<ol>
<li><p>My first-choice school was a safety school and also less competitive than some of the other places I applied to on my list. I knew a lot of other students from high school who applied to some more competitive schools because their parents wanted them to or because they just wanted to see if they could get in, but they really wanted to go to a less competitive/selective school.</p></li>
<li><p>Why would that be a “rightful” conclusion? No kid should apply to only one school, and maybe they are applying to other places to see if they have options - they want to see what the financial aid offers would be like at places like Bucknell and Gettysburg, or they are competing for a top scholarship at Ohio State but can’t afford to attend there otherwise. Or perhaps they simply are unsure of what kind of college experience they really want and are saving the decision for April. Some people really like the family dynasty aspect. Others don’t pay attention to football rivalries when they are making academic and professional choices about where to apply.</p></li>
<li><p>I applied for a variety of types of schools. I love football, and football season, and tailgating and parties. Although I really wanted to go to an LAC, the idea of going to a school with Big Football and cheering for the team and tailgating on game day also appealed to me, so I and many other students can very truthfully apply to a bunch of LACs and then the state flagship and still claim passion for football.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think counselors wander into dangerous territory when they claim to be able to derive the interest and preferences of students from something as stupid as this. When I listed my colleges on my FAFSA I did it in the order that they came to mind. Of course my most preferred schools came to mind first, but not necessarily in the order I preferred them. I’m imagining lots of students do it that way and just list them in any order they come to mind. Why would admissions counselors try to be mind readers in this way? I realize that yield management is a thing, but I’m willing to bet that this practice has close to zero effect on their actual yield.</p>
<p>In addition, if there is one useful data point collected by NACAC, it is the annual survey that confirms that the oevrwhelming majority of students attend their first and second choices schools. Obviously, that also mean that they had to be accepted, and that they can afford (perhaps with some pain) the school they attend. </p>
<p>The reality is that there are worlds that appear to be parallel. The tiny world of highly selective schools that might the best customers of the fancy enrollment managers and dissect the various manners of producing that “chosen” class of freshmen. And another that is composed by schools that mostly have paint-by-the-numbers admissions, enrollment, and financial aid. The latter one being enormously more consequent than the tiny realm that is usually debated on CC.</p>
<p>The increasing tendency to consider “level of applicant’s interest” indicates that more colleges apparently think that the “silly guessing game” is worth playing.</p>
<p>Even colleges that do not try to increase their yield numbers do want to be able to accurately predict their yields, so that they can admit the correct number of students to yield enough to avoid being over or under capacity. At the very basic level, they probably realize that students for whom the college is a “reach” tend to have higher yield than students for whom the college is a “safety”, for example. So they might know that they have to admit 2 “reach” students or 10 “safety” students to yield one actual student, for example.</p>
<p>That’s interesting, UCB. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with using the data in that regard, would they? I wouldn’t. It sounds like folks here are annoyed in that admissions offices might be using the FAFSA order to manipulate the disbursement of aid. If that is the case, and one is reasonably sure HOW this is happening (I admit I don’t, hence my ‘guessing game’ comment), why not manipulate the FAFSA list order in order to counteract whatever approach the college is taking?</p>
<p>When S and i filled out the FAFSA, we certainly were not prompted to list the colleges in order of interest, nor did it occur to me to suggest he do that. I think we did it in the order we thought of them. I would object to THAT being used as a definitive indication of interest.</p>
<p>If you we were to actually agree with the “concept” that colleges dole out aid in a proportion inverse to the desire of students, we would also have to believe that students who apply in the ED or EA rounds are “de facto” recipient of a worse aid packages. </p>
<p>Anyone familiar with the interest of highly selective schools in programs such as Questbridge know that some of the most generous packages are given to zero EFC students who really, really want to attend. </p>
<p>Further, financial aid is not a freshman affair solely. In fact, the financial aid packages given in the first year are often build on incomplete data. By the second year, with the impact of revisions and corrected data, applicants are often the beneficiary of a better package. </p>
<p>If the schools really applied discriminatory and arbitrary practices in finaid, would they not deliberately lavish on freshmen and reduce aid on the other classes. After all, is there are group that has shown MORE interest in a school than the returning students. </p>
<p>All in all, that article and the quoted experts are quite full of … it!</p>
<p>I rarely see colleges that give more FA on average FA to older students than to first year students. I can’t even think of one that gives older students more?</p>
<p>OHmom, my daughter’s scholarship increased annually. She got more every year she attended her college. Her aid was merit based with a small need component.</p>
<p>And that is the way it should work … not more and definitely NOT less. All what that means is that the financial aid is based on formulas that are universally applied at that school, and not based on subjective criteria like expressions of interest or place on a FAFSA application. </p>
<p>The reason I mentioned increases in financial aid is that schools DO accept to review packages and increase aid when submitted documention supports that the budget did not account for real expenses. The typical candidates are travel and personal expenses that might be higher than expected. Other items are semesters abroad or summer work studies programs that are (obviously) not available to freshmen. </p>
