<p>this brings back such interesting memories for me. Four years ago, my D was first deferred then rejected by her dream school. On April 1, when her most competitive schools announced, she was waitlisted across the board. (she had more waitlist offers than many kids have admits, over 1/2 of her applications!). At each of these waitlist schools, kids from her HS class had been accepted, many with far less attractive packages. </p>
<p>You cannot imagine how difficult it was for her to go to school the next morning, knowing she would see the celebrations of all her classmates. </p>
<p>At the time, the head of her school was on the CB with the head of admissions at Harvard, one of the schools that waitlisted her (along with one other). He said to her the next day that if she promised to accept, he would call the head of admissions at Harvard. She said no, that she already made up her mind that U. Chicago, who had accepted her, was where she was bound, and was actually getting excited about it.</p>
<p>Flash forward. She not only has had a great 3-1/2 years at U. Chi, doing well far beyond our expectations, she also bested all of her former classmates in winning a well known national honor. </p>
<p>Her HS advisor was the head of guidance, and even after talking to her "dream" school, could not figure out how they made their decision. </p>
<p>The truth is, we will never know. The admissions process is totally idiosyncratic. Frustrating? Of course. But that is life. And the good news is that almost all kids are quite happy whereever they end up. I know my D has been.</p>
<p>I am not disputing that - just wondering how you know.
I honestly never really thought about it - even sending 4 kids to college.
All my kids needed financial aide and pretty good packages at that - our efc is fairly low. They all have stafford subsidized grants.
I never ever thought it was a factor in admissions at all. Now my oldest was accepted to a great but expensive school many years ago. The only grants they offered were merit aide and she got a nice one - but they still expected her/us to borrow about $20,000/ year to attend. I nixed that one - in a hurry.
My youngest is a senior and applied to 6 schools. She did indeed cast her nets wide and applied to a variety of schools - public and private, in-state and out of state etc.
She was accepted to 5 and was deferred(withdrew) from a 6th. all - with needing financial aide and having 2 other sibs in college next year.
None of the schools were particularly highly selective and she is just an above average hs student - nothing "spectacular".</p>
<p>My concern is - kids/parents will perhaps wrongly assume that it is a huge factor in admissions. If the school thinks you will cost them "too much" in financial aide then they just won't award you enough and you will go else where.</p>
<p>I knew one app was doomed when they wanted the "first six pages of all trust accounts" included in the package. A postal scale would have revealed who was going to need money without going to the trouble of opening the envelope.</p>
<p>^^^^^
lol. I guess I have regular kids who just applied to regular colleges.</p>
<p>One more comment though - on fit. Even if one gets a full-ride - if the student body is living off of trust funds then the fit might not be a good one socially. In our case, driving through the student parking lots and seeing lots of BMW's is not a good sign.</p>
<p>To JHS and others who have explained how need-aware-ness can affect admissions decisions: </p>
<p>I accept the reality that colleges have a limited amount of resources available, and that I agree a decision based on this is not necessarily 'sinister'.</p>
<p>I would like to see admissions offices being more upfront about this when it's an issue, however. 2 ways they could do this:</p>
<p>1) Publish admissions stats that show average SAT/GPA for kids receiving FA vs. kids not receiving FA</p>
<p>2) Be at least <em>somewhat</em> more open in admitting that this was a factor when asked after a dissapointing result (as in Chocolate's case).</p>
<p>I feel the biggest disadvantage our children face in the college admissions process is the information disparity between what colleges demand to know about them compared to what they are willing to reveal about their own practices. </p>
<p>Can someone give me an example of a school that publically admits that it does not have need-blind admissions?</p>
<p>I am fully aware that just because you apply for financial aide and qualify for financial aide does not mean they will give it to you, or give you enough.
I am strictly talking admissions.</p>
<p>Memake, It is not that simple. A student might be receiving a 5,000 need based grant, but be a tuba player. If 2 of last year's tuba players graduated, and they now need 3 new ones, and this student was accepted, that might be the reason. If another applicant is a vocalist and they can find vocalists who do not need financial aid, perhaps the one that does require aid will be rejected. Also, I would think level need matters. I think that a school would rather accept 3 students who need 8k in grants each, than one student who needs 24k in grants. The exception would be if the more needy student had something to offer that the school really wanted that year (ie: the tuba player).</p>
<p>JustAMomof4, many schools do gap, or meet a lot of financial need with loans and work/study. You can look at on average at how a school gaps. We looked at that, and it helped us, but was not completely accurate. We got a better package from a school that meets an ave. of 85% of need than one who meets an ave. of 91% need. It was not even close.</p>
<p>College admissions offices will NEVER be open about how they make their decisions, and will never provide stats of the nature you ask. The reasons are simple:</p>
<p>Admissions offices are both gatekeepers and marketing functions. Their marketing job is to lure enough applicants so that their gatekeeping activities can select a freshman class that will balance the financial books with enough tuition $ while keeping faculty and alumni happy enough. </p>
<p>And do please keep in mind that at most colleges, in terms of strategic direction of the place, faculty and alumni call the shots. (at some state colleges, the legislature gets into the act, too!) Students matter, sure, but mostly because they prime the revenue part of the equation and provide an opportunity for fame and glory to the place, whether through accomplishments while students, or as alums.</p>
<p>Am I cynical in saying this? Perhaps, but also realistic.</p>
<p>JustAMom: Several years ago Brown was not need blind, and that fact was well known. It's changed now, thanks to a new president and years of student protest. A majority of schools are not need blind and the ones that are state so in their materials.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A majority of schools are not need blind and the ones that are state so in their materials.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>show me. provide me a link. I know some schools go to great lengths to state that they are need blind - but just because they do not say they are need blind doesn't mean they aren't. does it?</p>
