Fixed that for you.
That is common knowledge that these colleges have around 60/40 full pay vs. FA. If they were 100% FA they’d be out of business. Take a look at Princeton, ND, etc. - same thing. You are forgetting something… most of these colleges are a BUSINESS. They have to market themselves. That could be through football, medicine, mass mailings, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. That’s why it is important to apply to more than one college to find the best FA or merit offer. No FA or merit offer is the same. These colleges only have so much money to distribute.
Take a look at the common data set. It says 1622 students were offered a spot. Of that 658 were given true FA (no loans) and H2.k says of those 658, they got an average $32,644 in FA. Wash U has every right to say the average FA was $32k for their students that needed FA.
http://wustl.edu/policies/assets/pdfs/wustl%20cds%202012-2013.pdf
That is very impressive and nice that Wash U gives out that much aid.
@hidalgo23
You are spreading absolute nonsense. Stop it. It quite clearly says in the CDS in line e on page 20:
In line d it says that 661 students were awarded any kind of financial aid, and 651 of those received scholarships/grants as part of that aid. So that means only 10 students that got a need-based package got only loans and/or work-study. The rest got scholarships/grants based on need. You do understand that by definition, a scholarship/grant means not a loan, right? Then line k says that the average amount for those 651 incoming freshmen was $33,652. I will say it again since you seem to have a hard time with this concept: That $33,652 contains NO LOANS. Now if you still cannot get your head around that, and if you still cannot understand that this means that we are not talking about token aid at all, then I really don’t know how else to explain it to you. That would tell me you just don’t want to believe the facts, but instead prefer to believe a lie, because it makes you feel better or something. I don’t what the psychology is behind people that continue to spread lies about acceptance rates and grant amounts to FA recipients at a school, when the facts are there in black and white.
As far as the 60% vs. 40%, I cannot even fathom what you are saying. Those 60% either didn’t submit FA forms because they know they make to much to qualify, or they submitted forms and WUSTL determined that their income and assets exceeded the parameters for FA based on need. Are you saying WUSTL should be throwing money at people rich enough to afford the price of attending? Surely not. Are you saying that WUSTL should try to accept more students that cannot afford WUSTL? That’s a fine argument to have, but it is a totally different topic and argument to have. The fact (FACT!!) of the matter is that WUSTL does offer those that have need an average of $33,000+ in need based grants. Of course they don’t count the 60% that have the wealth to pay in those numbers. If they have the wealth to pay, why do they care about what WUSTL offers in need-based FA? That is just common sense and obvious to everyone.
You also make the claim that WUSTL says in their literature:
I would like to see proof of that. That they make that statement without an asterisk or some other way of saying that it only applies to those students requiring financial aid. If they truly say that, then yes they should clarify it, but it is still obvious to anyone that they are talking about those needing financial aid, not to Danforth’s kid or a Rockefeller or Bill Gates kid.
@fallenchemist It may NOT be common sense or so obvious to everyone (naive high school students and perhaps their parents included) that “average” is a number that can be played with in college marketing material - not saying that’s wrong. People living in the neighborhoods of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet certainly understand what “average” wealth means. It’s just discouraging to see many were given a false sense of hope (see other threads by admitted applicants).
It is common knowledge that FINANCIAL AID is given to people who are in NEED.
However FA is very complex. Your offer will differ between colleges because each college calculates your EFC differently so it is important to apply to various colleges. Also, families should be using the the Net Price Calculators so you can make educated decisions.
@hidalgo23
Really? You think that even a naive high school senior thinks that he will get a discount of $33,500 off of WUSTL tuition when his parents are making $250,000+ per year? He may not know their precise income, but most kids know when they are pretty well off. Any that cannot make that connection… well, I won’t say the rest. And even if they don’t and are “suckered in” by WUSTL marketing, the minute they go to their parents with the FAFSA forms I think the facts of life will become clear pretty quickly. Because if they don’t even do the research on the WUSTL web site to see what is required to get that magical $33,500 well…
IMHO, I think your complaint about WUSTL, their marketing, and everything else you bought up was based on completely incorrect assumptions on your part and is not really an issue for all but a couple of people.
@Madeon On the one hand, I think you’re absolutely correct. WashU DOES engage in yield padding, which has been the subject of numerous articles and a million CC discussion threads. My college counselor told me not to apply for that precise reason. Some people on this thread are taking that to mean that you think everyone who gets in is unqualified and everyone who doesn’t get in is qualified, which is obviously not true. I understand that it’s not sour grapes from you, but when you make a thread like this people can respond that way.
Conversely, I think you never should have referred to WashU as a “safety,” because that’s just a trigger word. I understand your school is a feeder but calling such an incredible school a “safety” can come off as insulting.
