Stanford and Yale SCEA

Parents Forum
41

<p>
[quote]
The schools insist all over the place that they are need blind.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Keep in mind that even schools with huge ehdowments where they can theoretically allow everyone to attend for free, still have financial aid budgets.</p>

<p>The only thing that need blind in the admissions process really means that the fact you need aid (whether it is $1 or the full cost of attendance) will not be held against you. When making admissions decisions, the admissions committee does not know how much money you need. </p>

<p>At schools that are need aware or need senistive, when choosing between 2 similiarly qualified applicants, the tip would probably got to the student that "needs" less of the schools resources. Most of the time this happens at the end of the admissions cycle when they are reaching the end of their budgets.</p>

42

<p>Sybbie,</p>

<p>You are indeed correct about decision making in need blind schools. Except...</p>

<p>...these same schools also have chosen to use admissions criteria that almost force them to limit the potential pool of needy students. To use just one example, when has anyone heard of giving a part time after school job as much weight as an EC? Or another - who from a needy background will even have the luxury of attending a school that has a lacrosse team, or field hockey?</p>

43

<p>nmd:</p>

<p>Don't forget the main criteria used by highly selective schools for admissions: transcript (primarily) and test scores (secondarily). AP/IB/honors courses are few and far between at many schools in low income neighborhoods; and, of course, test scores are highly correlated with income (and parental education).</p>

44

<p>blue,</p>

<p>Agreed. All the more explanation for how the deck is stacked against certain groups. especially low income.</p>

45

<p>Hmmm. . . this is really interesting having no hope of financial aid and feeling all the publicity of these schools is aimed at bringing in financial aid students. It's felt like a huge weight against our kids. Maybe an actual help? How strange -- not at all our perception. Maybe it's really and truly neutral, like they keep telling us.</p>

46

<p>mammall - I'm not sure if I believe this, but according to Michele Hernandez in A is for Admission, checking the financial aid box is a plus. But she also says not to reveal if you have a fancy sounding name that ends in III or IV, so I take it with a grain of salt. Since the application reveals parents' jobs and educational backgrounds, I doubt the financial aid box makes a difference either way - admissions officers have what they need if they want to be influenced by socioeconomic profile.</p>

<p>Here's a slightly off-topic question: logistically, how does a financial aid office make the tentative aid calculation for an ED applicant? Do they wait for the admissions folks to say "crunch the numbers on these candidates that we're going to accept", or do they just do it for every applicant? Seems like a lot of work to do for the vast majority of students who will be deferred or rejected.</p>

47

<p>At most of the elite schools, FA and admissions are located in different offices. Admissions will send the information to FA a tentative listing of all of the students that they are planning to accept and FA packages are put together for those students (so no I don't think that FA offices have the time or the resources to look at every single applicant). There are also a number of files that are selected at random to their audit and verification process and the FA office must also look at those students (which can sometimes lead a student to beleive that the FA office contacted them so an admission must be forthcoming).</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
all the publicity of these schools...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Publicity is just that PR, or as I cynically like to call it 'spin'. The highly selectve colleges in the catchment area of the NYTimes need to appear more egalitarian, so they do appear more egalitarian. Do they give big admissions tips to low income & first generation kids, you bet. Do they receive a lot of applications from those types of kids, doubtful. </p>

<p>As others have noted, the full pay contingent varies little from year to year, and over many years; that HAS to be by design.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
To use just one example, when has anyone heard of giving a part time after school job as much weight as an EC? Or another - who from a needy background will even have the luxury of attending a school that has a lacrosse team, or field hockey?

