<p>If anyone is interested, there is this mention:</p>
<p>"Harvard said no to one out of every four applicants with perfect SAT scores."</p>
<p>in this article about the 2006 admission classes.</p>
<p>Seniors</a> face tough odds trying to get into college</p>
<p>Interesting to see a "no to one out of every four applicants with perfect SAT scores" rather than a 50 percent rejection rate. A base acceptance rate of 75 percent was very good even in the year that the article was published.</p>
<p>"I STILL don't know why other CC participants think it's noteworthy to mention that Harvard is reported to reject X percent of its peak-scoring applicants (it appears that 50 percent is about right, which is something I learned from the replies in this thread). "</p>
<p>Because so many people including CC members spend tons of time and money to achieve perfect scores thinking that's the main ticket to acceptance at places like Harvard. Many high scoring CC members whom Harvard rejects post complaints that due to affirmative action, an "unqualified" person of color has stolen their space.</p>
<p>tokenadult, I've heard the 50% rejection number was true when perfect scores were 1600/1600. I think when the cumulative SAT score included writing, then the reject percentage went down.</p>
<p>In psychoanalyzing myself and other CC parents, I also observe that we are all hoping that the positive traits our kids have (scores, grades, ECs, or whatever) will be the predominant ones, and that the ones where our kids have weaknesses will be discounted. This leads to the "scores are everything" vs. "scores mean nothing" conversations--there is a large element of wishful thinking in all of this.</p>
<p>"As for the endowment, Harvard's is more than 20 billion while a place like Northwestern is probably less than a quarter of that. Their tuition is pretty much the same, though. The endowment doesn't come from the tuition."</p>
<p>Which is precisely why filling half a class with wealthy people is a top priority.</p>
<p>Well, whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree. Still, you act as if you know all of these things are facts. I'm guessing you worked in admissions? </p>
<p>If what you say is true, I don't know why you are so blase' about it. It would be one of the biggest scandals ever in college admissions, not that they would favor rich people, but that they would blatently lie about it.</p>
<p>To summarize this thread and the other one, we've already established that rich people:
get perfect scores on the SAT because of SAT prep classes
get perfect grades because they bought tutors
have time to do EC's because the family is rich
on top of this they get into schools with lesser stats than their classmates because they are upper class.</p>
<p>Does that cover it?</p>
<p>"Which is precisely why filling half a class with wealthy people is a top priority."</p>
<p>And I guess there is no other way to do it other than at the admit stage?</p>
<p>The question I have for you is: why would they prefer to do it at the admit stage rather than at the financial aid stage. If Princeton sets aside 50 million for financial aid and plans to get 1600 students 150,000 dollars/tuition = 240 million dollars -50 million = 190 million dollars in tuition, then that is what they are going to get. Again, **there is no viable reason why they would need to do this at the admissions stage*</p>
<p>I knew plenty of people who got in everywhere and ended up going to a state school because they couldn't afford it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if you had a score in that range, and learned that Harvard essentially accepted all the applicants in that range who also had decent ECs and a GPA above 3.7 (or whatever), you'd relax a little bit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry. Wishful thinking is right. Look at some of the Naviance scattergrams that float around. There is NO GPA/SAT function that works to describe Harvard's admissions, except that your chances are pretty trivial if you are not hanging around the upper right-hand corner of the graph. But within that corner, acceptances are all over the place.</p>
<p>A kid with perfect SATs, a good GPA, and good ECs probably has a pretty good chance of getting into Harvard. "Pretty good", in this context, meaning "better than 20%". Not "breathe easy" or "forget about that safety".</p>
<p>The interesting thing about a perfect 2400 is that the person has basically maxed-out on the test in 3 areas. This is theoretically way, way better than a 790 790 790. We don't know if the test could have been twice as hard and the person could still have gotten a perfect score and thus theoretically be "twice" as smart as the 790 790 790. I think the admissions committees should really think good and hard before rejecting people like that and I hope they all manage to get into some fabulous institution which will nurture their gifts even if they don't have ECs or even great grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I STILL don't know why other CC participants think it's noteworthy to mention that Harvard is reported to reject X percent of its peak-scoring applicants (it appears that 50 percent is about right, which is something I learned from the replies in this thread).
