<p>Wash U is openly need aware. That does translate into discrimination against poor people, I guess. But they do provide 100% of need for those they accept whereas most schools need blind in admissions do not.</p>
<p>
WUSTL does indeed have a very low %age of students receiving Pell grants. To me, that’s a big problem. But becoming need-blind is only a good thing if they can afford to continue to meet full need.</p>
<p>Agreed that Wash U’s percentage of pell grant recipients is rather low in our peer group, but that only tells you a small part of the picture - the picture of students from the very lowest income group. [Pell</a> Grants: The Cornerstone of African-American Higher Education](<a href=“http://www.jbhe.com/features/65_pellgrants.html]Pell”>Pell Grants: The Cornerstone of African-American Higher Education)</p>
<p>Wash U has 6.4% of students receiving pell grants - just under 400 students here. If we increased that to slightly over 10% (in line with our peers), we would need about 200 more students – about 50 more per class. That is an additional 3% of each class. </p>
<p>So, yes, while we do lag on that measure, if we were to be more in line with our peers, it isn’t clear that an additional 3% increase in each freshman class receiving Pell Grants will truly make us substantially more socioeconomically diverse. </p>
<p>Wash U launched a major scholarship campaign not too long ago ($150million goal) to increase the amount financial aid offered each year, which would ensure greater socioeconomic diversity on campus. I’d imagine that once this goal is reached in the next year or two, that we’d be able to switch to need-blind admissions. Also, keep in mind that it’s not like need blind admissions has been around forever. It’s only been in the last 5 years or so that need blind has been a common practice among elite private colleges. Wash U is almost there (as others have said, we are need aware with vast majority of people being accepted without regard to money until our own money runs out). </p>
<p>Also note, the great majority of “need blind” schools don’t practice that with international students. This is even more notable considering that some of our peer colleges have substantially more international students than Wash U: it can be argued that they “pad” the budget at other elite schools, so that the college can be need blind for everyone else. Sure, it’s easy to be need blind for US residents when you have 10% international students that you are not need blind with. Wash U has a 6% international population according to US News. Hmm… maybe that 3-4% increase in rich international students at other schools corresponds with them being able to have 3-4% more US students with pell grants, or allow them to be fully need blind for that small additional percentage of students that Wash U isn’t need blind with. </p>
<p>Currently, the ~60% of students that do receive financial aid here is roughly in line with similar schools. You can compare colleges’ financial aid data on http://**************.com/washington-university-in-st.-louis/scholarships/. It isn’t clear that Wash U is out of line with what similar schools do. </p>
<p>Is it good for Wash U need to enhance the pell grant % and completely switch to need blind admissions? Yes. But, are we making a concerted effort to get there? Yes. Even considering this, do we really have a much wealthier student body than similar colleges now? No. Is being “need blind” enough to tell you really what is going on with a college’s student body? No. </p>
<p>wbwa and the OP - please spend a couple minutes to truly analyze this issue before flaming away.</p>
<p>i dont know, I applied for financial aid and did in fact get accepted (with an Olin Scholarship on top of that), with a pretty solid aid package… so it’s not impossible.</p>
<p>Plus, how can you call it discrimination? It’s a private school! they technically don’t HAVE to offer ANYONE financial aid! for instance, private high schools can be crazy-expensive (not like colleges but still more expensive than a lot of state school), and they’re not handing out bigtime FA packages left and right…
It’s not a need-blind school, nor does it claim to be. Therefore they can deny anyone who can’t pay for it.</p>
<p>So please, shut up, it’s NOT discrimination. that’s like saying Ferrari discriminates, because their cars are too damn expensive for 99% of people to afford.</p>
<p>ahhhhhhh poop… marcdvl beat me to it. sorry brah, didnt see your post, wasnt stealing your idea or anything.