[/quote]
My kid's public high school had plenty of "needy" kids, also a lacrosse team. My son got into a great private school with not much more in the way of EC's than a job bagging groceries, and one working at Target. (Granted, he had good test scores/rank/grades). I've heard that admissions officers like real work experience.</p>

50

<p>anxiousmom,</p>

<p>with all due respect, I doubt very much that you live in a school service zone or district with the demographics I'm referring to. I also doubt that many of the "needy" kids in your local public HS are venturing out of Texas. And the topic that led to this discussion was schools that meet all financial need. Is your son attending one of those?</p>

51

<p>After going through this process with two kids, I have to say that I am sure finances did play a part at schools that say they don't. Have no other explanation for the fact that both kids got into "reaches" but not "matches."</p>

<p>No harm, no foul for us because they are both attending their #1 schools and Williams has just gone loan free, a little perk for us that we didn't predict last year.</p>

52

<p>It seems to me that the whole financial aid equation has been turned on its ear. The most selective colleges are now seeking low income students, not systematically avoiding them. </p>

<p>Adcoms may be need blind in the sense that they don't see whether or not you've checked the little box, but they know how to read the clues. And at all of the top schools, low income is a demographic percentage that the admissions committee needs to fulfill. So no, the deck is not stacked against high achieving, low income kids. Just the opposite, really. </p>

<p>Same applies to fullpay applicants. Of course the colleges need tuition income to maintain their budgets and they can make an educated guess from the personal information as to which applicatants will be likely to be able to pay their own way. </p>

<p>It's the middle income kids and families that are getting the squeeze.</p>

53

<br>


<br>

<p>I think the discussion of admissions need to be separated from the discussion of financial aid.</p>

<p>A student with a stellar record is more likely to be found among affluent and middle class families because of income, residence and parental education than to be found among low income families. Stellar students have more likelihood to be admitted than students with so-so records. But stellar students whose families do not qualify for financial aid will not receive financial aid from colleges that offer only need-based aid--such as the Ivies. They are, however, likely to receive merit aid from colleges that do offer merit aid. So they and their families must make a decision as to whether to attend the top college or another college that gives better aid. Several years ago, Evil Robot was admitted early at Yale, his top choice but decided to attend Vanderbilt over Yale for purely financial reasons. </p>

<p>The middle income kids that are getting the squeeze at the highly selective colleges are those who are solid but not stellar and do not qualify for either need-based aid or merit aid at the top universities. My understanding, however, is that many of these students could qualify for merit aid at many colleges.</p>

54

<p>Reviving this thread, because Georgetown released its early application numbers -- up 31%, or about 1,400 applications. I'm not certain what that means for the other EA schools, because there are some factors unique to Georgetown that may be at work, like last year's NCAA basketball tournament. Also, one might expect that, for differing reasons, Georgetown would be especially attractive to students who like Harvard (similar kind of neighborhood), Princeton (obvious choice for those interested in the Wilson School, preppiness), and UVa (proximity, preppiness).</p>

<p>Interestingly, Georgetown was predicting a net increase of about 2,000 in total applications this year based primarily on the basketball tournament. This may indicate that prediction was low. However, it may also confirm what I speculated above re the effect of H and P changes on other EA schools: a significant increase in early applications, but no significant effect on total applications.</p>

55

<p>Well if first-hand annecdotal evidence is worth anything I know a family who has a child applying EA at Georgetown. They are well within the need based parameters, discovered this, and are going for it. I can't help but feel a bit sad that my own child must weigh costs of tuition. We earn too much for need-based aid. She will not be applying there EA. She is focussed on merit scholarship applications and public U's that are well-ranked and reward NMSFs. Can't help mentioning that her stats are far and away beyond her friend's who is applying to Georgetown EA. Was this the intent of these policies? That child's parents are just as educated as my H and me. They simply don't earn the same income for various reasons, mostly the fact that mom has chosen not to maintain her professional career and dad was the less marketable of the two. It feels a bit like disdain for the bougeoise (sp? sorry too tired to look it up) -- those of us who have managed to rise somewhat financially, but not enough to make serious contributions to endowments find our kids left out of the party. I know, I know. Many on here will set me straight about my self-pity. Still, I hope these schools understand the consequences of their policies. I truly believe they will end up with less talented scholars by leaving the doughnut hole of upper middle class kids out in the cold financially.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
Well if first-hand annecdotal evidence is worth anything I know a family who has a child applying EA at Georgetown. They are well within the need based parameters, discovered this, and are going for it. I can't help but feel a bit sad that my own child must weigh costs of tuition. We earn too much for need-based aid. She will not be applying there EA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Georgetown is restrictive EA in the sense that you cannot apply EA at Georgetown and ED at another school (because if you are admitted ED at the other school, you must withdraw your application). However, you can apply EA at Georgetown while applying EA/ rolling admissions at other schools . </p>