<p>If anecdotes can form the plural of data, the examples of my immediate family is that financial aid INCREASED every year and covered more and more items as the years progressed. All in all, absolutely no indication that the school(s) tried to reduce the aid to returning students. Quite to the contrary.</p>
<p>I don’t have personal experience but every college I looked at for S and D offered more financial aid to freshmen on average than they did to sophomores and up.</p>
<p>This article is consistent with my experience and perhaps explains why most sites that report financial aid info break it out into freshmen vs. all students, the first is, as far as i have ever seen, a better number than the latter for the student.</p>
<p>One could argue (and the article above does, in a way), that good FA packages are used to attract students and then when their options have narrowed (meaning it’s transfer or stay), less aid is offered.</p>
<p>Kelsmom, apparently statistical analysis and research show that the school that is first listed is often the one the student will attend. According to that article, it was a 60% result for a certain school. So, it is a piece of information that is valuable . Whether that is consistent to other schools, I don’t know, and unless studies have been done and tabulated, can’t tell.</p>
<p>Xiggi, it’s great that you got more financial aid each year. My son got more merit money in his last two years. BUt that is usually not the case. Most schools will specifically tell students that they are expected to contribute more in the upper grades. The loan maxes of the Stafford Loans increase each year also, and schools take advantage of that. </p>
<p>This article really makes me a bit sad. More gamesmanship in the process.</p>
<p>Just because the first school listed is the one most often chosen does NOT mean that admissions officers seek that information OR that financial aid officers use it against students. Just because this is the case does NOT indicate a causal relationship between adverse admissions and financial aid results.</p>
<p>I agree, THumper, that is it not always the case, but this article indicates that it IS the case at certain schools. If anyone is applying to such schools, it can be an issue and could make a difference.</p>
<p>The problem here stems from looking at the averages. </p>
<p>One can safely assume that the students with large financial needs are the most prone to having to drop out, or even being forced out for academic difficulties that result from financial pressures at school or at home. Even if that is superfluous data, we can also assume that there is some attrition in the numbers of students. We can also assume that some transfers do NOT get financial aid packages that are similar to current students. Perhaps they were attractive full pays, or simply missed FAFSA deadlines. On the merit aid front, it is not unusual for scholarships to be quite hard to maintain. Hence, another possible reduction or complete attrition. Other scholarships (such as the Texas Val) are non-renewable merit aid. </p>
<p>The real question is how the same student fares as he or she progresses through school. Again, based on what I and family members experienced, I can only report that the aid remained constant or increased.</p>
<p>Note that estimating yield based on student characteristics can affect admissions, but not in the usual way that people assume.</p>
<p>For example, suppose a college has a simple admissions system based on ranking applicants by HS GPA recalculated by the college’s method. No “level of applicant’s interest”, essays, extracurriculars, need-awareness, intended major, test scores, etc. to keep it simple for this example. Suppose they believe from past experience that 4.0 admits have a 5% chance of matriculating, 3.5 admits have a 35% chance of matriculating, and 3.0 admits have an 80% chance of matriculating.</p>
<p>Obviously, they want to admit just enough so that the yield will fill (but not overfill) the frosh class. So they admit from the top of the HS GPA list until the frosh class is filled. At the top, each 4.0 admit counts as 0.05 of a student. By the time they get to 3.5, each admit adds 0.35 of a student. If they get to 3.0 before the cumulative total reaches the size of the frosh class, each 3.0 admit adds 0.80 of a student. So the effect of more or fewer 3.5 students in the applicant pool has a greater effect than more or fewer 4.0 students in the applicant pool, as far as the chance of applicants at the margin of admission are concerned.</p>
<p>Now let’s add in financial aid analysis to the yield estimate. Suppose the college realizes that different levels of family income or other financial aid characteristics are associated with the yield rate. If these factors come into play, then the financial aid characteristics of the 4.0 to 3.5 applicants can affect how quickly the frosh class fills up, and therefore the chances of the applicants at the margin of admission, even if there is no need-awareness in the admission process and the financial aid characteristics of the applicants at the margin of admission are individually irrelevant.</p>
<p>In other words, your financial aid characteristics could be irrelevant to your chances of admission, but the financial aid characteristics of other applicants, particularly those with higher qualifications as seen by the college, can affect your chances of admission.</p>
<p>It is good to remember that enrollment managers have plenty of MORE powerful tools to manage yield and admissions statistics. Powerful crutches are early admissions (with plenty of full paying families that believe NOT filing for aid is a bonus) and the ever important wait list discussions with students and families that have expressed a strong desire to attend at … all cost. </p>
<p>It takes a huge leap of faith to accept that schools would use such granularity in reviewing applications. On the other hand, it is much easier to believe and accept the fact that the admissions officers are simply trying to admit the best class they possibly can admit. </p>
<p>But perhaps harder to accept when the fat letters are not coming in as expected.</p>
<p>If more colleges used rolling admissions, they wouldn’t have to play some of these games with yield. I don’t understand why every college doesn’t immediately admit their top applicants and immediately reject their bottom applicants. Then they can wait to admit their middle-of-the-road applicants as they review them a second time and see who has accepted their offers from the first rounds of acceptances.</p>
<p>Colleges would actually be doing many applicants a favor by rejecting them earlier - so they still have time to apply to additional schools and don’t have false hopes.</p>