BU has managed to completely re-create their image in a relatively short period of time.
The question is partially whether they are just “having a moment” or are they really entering the realm of T30ish schools.
In perspective, 1430 is 95th percentile. That’s about 75,000 students. Throw in equivalent ACT… talking about maybe 100,000-125,000 students total in that range.
So they are telling an awful lot of students, “we don’t even want to know your scores.”
They just want to know the bank balance since well over half don’t get a nickel of aid…but they are need blind…allegedly :). Many top private (and need blind schools) seem to get majority full pay - probably because their calculation of need may not work for the applicant or perhaps their applicant base trends wealthy.
Or… they have a “blind” way of making sure they admit a lot of wealthy students… Such as favoring very high standardized tests, with the full knowledge that they are biased in favor of the wealthy.
A 1500 tells them that there is an excellent chance you’re full pay, or very close to it.
Certain types of extracurriculars tell them that you’re full pay.
Other ways of skewing the applicant and admit pool to high SES is to require more application items (including stuff not completely under the applicant’s control like recommendations), so that students who are advised by parents who went to college and dedicated college counselors can ensure that they get them done by the deadline, and requiring CSS Profile with Noncustodial Profile to weed out probably half of the financial aid seeking students (who have uncooperative divorced parents).
This is what surprised me too. I get that the schools can use non-financial data to assess whether a candidate is full pay. But what I wouldn’t give to know the percentage of non-full pay applicants at these schools.
I guess the applicant pool skews so wealthy that ~50% of applicants are full pay even at the most expensive schools.
Back then I also don’t know if kids took the test multiple times. I only took it once. Nor did they have a superscore policy.
So stupid question- is the median always going to be halfway between the middle 50? Or is it more to do with the distribution of scores that fall within the top 50 range?
Because usually all you have is the top 50 range unless you email all the schools on your list.
The school common data set. Why I made that statement. Tufts (627 of 1805 first year last year). Some of the NE LACs etc and I’m sure many more.
BU was 1602 of 4010 first year with 95% of need met reported - not sure how that calculates when they meet 100% of need.
Puts the entire meets need into another perspective. Of course tufts is need aware. So that’s one place they are different. Bu is need blind.
Apologies - I may have not been clear. I am not at all debating the fact that need blind schools are ~50% full pay. I have looked at the CDS data and it’s clear that half the students are full pay at these places.
My question is: do we actually believe that ~50% of applicants are full pay? I would love to see that data, but we of course never will.
Exactly. BU is an extreme case. Do we actually believe that 60% of BU’s applicants are full pay, keeping in mind that BU’s total COA is ~$83k?
I suppose it’s possible (only wealthy families apply to college, etc.), but seems a bit high to me.
It looks like they only meet full need for US citizens or permanent residents.
Good catch
Yes I do believe that (full pay #s) bcuz they reported that. How athletes figure in not sure.
They are not even close to the most one sided.
I wonder how the relationships develop on campus because in theory a full pay will have far more funds to go do things than a meets need student so I wonder if there’s ‘segregation’ on campus. But that happens …Greek life…society etc
I believe the full pay numbers that they are reporting on enrolled. I am more skeptical regarding the practical effects of “need blind.” My hypothesis would be that “full pay” candidates get accepted at “need blind” schools at a higher rate than “non-full-pay” candidates. But maybe everyone knows that and it is a given.
Median will always be roughly in the middle of the middle 50. Yes, it could be off by a few points if the distribution is wacky.
But if the mid 50 is 1350-1450, you can reliably conclude that the absolute median is between 1390 and 1410. (So if it’s 1,000 students in the mid 50, it’s pretty unlikely that 900 of them are 1440-1450, while only 100 are 1350-1430).
Remember – First, international students are largely full pay. BU is fully 25% international. (My daughter is doing a summer program there now, and she is telling me most of her new friends are international… Venezuela, Russia).
So… take that 1/4th off the top.
So that means roughly about 45% of the American students are full pay.
Second, of course, it’s how they computer financial need. There are lots of families who don’t qualify as “need” who really would have difficulty paying $83k. They may REALLY be stretching to pay the tuition (gifts from grandparents, extra equity from the home).
But yes, they implicitly (they would never admit it) skew the admission to favor the wealthy, so that they do get a disproportionate number of admittances who can afford full pay.
I have never seen school level data on this, or heard an AO talk about it. We do know college applicants skew relatively more affluent, there are many resources for that data.
Common app data thru March 15 show 56% of applicants were from the highest income zip codes. (31% of the US population resides in these zipcodes/Quintile 5). Of course just because someone lives in the highest income zip code does not mean they are full pay/don’t need financial aid. Note that Common app does not represent the full set of college applicants either.
I believe it. For the top schools? Of course I live on the CC and you either have huge need or more likely no cost constraints.
Bu = a ton of money. But people value education and moreso a name.
It doesn’t do the school any good to publish low #s so it’s totally believable.
I completely believe the enrollment numbers. My hypothesis is that these enrollment numbers basically prove that schools are not actually “need blind” in practice because full pay students do not make up ~50% of the applicants.
Correct. When only 10% of the country makes $200k+ (just picking an arbitrary number) I am skeptical that ~50% of college applications to “need blind” schools are coming from that 10% of the population. It is absolutely possible - and I admit I may be 100% wrong on this. It just seems unlikely. But the world will never know (to steal from an old Tootsie Pop commercial).
Full pay parents can purchase opportunities (better public or private schools, greater extracurricular opportunities, test preparation) that allow their kids to have better college admission credentials.
Colleges can be need blind for individual applicants in admissions, while tipping their overall admission class toward full pay by favoring correlates of full pay like preppy sports, high SES high schools, legacy, etc… They can also make the application process so that it raises barriers against low SES applicants (more application items that low SES applicants may not hear about from overburdened counselors or non-college-graduate parents, CSS Noncustodial Profile to eliminate financially needy students with uncooperative divorced parents).
I guess my main point is that if schools are actually doing this, then it’s not really “need blind” at all (despite what their marketing materials say).
