<p>There may be an ancillary effect on board scores, but not for the reasons you might think. The ultimate aim is not to enroll more rich people; the real aim is to enroll more middle-class students. President Roth hinted as much in his blog, explaining the shift in policy:</p>
<p>Not necessarily. For as little as a million dollars per year (roughly 10% of the frosh year FA budget), Wesleyan could enroll 66 additional students with an EFC of $35,000 versus 20 with an EFC of -0-. If it actually targets its financial aid as President Roth suggests, toward the middle-class, you could actually <em>increase</em> the number of kids on financial aid.</p>
<p>Will they bring a certain something extra to the table? Sure, for one thing, they’ll be adding a certain layer of diversity that has been missing over the years - the “missing middle”, as it were. Higher test scores? Maybe. One thing for certain is that it would be very difficult to find the answer without becoming - by definition - “need-aware” in the process.</p>
<p>EFC of $35,000 seems like a pretty high household income – what range is considered “middle class” these days? Presumably you mean something much higher than the median household income, which is about $50,000 per year in the US.</p>
<p>Most of the time, there isn’t a single change that could shift my attitude toward a school. I always considered Wesleyan to be among the top 5 or so LACs, but this really makes me lose respect for it. While I understand its practical reasons for the change, it’s a bit harder to separate it from the vast majority of second-rate schools that are need-aware. Let’s hope that alumni pressure the school enough to move back to need-blind admissions; this would be a serious setback in Wesleyan’s growth.</p>
<p>lol, “pressure.” The only thing Wesleyan’s alumni can do to reverse this decision is donate a couple hundred million dollars stat. This isn’t something Wesleyan did on a whim, or out of greed; it just can’t afford to remain need-blind. It’s unfortunate that the economic downturn has resulted in the loss of your respect for Wesleyan, but, you know, it’s not the school’s fault it doesn’t have enough money. And I don’t see how the quality of education offered as Wes is suddenly “second-rate.” Same professors, same facilities, and, in all likelihood, same caliber of students.</p>
<p>Anyway. I don’t see the big deal here. There are some need-aware schools that award financial aid to a higher percentage of students than some need-blind schools. And then there are some need-blind colleges that are probably stretching the truth a little when they call themselves that. As long as Wesleyan continues to meet full need, I’d say it’s in good shape.</p>
<p>I know it isn’t something Wesleyan did out of greed or on a whim. You don’t think there are plenty of other schools who weren’t pressured to change their financial aid policies during the recession? Plenty were (in fact, many did). Wesleyan in particular is in a financial position to shift its priorities (perhaps from its higher research budget to financial aid), but it didn’t. You say “it’s not the school’s fault,” but that’s the same excuse for the overwhelming majority of colleges out there. “We just don’t have the money” - and I understand that. Wesleyan has joined that group, which in my view is, by definition, second-rate. I just didn’t expect that of Wesleyan, that’s all.</p>
<p>Which need-aware schools award financial aid to a higher percentage than need-blind schools? And not loans, but grants? I’m not doubting that such schools exist, just that I’d like to see some examples.</p>
<p>I do hope that alumni step up and donate, which was the meaning behind ‘pressure,’ although alumni have many other powers, like the simple threat of fewer donations. It’s sad that Wesleyan has been put in this position, but other universities have faced the same difficulties and found a way around them without penalizing capable students who don’t have the money.</p>
<p>phantasmagoric: Do you consider Tufts and Smith to be second-rate as well? They have the same financial aid policy that Wesleyan is adopting (hopefully temporarily) i.e. 85-90% of the class is still admitted need-blind. Brown only became need-blind ten years ago. Was Brown second-rate before then? </p>
<p>Other schools, like Middlebury and Bowdoin, are need-aware for internationals and transfers, and I believe the waitlist as well. There are many gradations on the need-blind continuum, and Wesleyan has simply moved one notch lower. It’s not a black and white issues, but instead many shades of gray.</p>
<p>Yes, I do. WashU, as well. My view is this: if a school is first-rate, it necessarily needs to be need-blind. If it isn’t, then it isn’t. You can disagree if you like; that’s fine. I’m stating my view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The landscape of higher education has shifted significantly in 10 years, and need-blind admissions have become far more commonplace for top schools. I really don’t subscribe to the absurd general logic, “X is an Ivy, and anything they do is obviously perfect.” If Brown were need-aware today, yes, I most definitely would consider it a second-rate school.</p>
<p>I agree that the Ivies aren’t anything special (though the media would like to paint them as otherwise) but, while we will disagree, can I get your thoughts on my other comment, about the gradations in need-blind status? What are your thoughts on schools being need-blind to incoming US first years admitted directly, while being need-aware to internationals, transfers, and the waitlist? There are only 5-6 schools that are need-blind for all of these constituents.</p>
<p>I would prefer to judge the “rate” of schools on the quality of their education and research, not simply whether they take financial need into account when admitting about 10-15% of their class. Wesleyan will remain a good school, and Tufts, Smith, and Wash U are all excellent colleges/universities. They are just being fair IMO - what is the purpose of teasing a low- or middle-income student with admission if there’s very little chance they’ll be able to afford it? Rich uncles and lottery wins are quite rare.</p>