does hammer the point home tho.</p>
<p>vbball</p>
<p>“Flaming away” is quite obviously what neither I nor the OP were doing. “Flaming,” however, may be an appropriate way to describe your response to any negative comments regarding Wash U admission policies. </p>
<p>You truly find it unreasonable to criticize a university with the financial wherewithal of this institution for choosing to perpetuate a need aware policy? An admissions office that, simultaneously, in the pursuit of “talent,” offers academic scholarships, financial incentives, to those with potentially NO need at all? Forgive me for being so bold as to suggest that this flies in the face of what seems just. </p>
<p>And I apologize for suggesting, as I did in my prior post, that only Wash U and Hopkins among top 25 schools did this. Apparently, unbeknownst to me, Hopkins went need blind last year. </p>
<p>Wash U now stands alone - the sole outlier - in this academically accomplished group to continue need aware policies. Once again, shameful.</p>
<p>^Some valid concerns. I do think, however, that WashU is heading in the right direction (through the recent scholarship initiative, etc.) and at least intends to be fully need-blind in the near future. Hopefully this comes sooner rather than later.</p>
<p>wbwba- it is not unreasonable to be critical of an institution or its policies. I never suggested that. I even agree with you that Wash U should be moving in the direction to be need blind - the less a school takes into account financial status, the better. We’re completely in agreement of that.</p>
<p>However, my post was meant to convey that Wash U is indeed moving in that direction, and that claiming that a school is “need blind” is hardly a good indicator of its commitment to providing scholarships and grants. </p>
<p>In your response, you haven’t addressed the real issue here: does the lack of being “need blind” in name actually have a significant effect for Wash U? No. It doesn’t appear it does, for the reasons I outlined (more internationals at other colleges, Wash U having a comparable amount of overall students receiving money and the average aid package). </p>
<p>I can’t tell if you think it is shameful for Wash U to be the last of the major top tier schools to adopt the “need blind” moniker, or if it is shameful for a school to ever make a decision based on the school’s own availability of scholarships to give out, or if it is shameful to be “need aware” to US applicants but not shameful to be need aware for internationals? Again, earlier than 5 or 6 years ago, there were almost NO schools that were need blind. Was it shameful at that period for schools not to be need blind? When does it become shameful, exactly? I personally don’t think it is “shameful” not to adopt the need blind moniker when it isn’t even clear that not being fully need blind is having any material effect on the student body composition. Sure - we both agree that it is better to be fully need blind than not, but you are completely discounting the immateriality of not being need blind for Wash U at this present time and the fact that Wash U actually is well on its path to becoming need blind. </p>
<p>Lastly, I can’t stress enough that given the availability of comparable data between schools, Wash U performs very admirably with % of students receiving aid and average aid package. Only six schools in this entire country are fully need blind for all students, and it really seems unnecessary to have a negative opinion of a school based on an issue that really isn’t even significant.</p>
<p>OK Well how about need and race blind. Just take the best students regardless of anything but their accomplishments.</p>
<p>Look, the deal with being need blind is that the tuition money has to come from somewhere. Wash U has an extremely talented group of local directors, that go out to their region and fundraise, primarily for scholarships. This clearly depends on the economy, and in recession like times, donations slow. They could use money from the endowment, but it’s already a fraction (well, a large fraction) of what it used to be, and they can’t endlessly take money away at the cost of other things. </p>
<p>If everyone at Wash U donated money towards scholarships, Wash U would clearly be need blind as they could afford to be. This, however, especially in the last several years is nothing more than a dream. Wash U, like every other company, has to ensure that they’re operating within their means, and not taking substantial net losses. They have a limited amount of need based scholarships available – this is just how the economy works.</p>
<p>If you don’t like it, there’s really not much you can do. We aren’t living in an economic eutopia where everyone is able to afford what they want. Perhaps someday, but certainly not today.</p>
<p>Do you think Wash U wants to be need aware?</p>
<p>I got wait-listed and I applied for FA. I know people who applied for FA, got accepted, and got large amounts of money.</p>