<p>I think the increase in applications is strictly due to people reading the Early Admission Game. College advisors are considered incompetent if they don't advise their kids to apply early...anywhere but apply early! As this tactic grows, the advantage will disappear.</p>
<p>I don't see this benefitting the non elite schools as Mini implies. The elites will have even a larger pool to cherry pick.</p>
<p>The pool doesn't become better simply because it is larger. Or so Yale says. Those rejected applicants - "as good" as those accepted - simply go elsewhere. </p>
<p>Of course, as ID well points out, much of the bulge in applications is created by the uncertainty fostered by the institutions themselves. The students don't get better; they simply generate more applications, make more money for the CollegeBoard, etc. The schools don't neccessary become more "selective" by rejecting more applicants, if those they accept are no better than entire classes of applicants they reject. Law of diminishing returns holds, and the returns have diminished, according to Yale, to zero.</p>
<p>But if this trend continues over several more years, won't the advantages given by ED eventually be worn away under the sheer weight of applicants? >></p>
<p>The purpose of ED/SCEA was never to give any applicant an advantage beyond knowing earlier in the season whether they've been accepted at their "first choice" school. Unfortunately, it is exactly because so many are rushing to use ED/SCEA with the idea of gaining some sort of advantage that the students using it for what it was originally intended for --to simply learn early if they're in at their first choice -- are being lost in the frenzy.</p>
<p>I agree the elite school will not increase enrollment and therefore there will be just more rejects. My point is the elite school will have 'first pick' over a larger pool making it easier to accomplish their objectives (i.e., # of brass players, athletes, geopgraphic or other forms of diversity).</p>
<p>It's a nice thought, though unproven and likely false. The # of quality brass players, Ivy-bound quarterbacks, etc., has likely not increased, so the same amount of energy (and money) has to go into capturing one. They are just applying to more schools, mildly depressing yield. What has gone up is the number of wealthy applicants, and developmental admits, (and a massive increase in international applicants), and I think the data would show that Yale (for example) is less economically diverse than it was 20-25 years ago.</p>
<p>The facts go the other way. Princeton has a record high level of students on financial aid in its freshmen class, 52%. As applications go up, it is easier to meet their publicly stated goal - more economic diversity. With the financial aid endowment they have and a stated policy of 'no loans' for undergraduates I applaud them for their leadership and progress in fostering economic diversity.</p>
<p>"The facts go the other way. Princeton has a record high level of students on financial aid in its freshmen class, 52%."</p>
<p>Yes, only until AFTER changing their financial aid policies. Check the past 20 year history, if you can find it. </p>
<p>In 2003, 54% of Princeton students received no need-based aid. Only 7% received Pell Grants (fewer than 10 years prior). At Yale, 60% received no need-based aid, and 9% were on Pell Grants (fewer than 10 years prior). They had plenty of highly qualified needy applicants of course (as Yale says - they rejected entire classes "as good" as those they accepted); they just chose not to take 'em. </p>
<p>But the good news is they went elsewhere. The difference between the Ivies and other schools (other than in median family income) is probably lower today than it has ever been, and getting smaller all the time. And the bulge in ED/SCEA applications is probably helping this: with more rejections than ever before, students are forced to think more clearly about meeting their own particular educational needs independent of pure prestige issues, which may or may not involve schools where the rejection rate is no longer a reasonable measure of "selectivity".</p>
<p>Part of the Princeton initiative (which I think is great!) is meant to deal with the reality that they were likely to lose more of the accepted applicant pool ("yield") to places offering more in the way of financial aid (merit or otherwise). While it is true that some low-income students will benefit greatly by the initiative, the bulk of the students affected (roughly 70%) are those coming from families with incomes between $92k-$160k, the top quintile, but still qualifying for aid. As students put in more applications, it becomes harder for families to justify paying $20k a year when you can get a free ride at Emory, or Rice, or Vanderbilt, etc. And it is precisely the increase in the number of applications that has made that more apparent</p>
