<p>One other thing to consider when it comes to waitlist is by the time adcoms are done with RD, they are tired, they want to fill the class and move on (vacation?). Applicants that could or would commit quickly will have a preference. I gave the same strategy and message to a friend's daughter at a public school. She also got off all 3 waitlisted schools - all of them top 20 schools.</p>
<p>I view it as completely meaningless wheather or not you check off "will apply for financial aid" on the application. FAFSA seminar at our school told us everyone should apply for aid even if you think you can't get it. ADCOM's know this is told to most if not everyone and they can certainly read a tax return. They can quite easily figure out if you could be a full pay and admit the student with that in mind, even if you told them you are applying for aid. Applying for aid and needing aid are two different things. And what are we talking about here. A few borderline students that may get an admit or wait with the idea they can pay full freight?</p>
<p>If you check off not applying for aid, you do not need to supply your tax return. Waitlist is just an example, it applies to RDs also. No school is truly need blind.</p>
<p>I am in the camp of believing even the need "blindest" schools will end up with more full pays this year by design.</p>
<p>What I've been told by several good counselors is the opposite of what Chelsea0011 has been told, I would never apply for aid if I knew I wouldn't qualify. It's a big leap of faith to believe they'll parse the situation and take my kid because she only needs a little aid. In fact, if it were close and I could afford to pay in full, I wouldn't apply.</p>
<p>Our GC has also told us the opposite of what chelsea0011's GC has said.</p>
<p>I have always been suspicious of the "applying for financial aid" check off box. If a school truly truly is completely need blind, why would they ask for that on the application? And every school D applied to (except for MIT) did not opt to not require that info on the application even though each of them have the ability to customize the application to their needed information. </p>
<p>With MIT, a location to indicate "applying for FA" was not found. In the process, D was contacted two weeks ago requesting that she finally submit her FA documents. She wrote back stating that she was applying w/o filing for FA.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>In the process, D was contacted two weeks ago requesting that she finally submit her FA documents. She wrote back stating that she was applying w/o filing for FA.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This happened to my D at another college and she ended up with an acceptance from that college. Coincidence????</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I can't help thinking that now, the top colleges are going to be even more homogeneous.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't think so. Top colleges, even though they say that they are need-blind, seem to always end up with about 50% full pay kids. Funny how they manage that, year in and year out...</p>
<p>Duh! Maybe because they aren't really need-blind? There's no group of well-trained, much experienced professionals that would come up with that percentage year after year after year in a blind situation?</p>
<p>Why is it that when a college pres. says they want to become more "economically diverse", those "need-blind" admissions staff always come up with more needy kids?</p>
<p>It's a lie, pure and simple. When a reporter got to sit in on the admissions decisions at Williams, he watched as the admissions director actually counted the "socio-ecs".</p>
<p>
[quote]
"need-blind"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I always wondered if it really meant blind to anything other than what the school needed to make things work out.</p>
<p>"It's a lie, pure and simple. When a reporter got to sit in on the admissions decisions at Williams, he watched as the admissions director actually counted the "socio-ecs"."</p>
<p>What are you referring to? Did I miss something earlier in this thread? I am not aware of the details.</p>
<p>Article in the Williams Alumni Magazine.</p>
<p>So this was a hard copy document with no link on the net?</p>
<p>As the director counted the "socio-ecs", what was his response and what did he do with the information? Sorry that I am being dense.</p>
<p>And here I assumed it was ALWAYS a good time to be a smart, rich, kid.</p>
<p>All jokes aside, when colleges were flush they were taking fewer rich kids. I think that trend is about to change for awhile.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think so. Top colleges, even though they say that they are need-blind, seem to always end up with about 50% full pay kids. Funny how they manage that, year in and year out...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Need blind is different from natural selection. They can be need blind and only have enough money to offer half the class financial aid. By natural selection (or capitalism), the remaining students have to be full pay kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And here I assumed it was ALWAYS a good time to be a smart, rich, kid.
[/quote]
Good point, I'd forgotten about that</p>
<p>Could we start seeing colleges stay full-need but publicly become NOT need-blind, and only let in the kids they feel are worth paying for? I'm thinking something like the current situation at many colleges for international applicants. Could be a new way to boost yield rates and keep need met % up.</p>
<p>It's not that hard to figure out who gets aid purely based on zipcode (roughly, of course there are exceptions)...Living in certain areas of NY (LI, NYC) and CA are much more expensive, and incomes are higher...very few people get aid. Conversely, some areas are much cheaper to live in, lower incomes, and many more people get aid.</p>
<p>I'd rather be smart than rich. Maybe I'm weird though.</p>