<p>I see that term a lot on CC. That colleges are especially trying to "woo" low-income students.</p>
<p>How are they "wooing" them?</p>
<p>And What are these colleges?</p>
<p>And I've always seen inconsistencies in the term "low-income" too. A woman of South-Asian descent was claiming that 60K was low-income and others agreed with her while a student was shot down for saying he/she's low-income (The family made an income of 45K or something).</p>
<p>Schools like Penn and Stanford will give financial aid packages with no loans, or no family contribution (for all four years, assuming the financial situation stays the same)</p>
<p>Most colleges consider students eligible for Pell Grants to be "low income." Since Pell Grant eligibility is tied to EFC, annual income alone isn't enough to say whether someone is "low income" for Pell Grant purposes -- for example, in some cases, a family with six kids earning $60,000 and having certain types of expenses might possibly be eligible for a Pell Grant if their EFC is low enough. The cut-off for EFC for Pell Grant eligibility has been $3850 in previous years, but I believe it will be rising to just over $4,000 next year.</p>
<p>Amherst College, under the direction of its relatively new president Andrew Marx, has begun a long range effort to increase the economic diversity of the student body. It's been the subject of a great deal of preliminary discussion amongst the faculty, administration, alumni, and current students, and to be honest, I don't know the specifics of what has been planned (so this isn't a very informative post - Sorry!), I just thought you would like to know that Amherst is one of the schools that is doing some of the "wooing".</p>
<p>I think Amherst's strategy is focused mainly on getting more highly qualified low income students to apply, and then making it possible for them to come with generous financial aid, with no or very few loans.</p>
<p>None of QuestBridge's partner schools "woo" low-income students. It doesn't really help at Stanford to have a income of 45k. You're judged just as anyone else. Just because they offer no loans for people earning less than 60k doesn't mean they are wooing them. Low-income students have to pass the same bar that all other applicants do.</p>
<p>However, being a QuestBridge finalist COULD potentially help you. But low income by itself will not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because they offer no loans for people earning less than 60k doesn't mean they are wooing them. Low-income students have to pass the same bar that all other applicants do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That may be true at Stanford and some number of other schools, but I want to clarify to the OP and others that it varies. At some places, lower-income status is considered (and could be a plus factor in admissions). </p>
<p>Various colleges may define "lower income" in various ways, either looking at income, income and family size, and/or other characteristics such as whether you are the first in your family to go to college, what the general demographics of your school or neighborhood are, etc.</p>
<p>Yale initiated a program maybe 3 years ago where they send back current undergrads to target certain under-represented communities (urban, rural, others) to entice the "diamonds in the rough" to consider New Haven. They've followed some of the other ivies in offering kids from families of under $45K, no need for parental contribution. To me, I find it a good start. Financial and class diversity is a good thing for places like Yale, IMHO.</p>
<p>They only have financial aid. Low income, on its own, does not help. Having scholarships or merit recognition targeted towards low-income students might help. </p>
<p>Colleges that say they offer free tuition to families earning under a certain amount aren't "wooing" low-income students. It is not a hook. It is not a tip. It's only there so that if low-income students DO get accepted, they are able to attend. It doesn't actually help in admissions.</p>
<p>It won't help acceptance to have low income, but schools do "woo" low income students to their schools by offering them more financial aid AFTER they get accepted.</p>
<p>When I got my Penn financial aid package, I was wooed away from even thinking about Northwestern, Emory, or Columbia because it had no loans on it for 4 years. If I had gotten a regular package from Penn I would have actually visited to make the decision, but it was made for me.</p>
<p>Yes but wouldn't those "low-income" kids not have the same opportunities and resources as others. So wouldn't they be offered a bump or something?</p>
<p>I wrote to Harvard's financial aid office and they wrote that low income on its own is not a significant boost in admissions. However, the adversities that you've had to face and that opportunities that were given to you (and whether you took advantage of them) do matter.</p>
<p>Considering Harvard gives boosts to legacies and URMs, I wonder why they don't give boosts to low-income students. It's not like being a URM on its own automatically means that you've faced adversity. Yet being low-income, on its own, is not enough. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?</p>
<p>murkywater -- did you also ask them if being a URM was a boost? I am just wondering if they would respond the same way -- I am guessing they would. sometimes what they say and what they do don't seem to jive due to multiple other factors.</p>
<p>I agree with hsmomstef, I don't think Harvard would yes being low-income is a hook or anything.</p>
<p>Every college gives the same "opportunities" stuff.</p>
<p>The reason I asked was I was reading about the application process on MIT's website and they were talking about "context" of admissions. So I was just interested to know if the "context" was socio-economic, it kind of sounded like it by their wording.</p>
<p>Murkywater, sadly what you said is true at many universities :(</p>