<p>Gerogetown states:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Students applying to Georgetown under our Early Action program may not concurrently apply to a binding Early Decision program. Georgetown does give students the option to apply both under our Early Action program and under other schools' Early Action programs. Please be sure to research the guidelines of all schools to which you are applying; not all Early Action programs will allow multiple Early Action applications. </p>

<p>Georgetown</a> University- Office of Undergraduate Admissions</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At many schools you can apply both ED and EA with the understanding that if you are admitted ED, you must withdraw all other applications.</p>

<p>You can apply EA at multiple schools. However, you can only apply ED to one school.</p>

<p>*Early Decision * requires that applicants commit to attend if admitted in December. Due to the binding nature of Early Decision, the candidate must therefore withdraw applications made to any other schools. </p>

<p>The exception of Stanford and Yale which are restrictive (single Choice Early Action) in the sense that if you apply EA you can not apply to any other school's early plan- EA or ED).</p>

<p>Single-Choice Early Action restricts applicants from applying to any other school's Early programs; however, these applicants may apply to other schools under the Regular Decision program. Applicants admitted in December under Single-Choice Early Action have until May 1 to decide whether to attend. </p>

<p>There is no harm in applying EA because it is non-binding. </p>

<p>You still have until May 1 (the common response date) to decide whether or not you want to attend the EA school.</p>

<p>You still have the opportunity to apply to other schools.</p>

<p>You still have the opportuntity to compare FA offers (or merit offers). In hindsight, you D could have applied EA to Georgetown provided she was not applying ED or SCEA anywhere else.</p>

57

<p>Sybbie, if I understood mammall correctly, she was not saying that her daughter failed to apply EA to Georgetown because she would be bound to attend if accepted, and thus be unable to compare financial aid offers. She was saying that her daughter would not apply to Georgetown at all (and maybe not to any need-only school) because she would not qualify for need-based financial aid, but she "needs" financial aid in the form of merit scholarships or lower cost public tuition.</p>

<p>The relevance of Georgetown to this thread was that kids who would otherwise have applied early to H or P (or UVa) have essentially four choices: apply SCEA to Y or S; apply EA to one or more of the selective EA schools like Georgetown, Cal Tech, MIT, Chicago; apply ED somewhere; or do nothing. It's somewhat interesting to speculate on how many of the 7,000 or so putative early applicants to H or P will do which of the four (or, really which of the two, since I suspect few will go with the last two choices). Large EA numbers for Georgetown may mean slightly lower than expected increases at Yale and Stanford, and maybe higher increases at a place like Chicago. But it's not that simple.</p>

58

<p>J,</p>

<p>You know I love reading your post because you always have something good to say (and I always learn something from you), but why do have to throw a logic reasoning question at us ;) ? Better yet, why is Cherchez La Femme running through my head?</p>

59

<br>


<br>

<p>Why not? One child in college: $50k per year. That still leaves $90k after tax. More than twice the national average. I can't bring myself to feel sorry for folks in that tax bracket (which happens to be mine).</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
Do they honestly think a family earning $215K per year -- $140K after taxes -- should put $200k into the education of each of their children, just for undergraduate school?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Whether the parents SHOULD pay that includes consideration of the choice of the child not going to college at all. But a family with that kind of income is certainly better able to pay list price at a top college than at least 95 percent of the United States population, and close to 99 percent of the world population. Need-based financial aid will go first to those who, um, have financial need. Merit-based scholarships go first to those who are deemed by a particular college to have "merit," which can consist of various desirable characteristics. But no child from a family with the mentioned level of income will lack for affordable choices of colleges.</p>