I don’t like your categorization of “top Ivy applicants” vs “average Ivy applicants.” You keep bringing up people who wrote books, started companies etc and seem to think that’s a golden ticket to Ivy admission. As someone who played at Lollapalooza and was subsequently deferred at Princeton, I know otherwise. No matter how many Ted talks you give or wells in Africa you build, you can still get passed over for an athlete any day. You responded to someone’s mention of a 2400-scoring kid earlier by calling them an “average” Ivy applicant. I think that’s ridiculously untrue. A 2400 or 36 is such an incredibly rare score; the current number of perfect scorers on those combined tests who are now high school seniors would barely fill the freshman class at one Ivy university. Don’t discount that; it may not be on par with ISEF, but it’s certainly a similar achievement. The “average” Ivy applicant has an ACT score of 33.
I got LLs from Duke, Williams, and Cornell (Tanner Dean). I didn’t apply to WashU but I wouldn’t be surprised if I got waitlisted. Then again, I could see it being a fit thing as well. My point is, while I agree with your basic pretext, I think admission is always a gamble and no accomplishments guarantee it. The way you categorize people just comes off as harsh, although I’m sure that’s not intentional.
@fallenchemist Really?? So you don’t think colleges are trying to, using your phrase, “suck in” as many applicants as possible by their marketing, aka yield-padding? FA enticement is just one in the bag of tricks. Check out this thread: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1708209-student-to-elite-colleges-please-stop-recruiting-students-like-me-if-you-know-we-won-t-get-in.html.
@hidalgo23 - Actually I said “suckered in”, which is very different from what you have me saying and the context in which I said it. I also put it in quotes (in the original) for a reason, which is I was being sarcastic towards your point of view. So at least try to get something that simple right. By saying “suckered in”, I am purposely putting the onus on the applicant for not being savvy enough to realize that a number like that has to represent the average grant aid to people that actually got grant aid. I think now I have completely established this. Anyone fool enough to think that people worth millions are included in these kinds of calculations and programs are suckers, indeed. Clearly that number is meant to appeal and be informative towards those that might otherwise think WUSTL is unaffordable. It might still turn out to be unaffordable in the end, but for hundreds of kids every year, even thousands (many get great offers from WUSTL but still choose to go elsewhere) who might not have applied except for that tantalizing piece of information, they are able to afford a great school like WUSTL after all. You can continue to be the cynic, but that really is a shame in light of the fantastic aid these students are getting.
BTW, the term “yield-padding” is a complete misnomer anyway. If anything it should be called “percent admitted control”, if you want to ascribe evil motives to them. But I reject the premises of that Washington Post article anyway. It was poorly researched and it makes it sound like there is something wrong with colleges letting students know they exist. For example, she cites the USNWR admit rate fallacy. How many times can I say 1.25%!!. Also she says that while Harvard sends out that literature to reach people that otherwise wouldn’t realize they may be qualified, what is really needed are more and better college counselors. I actually agree, but Harvard cannot cure that. For a fraction of what that would cost, they get information into the hands of people that might find it valuable. Like any marketing campaign, most people won’t, only a relatively small percentage will. Do you know what a successful direct mail campaign is often considered to be? A 5% response rate!! Like any marketing campaign, it isn’t worth the huge expense involved to try and target only those students that match the school that exactly. In fact that is nearly impossible to know.
I mean the schools cannot win. You complain when they send literature to students that are probably not going to get in because their scores and grades are too low, or need a lot of financial aid (although the last is a crock anyway, as I have repeatedly shown). Madeon complains that they are denying Ivy level applicants. No one is happy unless WUSTL (and others) somehow magically find just those students that really, really fit them and have near 100% admit rates coupled with 100% yields. You wouldn’t last one week in an admissions office if you think that is how it can work.
I would challenge you to find one actual false statement in anything WUSTL sent out. To the extent you think anything is misleading, I would wager more that the issue lies with the students and parents that get all starry-eyed over the idea of attending an elite school, when if they had any sense of reality they would know that just getting something in the mail doesn’t mean they are “selected” or “special”. I get literature about really, really expensive cars sometimes. I can’t afford one. They even offer me all this “special” financing. I still can’t afford it, but at least if they made the discount big enough maybe I could. But alas, unlike WUSTL these car dealerships don’t offer me that huge a discount or even a free car just because I don’t earn enough. Should I blame the car company or the dealership for “leading me on”? Give me a break. At least in the case of WUSTL some very significant number are attending with heavy, loan-free subsidies. Something you perhaps are still loath to admit, despite the proof I have provided.