<p>i don't know but how many in the ED/EA pool r just really auto rejects with low stats just inflating the figures?</p>
<p>Mini the "facts" again conflict with your allegation of elitism. The following is from Pton's web site:</p>
<p>A record 55 percent of the 1,229-member class is on financial aid, Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel reported at the Sept. 19 faculty meeting. That is the highest percentage at any Ivy League institution based on preliminary reports. Last years freshman class included 52 percent of students on financial aid.</p>
<p>Of the 675 freshmen on financial aid, 196 come from low-income households (defined as below $50,900 per year), up from 161 last year. </p>
<p>The figures represent a substantial increase compared to the class of 2001, the last class admitted before Princeton began revamping its financial aid practices. In that freshman class, 432 studentsor 38 percent of the classreceived financial aid, and 88 students were from low-income households.</p>
<p>As the data make plain, we have been tremendously successful in attaining our goal of making Princeton affordable for any student regardless of family financial circumstances, Malkiel said. The changes in financial aid policy have had a dramatic effect on the economic diversity of the undergraduate student body.</p>
<p>In 2001, Princeton eliminated loans for all students who qualify for aid, expanding a program instituted three years earlier in which loans were replaced with grants for low-income students. The groundbreaking no loan program is part of a series of enhancements to Princetons aid program that began in 1998, including the adjustment of formulas for determining need to reduce the amounts that both students and families are expected to contribute.</p>
<p>Finally, I will do you one better with 20 year history remark. Read The Chosen by Karabel. HYP were 85% white protestant males a 100 years ago. Today probably 15%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Check the past 20 year history, if you can find it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK, here's the data for Swarthmore:</p>
<p>Percent of students receiving need-based college grant aid</p>
<p>1970: 36%
1980: 39%
1990: 45%
2000: 51%</p>
<p>Per student college grant aid (in inflation adjusted 2004 dollars)</p>
<p>1970: $2,659
1980: $2,619
1990: $6,621
2000: $9,738</p>
<p>Before you get all excited about the number of needy students served at a given college -- I'd suggest that everyone take a deep breath and look at what has happened to college tuitions over the past 30 years.</p>
<p>I mean - looking at Interesteddad's numbers -- I'll be that $2600 in 1970 went a lot farther toward paying Swarthmore's tuition than $9700 does today. What has happened is that the cost of a college education was probably very affordable to middle class families in the 70's -- whereas even upper middle class families with 6 figure incomes might have a hard time financing $40,000+ per year, especially if there is more than one child involved. </p>
<p>So those increases may really reflect a very different story than the raw numbers tell us -- my guess is that there is a significantly larger percentage of students shut out from a private college education today due to financial reasons than there were in the days when only the very neediest students qualified for aid.</p>
<p>So you can't look at those numbers without also knowing what the costs of attendance were in every year listed, and what median family incomes were in those years, and what percentage of total cost of attendance those award figures represent. Bottom line, how high up along the income ladder did families need to be in order to afford the cost of attendance? If, hypothetically, in 1970 families in the upper 50% could afford Swarthmore without financial aid, but in 2005 only famlies in the upper 5% can afford it... those percentages are far less impressive.</p>
<p>I can see that the figures you listed are "inflation adjusted" 2004 dollars, but the problem is that the increase in college tuition has far outpaced the rate of inflation for other items - so a 2004 $ simply doesn't go nearly as far toward paying for college as it once did, no matter how you adjust.</p>
<p>In 1971, I received no grant aid from Williams, and I came from a relatively low-income family. The cost was simply so low that I could work summers, and 20 hours or so a week during the school year and, with the aid of a relatively small loan, pay for it all. Now??? The number needed is "college-inflation adjusted dollars".</p>