<p>I don't disagree with you so much, but I'm not certain statistics like that would really help much. First of all, at almost every college lots of kids receive at least some financial aid, so the profile of all kids receiving financial aid is not going to be so different from the profile of the college as a whole. Second, since as we all know SAT scores correlate with income, and since many colleges take socioeconomic factors and race into consideration (in a positive way), that may disguise what is effectively a higher standard for students with significant need. Third, especially at smaller schools, recruited athletes (and students recruited for other qualities not reflected in SATs or GPA) are going to muddy the waters. Finally, hardly any schools disclose any statistics about whom they admit, as opposed to who enrolls, and what you would really want are the admission statistics. But, even then, if a college does what JustAMom suggests -- admit, then award inadequate aid -- the admission statistics will be misleading, too.</p>
<p>By the way, there is nothing about this situation that tells me Chocolate's college was being dishonest at all. Colleges generally want to admit good students with financial need. It may be completely true that Chocolate's daughter was that close, they liked her a lot, they would have expected to admit her, etc. In fact, based on what Chocolate wrote, that all seems likely to be true. Why should they say, "We would have admitted her if she were full pay"? First off, it may not be true, but even if it were, saying that would be a little cruel, and might send a completely misleading message. They don't want the girl's sister not to apply, or the GC to steer students with need away from them. They want those kids to apply; they want to admit them and give them decent FA packages. They probably admitted a bunch of kids like that this year, just not this one.</p>
<p>I join JustAMom in wanting to emphasize that kids with financial need don't have to avoid need-aware colleges. A friend of one of my kids whose need was about as great as imaginable -- he was a long-term foster child, never adopted, never spent more than two years with one family, not a cent to his name -- got his best offer from a need-aware school with a reputation for bad financial aid -- an offer good enough for him to turn down two Ivies that of course gave him their maximum aid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
JustAMomof4, many schools do gap, or meet a lot of financial need with loans and work/study
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of this I am aware - but there is a limit to what students can borrow on their own. very limited and doesn't come close in some states to instate tuition.
work-study - limited again. actually kids who work jobs off campus can make more $$ than those on w-s.</p>
<p>I get how schools cull. just not the outright denial of admission.</p>
<p>JHS, I can't see how you could call Chocolate's D "that close." She was outright rejected. Top 10%, active in all h.s activities, great recs, two campus visits, chats with the admissions department, solid SATs. A classmate who was waitlisted was ranked a decile lower & had no activities. Scholarships offered by her other choices also would indicate a desirable candidate for a school that was willing to provide some cash. But this school wasn't, so they rejected her. I think it is clearly all about the money.</p>
<p>Chocolate, I hope she has great visits at the schools who really want her & has a great college experience.</p>
<p>It seems to me we have a lot more information available about <em>enrolled</em> students now than we did 20+ years ago, and I believe that if the market demands it, we will have more information available about admission policies and <em>admitted</em> students in the future than we have now. </p>
<p>I believe many schools will benefit from being forced to figure out and be more forthcoming about who they are. They will still be marketing themselves to a broad swath (and then choosing an admitted group based on their preferences), but they will also benefit from more focus in their marketing: No principle at CC is holier than 'fit'. Students and schools both benefit from improved fit, and one way you get improved fit is through wider information dissemination. My youngest child will be applying to colleges in 4 years, and I hope I will be happier about available info to students choosing colleges by then!</p>
<p>You'll rarely get a more specific response to "Why didn't Student X gain admission?" That's because there usually isn't a more specific reason. They don't write into every file, "Oh, we didn't accept Student X because Student Y had a more interesting essay." Or "Student X's essay was lousy - rejected." And the person you get on the phone may not even have been one that reviewed the file.</p>
<p>They also don't want an argument from the GC or the parent, saying, "Oh, yes it was a good essay. Review her file again." Generic responses about the strength of the pool avoid any discussion of the merits of a particular student. They're not going to convince the person calling that they were right in the rejection; the person calling is not going to convince them that they were wrong.</p>
<p>One possible factor in Chocolate's D's situation could have been that the rejecting school was aware of her D's applications to its competitor schools. Knowing the kind of students they liked and judging her D would likely receive good offers from them, they might have chosen to avoid a FA bidding war.</p>
<p>A list of 100% need-meeting schools (substantially overlapping those above)
can be found in various places on the Web and can be generated at search sites (like USNWR) where FA % averages can be listed. Those covering 100% should, of course, list as 100%.</p>
<p>Colleges have quotas. They call it DIVERSITY. Chocolate's daughter was rejected for reasons that have nothing to do with grades. When you go on a school's campus and you see students "from all over," that's not by accident, it's by design. If you apply EA, that can be a plus because you may fit early the school's quota for Asian students, Jews, or stated another way, if you're the first albino Italian dwarf from Wyoming to apply, you're IN; every college begs to see an applicant from North Dakota. Plus, a 2004 Princeton study indicated that elite schools (can the rest be far behind?) give Hispanic students an extra 185 SAT points and blacks get another 230. Also, a college stands to make more money from a marginal WEALTHY student than from a brilliant POOR student. Colleges do the math. Colleges are not institutions of higher learning, they're a business where the school is a brand name, professors are employees, parents are customers, students are consumers, and a degree is your receipt.</p>