I can tell you one more thing. For every kid or family that feels as you do about the marketing of WUSTL, there are some number that are now attending WUSTL and thriving only because they received that literature. Without that, they would have ended up at their local state U branch because they thought that was all they could get into and afford, especially the latter. Not that there is anything wrong with those schools, but to the extent that those students are now receiving a more personalized education with a much stronger peer group and having a whole new world opened up to them, they are much better off. You would, apparently, have all that go away for those students just because some people don’t understand the purpose of marketing. You just want to believe the worst about some people or institutions. I truly don’t get it, but that is your cross to bear.
@fallenchemist , preach! lol… I like your reasoning.
@LanaHere
Thanks, 
As with so many things in life, actions can have sensible and/or even uplifting motives, or they can have dishonorable motives. Unfortunately too many people are quick to assume the latter without any evidence or even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. I choose not to live my life that way. Not saying one shouldn’t be wary of strangers, so to speak, but this is not that kind of situation.
What are the chances that @madeon and @hidalgo23 would be here if he/his daughter had been accepted? Get over it. My D was accepted to WUSTL (among others) and rejected/waitlisted at other so-called “lesser” schools. While I am thrilled about her acceptances - especially at WUSTL - I am even more thrilled that she is taking her rejections in a much more mature fashion. My understanding is WUSTL wants students who are not only bright, but those that are likable. I have little doubt this is where @madeon failed to make the cut.
@LanaHere: "Preach"ing on behalf of WUSTL and the like? Looking at @fallenchemist’s number of posts (15,088) over the past six years, I’m wondering if s/he is affiliated in any way with WUSTL and/or some organization of which WUSTL is a member and appears here to “manage” social media content. Just curious! 
Well, her profile picture also says Tulane, so…
I am a he, FYI. LOL.
Well, congrats hidalgo23/ihsparent. You just violated one of the most serious rules of College Confidential. You created this second ID, and you posted on the same thread pretending you are a different person. I am going to recommend that you get a three week ban for the hidalgo ID and of course this one will get banned permanently. But I will still answer your conspiracy-mentality question and show you that yet again you have no idea what you are talking about.
I grew up in St. Louis, fairly close to WUSTL. I know it well and know many people that have gone there. But no, I did not attend nor did any family member, including my children. My D came close, but got a full tuition scholarship to my alma mater, Tulane, and that was that. If you looked at my avatar you probably could have figured at least some of that out yourself. I have zero, nada, absolutely no relationship with WUSTL, and no official relationship with Tulane either for that matter. Just an alum and parent.
As far as the number of posts, as you might have noticed I am also a moderator for this website. In that capacity I am constantly responding to complaints about spam, uncivilized behavior, off-topic posts, posts in the wrong forum, etc. Every time I do, it counts as a post for me. Otherwise I spend the vast majority of my CC time in the Tulane forum, occasionally looking in here and other places. So yet once again, you posit a cynical theory with absolutely no basis in fact, demonstrate poor use of readily available information that could have informed you of a far more plausible and less sinister motive, and you had to violate the rules of CC to do it.
I hope, should you decide to come back after whatever timeout the moderator decides to give you if they should do so (I will not moderate a thread in which I am an active participant), that you can be a member that can follow the rules and that can research things before you post wild, cynical theories. But you can continue to post those if you want. That is not a violation of the Terms of Service. What you did in post #112 is, both for the two IDs and for questioning the motives of another member in a disparaging way, which was clearly your intent.
@fallenchemist Sorry about that!!! My mistake!
“I reject the premises of that Washington Post article anyway. It was poorly researched and it makes it sound like there is something wrong with colleges letting students know they exist. For example, she cites the USNWR admit rate fallacy. How many times can I say 1.25%!!. Also she says that while Harvard sends out that literature to reach people that otherwise wouldn’t realize they may be qualified, what is really needed are more and better college counselors. I actually agree, but Harvard cannot cure that. For a fraction of what that would cost, they get information into the hands of people that might find it valuable. Like any marketing campaign, most people won’t, only a relatively small percentage will. Do you know what a successful direct mail campaign is often considered to be? A 5% response rate!! Like any marketing campaign, it isn’t worth the huge expense involved to try and target only those students that match the school that exactly. In fact that is nearly impossible to know.”
@fallenchemist
Yes selectivity alone might just be 1.25%, but 22.5% of the rankings are from academic reputation, as judged by peer schools. These schools likely look at acceptance rates as part of their judgement. And the general public looks closely at selectivity, as shown by the fact that as soon as one Googles Harvard, the 5.9% is immediately available. Google almost any school, and the selectivity is the first thing that people see.