<p>Meanwhile, percentage of students at Amherst receiving need-based aid in the class of 2008 fell to 44%, even as percentage of Pell Grant recipients rose to 15.2%. There is no middle. It is this middle (or, more precisely, the far upper part of the middle) that Princeton's new aid policies target. And all of these colleges are far, far more like fancy country clubs now than they were 30 years ago - the amenities have gotten really "slick".</p>
<p>But the impact of multiple applications? Yield at Amherst fell from a high of 47% in 1996 to 38% in 2004, even as the number admitted ED rose. It is likely that "middle" that is going elsewhere. The most extreme example of this is at USC, where over 50% pay full freight, but a full 30% are Pell Grant recipients.</p>
<p>Quote: "ED does nothing for an applicant who wasn't going to get accepted in the first place". </p>
<p>Because there are so many dimensions determining what "well qualified" means, I think ED can be useful for a beloved school that feels like a "reachy-match". When there are often 5+ times as many of those "qualified" applicants as there are spaces to admit, distinguishing between them can sometimes come down to hair splitting. ED then becomes a very powerful thing.</p>
<p>gee, I went to college in the 70's and as the child of two teachers I just don't recall college being "very affordable." On the other hand, I went off without a cellphone, tv, stereo, Ipod, computer, microwave, and all the other stuff today's kids consider as important as books and pens.... so maybe my perspective is warped. Our dorms were shabby; nobody expected to be able to find a latte at midnight at the on-campus coffee house; the swimming pool was wet and chlorinated but didn't rival a country club for atmosphere or ameneties.</p>
<p>OK, here's the data for Swarthmore:</p>
<p>Comprehensive student fees (in inflation adjusted constant 2004 dollars):</p>
<p>1970: $16,794
1980: $16,240
1990: $28,404
2000: $34,870</p>
<p>So college costs have increased 108% since 1970 in constant dollars. The average student scholarship has increased 366% over the same time frame, again in constant dollars.</p>
<p>One more set of numbers:</p>
<p>Percent of total student charges covered by the average need-based scholarship grant:</p>
<p>1970: 44%
1980: 35%
1990: 45%
2000: 54%</p>
<p>The link to the Brown Daily Herald article is here:
<a href="http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/paper472/news/2005/12/05/CampusNews/Early.Decision.Applications.Increase.16-1120872.shtml?sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com%5B/url%5D">http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/paper472/news/2005/12/05/CampusNews/Early.Decision.Applications.Increase.16-1120872.shtml?sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com</a></p>
<p>I will be interested to see if the overall numbers increase this year, or if the numbers balance out with fewer applying RD.</p>
<p>No, Interesteddad -- the trick isn't to play sleight of hand with comparing percentages -- here are your numbers showing average NET cost of attendance per student (in 2004 dollars) - that is, the balance owed after subtracting average aid per student:</p>
<p>1970: $14,135
1980: $13,621
1990: $21,783
2000: $25,132</p>
<p>Or, to put it another way - if you want to play percentages, the average cost shouldered by the student, in inflation-adjusted dollars, is almost double of what it was in 1980. And as a parent who sent a kid off to college in 2001, I can attest that cost of attendance at all colleges has increased dramatically over the past 5 years - so I am quite sure that the 2005 student is paying well above the $25K figure reflected above.</p>
<p>When we go back to the issue of the percentage of students receiving any aid at all -- keeping in mind that the 51% figure for 2000 includes upper middle class students receiving nominal grants as well as more needy students -- the real question is what percentage of students have EFC's between $16-$30K in inflation-adjusted dollars --those are the students who qualify for need based aid now but wouldn't have qualified if the costs had held constant.</p>
<p>Well, I can use myself as an example. I came from a lower income-class family. Never went hungry, and had two parents working - one a schoolteacher. Attended Williams 1967-1971; had a scholarship for some of it (and small loans my first 3 years; loan only my fourth.) In that last year, without a scholarship, I paid for it as follows; I made $2,200 in the summer, a huge amount in those days, working 18 hours a day as a resort hotel waiter with not a single day off. During the school year, I worked in both bookstores in town (now there's only one) roughly 20 hours a week total on average, for around $4 an hour, for 30 or so weeks, which amounted to $2,400. My loan to make up the difference in that year was under $1,000, and I had Williams paid for. </p>