<p>Decreasing the research budget will do far more to drop Wesleyan’s reputation than struggling to maintain need-blind status when they can’t afford it, so I don’t think that’s a good suggestion.</p>
<p>Well, let’s examine that statement for a moment. Are you saying, there are more top schools today than there were ten years ago? Or, are you saying, that the same top schools that existed ten years ago have become more need-blind recently? I’m anxious to hear which schools are you are talking about?</p>
<p>I don’t know too much about need blind policies at universities, but I do agree that this is the norm among top schools. (Harvard, Stanford, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many of these families are faced with this decision annually. But it’s still their decision to make. It seems unfair to say to deny them the ability to do so just in virtue of their being little chance that they’ll be able to afford it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both would suffer in prestige drops. However, i think this policy has more of an effect than a drop in research budget. Wesleyan isn’t a research university, and it isn’t exactly renown for its research.</p>
<p>Huh? Do they teach critical reading or statistics at Wes? </p>
<p>More middle-class (however you want to define it) and less ‘poor folk’ means a wealthier student body, on average. And on average, a wealthier student body generally leads to higher test scores (and USNews ranking – your favorite subject John). There are no two ways about it (regardless what I “think”).</p>
<p>A problem many schools face is the declining middle. Simply, middle class students (even if they are admitted) are hard to yield. Lower SES students will receive the grant money that they need and the wealthy students do not need it. If you look at the SES profiles of many selective institutions, they are going to be skewed towards the top and bottom of the SES spectrum.</p>
<p>That’s actually incorrect. A liberal arts college without a robust research program is little more than a high school. Institutional commitment to supporting faculty research is the hallmark of a good LAC, and it’s what attracts young, up-and-coming academics to teaching-intensive schools like Wesleyan, Williams, Swarthmore, etc. Few liberal arts colleges have big specialized labs and research centers (although Wesleyan actually does–it is a very good place to study molecular biophysics, for example), but the best ones do have many distinguished academics on their faculty, and those academics publish independently or together, collaborate with friends and colleagues at research universities, and bring money and publicity to their own institutions.</p>
<p>If you think research is unimportant to Wesleyan, or less important than remaining need-blind, then you know nothing about Wesleyan. It ranks first among LACs in federal research funding, receiving millions of dollars’ worth of research grants annually, and it ranks first in research publication rate as well. Most importantly, unlike almost all other LACs, it has several graduate programs in the sciences. So, you see, it is in fact “renown [sic] for its research.”</p>
<p>For the record, I don’t go to Wesleyan or have any vested interest in letting these things be known; it just rankles me when people perpetuate the myth about LACs not being good places for research.</p>
<p>Point taken. You’re right though, i readily admit that i know nothing about Wesleyan, and i should have phrased my claim more cautiously.</p>
<p>I do wonder how much of Wesleyan’s operation budget is spent on its research facilities though (as opposed to funding from federal dollars) and how much this research actually influences the “students chances of succeeding” (whatever that means) since it’s what their president was emphasizing in the article in the OP.</p>
<p>What is the purpose of teasing these low income students with school at all if there’s less chance that they’ll actually be able to graduate? Eliminating schooling for these students in the first place is only fair, no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It diminishes the accessibility of that education. What if we change the scenario a little bit and say that CollegeBoard, because of the lack of revenue, decides to charge $1000 per test instead of its normal fees? The goal of a university is to serve as an institution of learning for all students with the intellectual ability and curiosity, to supply society with a skilled workforce. Institutions of higher education therefore hold a social purpose and responsibility that goes beyond that of a normal business venture. Even though eliminating need blind admissions may be a necessity in the difficult economic climate, it doesn’t make it the most desirable, moral, or fair to all students. I think even Wesleyan itself openly admits to that.</p>
<p>This is 100% accurate. What is happening is that people are criticizing Wesleyan for making this move, saying that other institutions make the finances work, and they see the school is making a morally wrong choice. This is unfair, because it truly is about the (lack of) money, and for those stubborn enough to reject the finances argument, all that’s left is to say that it’s not the end of the world (which it’s not). </p>
<p>That’s all it is - I don’t think Wesleyan supporters (of which I include myself) actually believe that this is a good move - it’s just that the only argument left after $$$ is that it’s a situation where it’s a necessary evil. For now. A capital campaign is underway that should hopefully bring Wesleyan back to need-blind status in a few years.</p>
<p>Holy Cross is need-blind and its alums do very well on Payscale Salary Study-high percentage of doctors and Wall Street/corporate alums. hc has one of the highest alumni giving rates at 55-56%. Believe Williams and Amherst also are need-bling. imo big negative for Wesleyan.</p>
<p>Xrcalico - your analogy doesn’t work for me. The College Board is, essentially, the only game in town. Wesleyan is just one of many colleges. If it indeed became the playground for the rich, so what? If the subsequent student body were good, it would retain its reputation. If they weren’t, then it would lose its reputation. The market would decide.</p>