And the article is definitely not saying that its wrong for colleges to let students know they exist. Did you read it? Its saying elite colleges should not blatantly buy the scores of students who do not fit their criteria and then aggressively solicit them to apply. It’s great for colleges to send students things IF they fit their criteria. So like, I see no problem with Harvard sending a student with a 2200 SAT who is dirt broke from Kansas mail, but encouraging a student from New Jersey with a 1610 SAT? That is unacceptable.
Also, Harvard could give the money they spend on marketing straight to schools where guidance counselors are overworked. It’s a bit weird to hear people say that Harvard cannot do anything about that. This is Harvard, one of the most powerful institutions in the world (doesn’t hurt it has a 36.4 billion dollar endowment).
@slights32
Well, first of all you just made that up. Show me a believable example of that. Harvard of course tries to buy lists that are most likely to reflect students that will be able to succeed within their admissions process. But having been in marketing all my life (not university related) I can tell you that these lists are often flawed to some degree or another. I can buy a mailing list to advertise an expensive car, and that list might include an entire zip code known to be well above average in income. That doesn’t mean that there are not some people in that zip code that cannot possibly afford my car. Same for the way these student mailing lists are put together sometimes. That isn’t Harvard’s fault (obviously just using Harvard as a proxy here. Sorry Harvard). To the extent that a mailing list company can convince Harvard that their list is more error free than the next guy’s, Harvard will buy the more accurate list. So even if your example happened, it is most likely the result of the data sorting company making an error or just the general inability to sort targets that finely. Your answer leads me to believe you have no experience in this area.
I don’t mean this in a mean way, but that is extremely naive and not a little ridiculous. What’s more than a bit weird is that you would even suggest this. Any business professor, as well as a century of modern marketing history, will tell you that for Harvard to stop marketing itself entirely would be a terrible idea. It would take a semester long course to fully explain how horrible that idea would be. But let’s assume you just meant the direct mail budget. That wouldn’t even make a dent in the college counselor issue in this country. Besides, it really is not Harvard’s job to fix that issue. They could also use their endowment to help fix, in a much bigger way than they already do, the fact that teachers are underpaid, that inner city schools have a completely inadequate educational experience, that many kids are still not fed properly, that many don’t learn as well as they should because of abuse…You get the idea. Harvard would then cease to exist. Harvard is a VERY expensive place to run. You apparently have no concept of how endowments are used. When Harvard’s endowment took a major hit in value after the financial crisis in 2008, they actually had a budget shortfall.
It is hard to respond to your post, because it really would require so many explanations of fundamental issues you don’t seem to know much about. Again, not trying to be mean, it is just obviously true that you don’t really understand marketing or the role of college budgets.
FWIW, I also disagree that the peer assessment of other schools has anything to do with their selectivity and admission percentages. I think it has a ton more to do with historical reputations for research, Nobel Prizes, and the overall intelligence of their faculty and student body. But since we cannot read the minds of those who fill out those forms, that issue cannot be resolved.
@fallenchemist I was not making anything up, I was referring to the WaPo article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/17/dear-elite-colleges-please-stop-recruiting-students-like-me-if-you-know-we-wont-get-in/
I believe she had what correlated to a 1100 on the math and critical reading sections of the SAT.
“Harvard of course tries to buy lists that are most likely to reflect students that will be able to succeed within their admissions process.”
You also have no proof of that, whereas I do actually have proof that they have solicited students that were incredibly unlikely to get in.
And your example is flawed. We are not talking about a car dealer sending out mailings to an overall affluent area where maybe some not so wealthy people also happen to live. We are talking about that same dealership sending their marketing materials to areas where the car is not attainable by 99.9% percent of those people. AKA not schools sending mailings to students with great SATs where some may have bad GPAs, but schools mailing students with bad (relatively speaking) SATs.
Perhaps I worded the marketing part badly. What I meant is that Harvard (and likeminded schools) should spend the money they spend on soliciting applicants that are extremely unlikely to get in on something more ethical.
I never questioned your intelligence. I questioned your experience in certain areas. There is a world of difference. Frankly I am stunned you would even say that.
And right, Harvard tried to buy the least accurate lists possible. Does that even make an iota of sense to you?
And to quote you further, you have no proof of that for Harvard. You are relying a great deal on one (one!!) anecdotal example. As I said, data errors can occur. Perhaps hers is just one of those errors, given that both Yale and U Chicago seemed to go after her. Who knows. It is so irrelevant. So what if a person gets a piece of mail from a great university for which they are unqualified? She certainly seems self-aware enough to know it was likely an error. It is all a lot of yak-yak about a problem that really doesn’t exist. People need to take responsibility for their own research and becoming aware of how they fit into the process. In this day and age of the internet and information and yes, sites like CC, there is really little excuse for not being able to figure out an application strategy that is fairly correct for oneself except for laziness.