<p>I then had a fellowship at Oxford, 1971-1973: all tuition and fees paid for, and $1,500 a year to live on, including travel. When the pound spiked, I begged another $500 out of them. Got a job during the long summer (almost 5 month) break in Iran, and saved enough money to travel, and make it through my second year.</p>
<p>Returned to the Univ. of Chicago, and had their highest academic fellowship, 1973-1976 (paid for by Dole Pineapple, of all people.) Full tuition and $2,600 a year! Actually saved around $400 a year on it (but I didn't have a car.)</p>
<p>Now fast forward. Williams costs roughly $44,000 a year. A student, if lucky, can make $3,000 or so in a summer. Working 20 hours a week at the bookstore at $7/hr (I'm being generous), would bring in $140 a week or $4,200 a year. So out of the $44,000 a year cost, a student in a smilar position t the one I was in in 1971 would have $7,200, or be short only $36,800 a year, which would rise every year, as costs rose faster than my bookstore or summer income. Taken as a loan, it would amount to only $144,000 or so over four years. And he would not be a Pell Grant recipient.</p>
<p>So it's no wonder that the bulk of students receiving financial aid are in the highest quintile - $92k-$160k - they really do need it if they are going to attend, and if the so-called need-blind schools don't cough up the bucks, they will increasingly go elsewhere. Yes, there are some Pell Grants recipients - 10-12% give or take, and a small group - if my community is an example, likely mostly athletes and URMs or folks with niche skills, with incomes between $45-$92k. But a substantially larger percentage of students will be in the top quintile - both those receiving aid, and the larger group not receiving aid, and that larger group having higher median incomes than at any time in the past 25 years. I would be shocked if that is not true for Swarthmore; I know it is true for Williams, Amherst, Princeton (even after the most recent policy changes), and Harvard. In other words, less economically diverse than at any time in the past 25 years (though there is the slight Princeton hiccup, for which they should be applauded.)</p>
<p>At Amherst, you can actually do the percentages from what they give us:
- 56% receive no financial aid (top 5% in family incomes - $160k plus, median much higher)
- 16% Pell Grantees (bottom 35%; family incomes below $40k);</p>
<p>Leaving 28% of "non-poor" students receiving financial aid; of these, 7 out of 10, or 20% of total student body, will be in the top quintile, but not top 5% - $92k-$160k incomes), and 3 or of 10, or 8% of the student body will fall in the "middle class", $40k-92k incomes. </p>
<p>It will differ in the details at each of the HYPS/AWS schools, but the broad picture will be very similar. The difference I expect (but can't prove) is that at HYP, the median income of those who receive no aid will be substantially higher.</p>
<p>But Mini: a student today with zero family contribution would get a full-ride financial aid deal at Williams. That package would include an expectation of summer work and work study and a loan package. So the net net would work out about the same. </p>
<p>Your $1,000 loan would be about $4500 to $5000 in 2004 dollars which is more than the loan expectation for any Williams student today.</p>
<p>Ah, but there WOULD be an expected family contribution for someone in equivalent economic circumstances today. Remember - I would not have been in the Pell Grant category.</p>
<p>The point, however, is that changes in admissions profiles, population wealth, and admissions/aid priorities would make it far less likely that a student like me would even be admitted today (at Amherst, I'd fall into the 8% category, and was not an athlete, URM, or niche-filler - hey, I was waitlisted even then! ;)). Most of the students receiving financial aid would be in the top quintile (it doesn't matter if it is AWS or P), and we would be very, very far from that. Add all the "top quintile" kids together and they amount to 75% of the student population, perhaps a little more at Amherst, a little less at Swarthmore, but this would be significantly wealthier at both schools than 20-25 years ago.</p>
<p>And, back to the subject, I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming bulk of "ED gaming" is done by families in the top quintile (plus international students), which is why the surge in applications even as yield at places like Amherst declines.</p>