<p>Are any of the top 20 schools NOT need blind?</p>
<p>Do you want to define "top 20" so we can all be on the same page; I hope you're not a U.S. News and World Report acolyte.</p>
<p>I think the following are need-blind:</p>
<p>Amherst College
Boston College
Bowdoin College
Claremont McKenna College
Columbia University
Cornell University
Davidson College
Duke University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Haverford College
Macalester College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Middlebury College
Northwestern University
Pomona College
Rice University
Stanford University
Swarthmore College
University of Chicago
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
Vanderbilt University
Wake Forest University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
Williams College
Yale University</p>
<p>does need blind mean that the college doesn't give a boost to poor kids or does it mean that poor kids get no boost? i mean does it help or hurt kids who need financial aid?</p>
<p>what is need-blind?</p>
<p>Need blind means the college won't figure financial status into admissions decisions. In other words, a person who needs a full ride has an equal chance of getting in as does someone who needs no financial aid.</p>
<p>if you read the text of the article cited (dated 2001), you'll see that this is NOT a list of need-blind colleges (e.g., they mention that Harvard and Princeton, which are need-blind, are not on this list). I'd recommend anyone interested go back and read the article, then do a bit of research on changes that have occurred since 2001.</p>
<p>I also see Dartmouth is not on the list and I was told that they were need blind. perhaps a clearer way of asking is as follows: Using the USN&World Report rankings, are there any schools on their lists (LAC's or Universities) that are NOT need blind? That would help a great deal.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that just because a college is need-blind does not mean it will meet your full financial need. Indeed, the list of need-blind colleges is far longer than the list of colleges that are need-blind and meet full need. </p>
<p>I know Johns Hopkins and WUStL (with a $4 billion endowment, it should be!!!) are not need-blind; there's probably several more. Don't worry about it too much- JHU claims that financial aid only affects about 5% of the applicant pool (probably the ones teetering on the edge between acceptance and rejection).</p>
<p>JOHNROSS, thanks for clarifying. Sorry I teased about the US News and World Report ratings -- that's as good as any way to come up with a hypothetical list. I resist it because I have a soft spot for Reed College, which USNWR rates as #47 because Reed's president decided about ten years ago that the ratings constituted a corrupt racket that forced colleges into manipulating data and he just wasn't going to play. Princeton Review rates Reed #1 in overall academic experience for undergrads (also very high ratings in some other academic categories), and I believe they deserve that. Reed has been need-blind in the past, but right now isn't. The reason, apparently, is that their endowment isn't enough to guarantee to meet full need of all enrolled students -- so they have to compromise and accept only as many needy kids as the college can afford. Reed is very up front about this, and hopes to go back to need-blind admissions soon. Let's hope they're making wise investments.</p>
<p>oops, I misstated myself -- Reed's endowment IS enough to meet the full need of all enrolled students; what I was trying to say was that IF Reed admitted students without considering finances (i.e., need-blind), THEN Reed couldn't guarantee to meet full need of all enrolled students. Sorry.</p>
<p>I would like to revive this thread if I may. Which USN&WR top 50 ranked LAC’s and Universities are NOT, need blind, meaning that they DO take into consideration in admissions that no financial aid will be sought?</p>
<p>Beware the Need Blind schools. Many are not as need blind as they appear. At some point in the process they have contact with admissions…including scholarship related. And many say they are need blind but then consider legacy ahead of kids who need aid. It happens all the time. I wont name names…but they are out there. Its their school and their money so I suppose they can do what they want with that, so long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race, sex, age etc.</p>
<p>And some that are not need blind are in fact very compassionate and offer a substantial aid package, particularly if they really, really want your kid for some reason. </p>
<p>admissions is an often capricious and arbitrary process. Nobody said it was purely rational and fair 100% of the time. So its best to apply to a variety of schools, embrace your match and safety schools, as they may be your best package anyway. Of course some schools have enough money they essentially give it out like candy: Princeton and Davidson come to mind on this. Maybe Dartmouth. </p>
<p>Its my own view that middle class people get hammered. The very poor get all of their needs met, particularly if they have high stats. The rich dont need aid and dont apply for it. They get scholarships often enough anyway. The middle class is often also in the middle 50% of SATs and gpas and need financial aid at private schools. Luckily most of them make it worth your while and compare favorably to in state prices when all is said and done. </p>
<p>We had some amazing offers with a melange of scholarships and financial aid…grants etc. We compared notes and in the end, made our choice between two colleges with almost identical offers. Our decision was not based entirely on money…it was in the mix, but ultimately not the determining factor.</p>
<p>And I will repeat this again to you John Ross, sometimes the lower ranked schools offer more money. Not always, but you may be very surprised. THere are kids at Fordham on full rides with perfect or near perfect SAT’s. And they are thriving and LOVING it. Good luck.</p>
<p>^ There’s no difference between discriminating on the basis of economic status/financial situation than on the basis of sex, race, disability, or anything. All of them are equally morally detestable.</p>
<p>Macalester just went to not need blind last year, I think.</p>