-income enough for a Pell Grant), and he got into a very expensive, generous school. The fact that he was going to need substantial aid was evident in several direct and indirect ways in his application, and true to their word, it did not disadvantage him and he was accepted. I didn't know whether his low resources would be seen as a plus or a minus, but there was no point pretending our situation was anything other than what it actually is. If it was going to be an issue for them, then it's their call to make... fortunately, they accpeted him. He's a very hard-working and successful student with scores right in range with what they're looking for, but he's not freaky-smart with near perfect SATs or anything.</p>
<p>ditto, mythmom. The school that accepted my son was both "needs blind" and a "meets 100% of need." In fact, although he got accepted ED, there were no schools on his RD list that weren't both. It just had to be that way for us.</p>
<p>I suppose it's possible that at the most selective schools, they can also predict that a substantial percentage of their most qualified applicants (at least with respect to grades and scores) will have little or no need. That would help them set their financial aid budget, even if--in theory--they would never reject anybody for financial reasons.</p>
<p>'rentof2 - it all worked out well for DD as well. Accepted at all schools that were "need blind" and "meets 100% of need" even though we weren't chimney sweeps. I actually think she was in better shape because she was a candidate for more selective schools. At the time she was applying, I did find it interesting that she had to ask us about OUR academic credentials. Thank goodness she didn't ask me for my undergraduate gpa.</p>
<p>Wow! I'm impressed. Can't claim all schools, but enough that kids had a choice of three or four really special places. Yes, getting into those schools if there is economic need is a form of merit scholarship. We got less money at lesser schools, even with merit grants. And wait listing at many need-sensitive schools.</p>
<p>twinmom, why is this especially interesting? I'd really like to know. And strange, but Vassar's award to S was terrible. Literally half of Williams'. I know you said your S's was excellent. DS insisted they made a mistake. Probably did. We didn't pursue it find out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, as Mini has pointed out in the past, if colleges were truly need blind, their financial aid budgets would swing wildly from year to year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not a proof of the proposition under dispute here.</p>
<p>mythmom, I can only speculate, but is it possible that Vassar calculated its award to your son without factoring in the 2nd child (your daughter) in college?</p>
<p>I found that my d's awards were somewhat confusing because of that factor. I know that the initial award that Barnard sent me calculated her Pell grant with the assumption that her brother was in college, but calculated the Barnard grant with the assumption that she was the only one attending school -- I am glad I called to inquire, because they told me that the Barnard grant would be increased once they received proof of enrollment and cost of attendance from my son's college in the fall. </p>
<p>I know I received paperwork from one college (Fordham) requesting proof of enrollment for my son, but no such request from another (Chicago). Both the Chicago/Fordham offers were significantly weaker than the Barnard offer... but I never got around to asking about how they were calculated because Barnard was then my d's top choice of the 3.</p>
<p>Anyway -- I hope that Williams was your son's top choice and he didn't turn down Vassar merely because of the award. Your son was probably on the right track in labeling the award a "mistake" -- though I know that in my case it was not so much a "mistake" but rather a policy of waiting for specific documentation. Like you, I'll never know whether the awards from the other colleges would have improved with more information.</p>