Definitely on QB, but they havent seemingly increased that up until now…so maybe that will be a lever this year.
They definitely have some income proxies, like zip code, CB’s landscape report, but it’s tricky. Also unclear if they can run their low income/disadvantaged student recruiting weekends anymore. The SCOTUS decision only covered admissions, not recruiting, not fin aid/scholarships, but some schools, states, and attorneys see it more broadly than just admissions.
ETA: Also the need blind/meet full need schools have more resources than the need aware schools like Wesleyan, who say they can’t significantly increase the proportion of low income students (otherwise they would be need blind).
Even the need blind schools pay attention to their finaid budget. And FGLI students do use more resources ( understandably). More tutoring, more housing during breaks, special summer programs, etc. Also understandably, they come with lower test scores and less preparation
Yes, Amherst did. It now has 14% of the class with SAT scores below 1400 compared to Williams, which has just 6% of its class with those scores , per US News.
I would assume most Amherst students with relatively low scores applied TO. In Amherst’s ‘22 CDS, 41% of matriculants reported an SAT score, 22% reported an ACT score. Some proportion of students likely reported both.
I doubt this means much in the world of test optional. Anyway, I don’t much care. A high school classmate of mine went to an ivy as a legacy with an SAT that didn’t crack 1100 (old scoring – maybe 1250 today?) - did fine academically. These “elite” schools are not as rigorous as they are cracked up to be, and it has been ever thus. Letting in a few scrappy FGLI kids doesn’t make me fear that standards will be polluted or something.
There are also correlates to income that can be adjusted in weight to result in an admission class that has more or less financial aid need (e.g. both legacy and first generation have such correlation, in opposite directions). This does not mean that the admission readers are inferring need of individual applicants from that, but the result for the class as a whole will be affected.
20% of the students at highly selective are Pell Grant. You want more, but there are also fine public colleges. As you note, equally good results for students can be obtained there. In the end, private schools can prioritize as they wish. We should worry more about public universities where most people attend.
For comparison, probably about a third of all US undergraduates have Pell Grant, and probably close to half of high school graduates would get Pell Grant if they all went to college.
But it would be foolish to assume that all of those students would thrive at an elite college, as much as we’d like it to be so.
What are you proposing? That elite schools only take Pell students? What would be a sufficient number? These 20% more often than not pay a lot less than they would at their state school. Maybe we should be more concerned about how public institutions are serving their population instead of complaining that a handful of elite institutions aren’t doing enough. They are very few in the greater scheme of things and doing a lot more than anyone else. Why is the burden solely on them?
If teh goal is to reflect America, gotta start at K12 since only a small % of “America” actually qualifies for highly rejective schools. The few handfuls of legacy admits to a school like Wesleyan is immaterial in comparison to teh social effects of our hs dropout rate…
Wesleyan’s percentage of Pell grant recipients actually increased in the years immediately after becoming need-aware, and for obvious reasons: it allowed them to prioritize admitting students with higher need and to package the awards in such a way that eliminated loans. The real hat-trick - which no one seems to want to discuss - is how to do that without creating a donut hole, or “barbell effect” that makes the UVAs of the country even more attractive to the middle-class?
Seems like they already are close to that (maybe that’s what you meant)…2022-23 CDS (section H2) shows 1,182 of 3,000 students received fin aid (so 60.6% full pay) at an average award of over $68K, which doesn’t include loans and self help (H2 K,L,M). (So average award is approaching full COA for many receiving FA).
Yes, the question is how does an institution - any high tuition/high discount college or university - avoid squeezing out the middle-class in the long run?
Interesting that you chose Alabama for this statement. The “football bucket” there includes actual athletes that people nationally will pay to watch, and that bucket represents a tiny fraction of the student body. Not to mention that while that state’s residents value high quality athletes, the absolute number needed on a football team is about the same everywhere. It may be better to take aim at any NESCAC or Ivy where the “football bucket” represents a higher percentage of the student body.