<p>^^^ From the original post: “There’s no indication either seriously considered cuts to non-core, such as football, before deciding they could no longer afford need-blind admissions.”</p>
<p>A bit off-topic, but something that is not always apparent to people. Athletic funds can be reduced somewhat but cannot be scaled back like funding in other areas. Schools can reduce operating hours of campus services, but cannot field half a team, or play 2/3 of a schedule. The NCAA requires participation in a minimum number of sports at each of its level of competitiveness, and conferences require that each school fulfill its obligation to participate fully in conference-sponsored sports. Both Bowdoin and Tufts already belong to a low-key, Division III (non-scholarship) athletic conference in which football seasons are limited to eight games.</p>
<p>Colleges that are need-blind and full-need for U.S. students
A number of schools state they offer both need-blind admissions and full-need for U.S. students. The following schools state they are need-blind and full-need:</p>
<p>Amherst College
Beloit College
Boston College
Bowdoin College
Brandeis University
Brown University
California Institute of Technology
Claremont McKenna College
Columbia University
Cornell University
Cooper Union
Dartmouth College
Davidson College
Denison University
Duke University
Emory University [1]
Georgetown University
Grinnell College
Harvard University
Haverford College
Knox College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Middlebury College
Northwestern University
Pomona College
Princeton University
Rice University [2]
Stanford University
Swarthmore College
University of Chicago
University of Miami
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
University of Richmond
University of Rochester
University of Southern California [3]
University of Virginia [4]
Vassar College [5]
Vanderbilt University
Wake Forest University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
Williams College
Yale University</p>
<p>This is a change from the most recent version on the Wayback archives of their website (Dec. 2007) where they implied (albeit with some “customarily budgets” semantic wiggle room) need blind:</p>
<p>Similarly, no change for Bowdoin, which has been need aware for internationals, transfer students and those coming off the wait list for some time. From their 2006 re-accreditation self study:</p>
<p>The conflicting statements on various iterations of their web page are symptomatic, not just of Bowdoin, but the majority of schools, though. It’s really rare for a college to have the fine print about their degree of blindness near the top level of their web site. You often have to bore down pretty deep to discover all the details.</p>
<p>I applied to Bowdoin with very high need, and was rejected. I’m not bitter about it, and I see need-blind admissions as a gracious offer rather than a requirement for colleges, but I’ll always wonder whether my need resulted in my rejection.</p>
<p>This seems to be a misleading thread as Bowdoin has not ended need-blind admissions. And in any event, the extra 10 students per year are likely to be admitted via categories that have been part of the need-blind admissions policy in the past (wait list, international, transfer applicants). Most other need-blind schools (with a tiny handful of exceptions) follow similar practices so there is nothing new in this.</p>
<p>I believe you are correct. Apparently, Bowdoin never had need-blind admissions for domestic students to begin with. They were always need aware for waitlist and transfers. They just didn’t say so on their main financial aid web page.</p>
<p>To amplify interesteddad’s point–I give Haverford very high marks for transparency in desribing their FA policy: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remarkably forthcoming, right? . . . until you check out the statement on their main FA page:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m NOT knocking Haverford; they are among the absolute models re being up front, but it shows how the structure of web sites can be used to market an institution in the most favorable way possible.</p>
<p>You present this as though it were unique to Bowdoin:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This practice with respect to wait list and transfer candidates is apparently wide-spread among all but the very wealthiest institutions that claim to be “need blind.” And the transfers point is meaningless for Bowdoin as it tends to admit something like 2-3 transfers a year. </p>
<p>And why didn’t you post the same information about Middlebury and Brandeis as they were described in the NYT as following the very same practices as Bowdoin??</p>
<p>Life is not fair. We have known that forever. So I don’t quite understand the outrage when schools admit students and then don’t meet full need. And from what I’ve noticed on these threads, some people claim that their EFC is way higher than they can afford regardless. </p>
<p>Where do people think all this financial aid is coming from anyway? How is it not fair that every one who is qualified be allowed to attend at a reduced price? You cannot get blood from a turnip and you cannot even afford to run the place without a lot of kids paying full fare. And as was pointed out to me, less selective schools also have a less selective price tag. Maybe it’s not so PC to be less charitable or look out for one’s own, but let’s just say I’ve seen plenty of kids get financial aid whose parents own cabins, boats and still manage to take a pretty nice vacation for spring break and I’ve seen plenty of really deserving kids be turned down whose families enjoy none of those perks. To me this is what is not fair.</p>
<p>Tufts has always said the goal is need blind, but they aren’t there yet. The adcom on the Tufts thread has been very upfront about that. Middlebury stated very early on in the admission’s cycle that their need-blind policies were not going to apply to international applicants this year and that even domestic applicants were going to have to pony up a little more in EFC and work-study this year if admitted.</p>
<p>Your HYP’s, Dartmouth, Amherst etc with their huge endowments (although Amherst, as Interesteddad has pointed out a lot this spring is buying taxable bonds to cover operating expenses) might be able to “afford” such policies, but for how long? And look at the selectivity of these schools because of it? </p>
<p>And despite not being in the financial need pile, my concern is more about what is going to happen to these schools to which my son was accepted over the course of four years. I am not worried about their solvency as much as I am about services to students. Do they cut support for students? Amenities that are billed as standard fare? </p>
<p>But suggesting a school cut their sports programs to make sure those with more financial need be able to attend is just as damning to a school’s yield. Isn’t this how community colleges keep their costs down? Why not make all schools commutes and tear down their dorms? There is more to the “college experience” than simply going to class. And these selective schools promote college experience as much as they promote their solid educational experience. </p>
<p>And while I’ve gotten blasted for it elsewhere, I still say that to cut financial aid to international students is reasonable when the alternative would mean fewer domestic students would be able to attend. After all, is it the goal of US colleges to create global parity when we cant even do it within our own borders?</p>
<p>The privates are entitled to do as they please, the only thing one
might request is that they make their aid policies and acceptance
policies 100% clear so that apps don’t waste their time and money.
Congrats to Bowdoin and Tufts for being upfront, if only other schools
were as direct, instead of soliciting apps for students who will never
be admitted.</p>
<p>For the publics, it’s a totally different story however. They are tax-
payer funded and one could argue that all students should have a
fair shot at access.</p>
<p>Regarding what schools might cut, I sure hope they don’t cut the school year with even earlier end-dates and later start dates and even longer spring/winter breaks or scattered furloughs. It’s already amazing to me how short the instructional school year is for the price we pay (roughly half the year). To me, there is no room to cut that even shorter, especially since little overhead would be saved. </p>
<p>I realize the feeling can be off-topic, but that’s not the place to look for savings. We should be extending the school year, or trimming the gaps, not shrinking it.</p>
<p>Not being need blind for nondomestic students is widespread among nominally need-bind schools; being need aware for waitlist and transfer candidates is not. The reasons have to do with the advantages that colleges get by adhering to Section 528, a portion of an anti-trust law that lets need blind schools (the law has an exemption for non-resident aliens) exchange information on candidates and allows them to have common FA practices.</p>
<p>Just a point of information so that transfer and waitlist students don’t get nervous. Not knocking Bowdoin for this their practices; it’s admirable to be as need-blind as your finances permit regardless if whether or not you’re getting any perqs for it.</p>