[/quote]
I think CC participants think it's noteworthy because so many posters come on here with a disproportionate focus on SAT scores; conversely, others come here despondent that they have "no chance" because they are disappointed with quite good SAT scores.</p>
<p>CC members want to point out that it is "not all about the SAT", that this is only part of the story. A great way to illustrate that is to point out that even perfect SAT scores are no guarantee and that applicants with "imperfect" SAT scores can and do have stellar admissions results.</p>
<p>I agree with the proposition that applicants may as well apply boldly whether they are less than perfect with respect to standardized test scores, or less than perfect with respect to high school grade average. Let the admission committee figure out what it is looking for among imperfect applicants. </p>
<p>I also agree that any applicant to a super-reach, even an applicant who is perfect with respect to both grades and test scores, needs to apply to a safety college first of all. </p>
<p>collegealum, no sense in having a rational discussion with mini about this. I.m.o., he's a little irrational about it. Part of what he says is true. However, his broad, sweeping statements do not explain a couple of things: (1) Why there are many middle class students at the Elites; (cc'ers there have met them) (2) That a need-aware policy works in favor of, not against, a low-income student who is highly accomplished. The Yales, Harvards, Princetons, Columbias are <em>preferring</em> those students to equally accomplished students who are better off but are not development admits.</p>
<p>It is especially the highly endowed Harvards & Princetons that can afford to be generous with financial aid. All Harvard's endowment does is grow. There is in fact a current article about that in The Times or somewhere else. As long as there continues to be a critical mass of development admits & alumni donors (virtually guaranteed at the Elites), after that such schools can afford to select among non-financial assets to fill their classes in the configurations they choose.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Part of what he says is true. However, his broad, sweeping statements do not explain a couple of things: (1) Why there are many middle class students at the Elites; (cc'ers there have met them) (2) That a need-aware policy works in favor of, not against, a low-income student who is highly accomplished.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In fairness to mini:</p>
<p>Everytime I've gone scurrying to the available stats to prove him wrong on his issue, I haven't been able to do so. It's a difficult question because it gets into inflation adjusted dollars, what do you mean by "middle class" (i.e. is the average US family income a reliable measure), and so forth.</p>
<p>mini has a defensible position that, despite all their chest thumping about diversity, elite colleges are in fact less economically diverse than they were 30 years ago. I can't prove him wrong.</p>
<p>Where I think mini is a bit dogmatic is his implication that all full-fare customers at elite colleges are wealthy. I think that ignores some realities about two-earner families, grandparents helping with college, etc. To be sure, full-fare customers are not po' folk, but they aren't all flying to college in dad's Gulfstream, either.</p>
<p>"mini has a defensible position that, despite all their chest thumping about diversity, elite colleges are in fact less economically diverse than they were 30 years ago. I can't prove him wrong."</p>
<p>If this is true, this could be attributed to tuition rising at a greater rate than inflation without financial aid increases fully compensating for it. It does not require any preference for the rich.</p>
<p>That's where it gets tricky. The sticker price and the average per student price discount have both risen roughly the same amounts since the early 1970s. I'll post some constant-dollar figures later.</p>
<p>On the surface, that seems to suggest that economic diversity might be about the same. However, that ignores the massive increase in disparity between higher income earners and lower income earners. mini's point is that rich folk pay a lower percentage of their income for elite colleges today than they did 30 years ago and everyone else pays the same or a bigger chunk. I think he is probably right. Despite the chest-thumpin, it's less painful for rich folk to afford college today and more painful for lower and middle income families (again, depending on what you call "middle").</p>
<p>Anyway, I'll post some data later. I dug it up when comparing college costs to gasoline prices. They've both risen about the same with gasoline in the $3.50 a gallon range.</p>
<p>But the real question in my mind is why so many people who will feel real pain at paying for a non-merit school still do so... and still aspire to- in droves.</p>
<p>This surely has changed since the '70's when I was in college. As a member of the non-elite at an Ivy 30 years ago, my observation of the other not-rich people yields the following:
Children of immigrants whose parents would work three jobs, and kid would do the same, for a shot at the golden ring- these kids were usually Jr. Phi Beta Kappa and most went to med school- they volunteered prodigiously in the community and in campus government.
Children of the socially elite but no money for whom attendance at a top private school was expected (i.e. dad a minister, mom a social worker, fourth generation of a very wealthy family but the parents themselves had no dough). Sometimes parents were artists, i.e. poet and cellist. Still no dough; kids had funky upbringings and brought a lot to campus.
Children of locals (dad's a fireman and mom's a nurse- kid exhibited exceptional talent early on and was encouraged to apply by teachers etc.) Kids became preppy wannabees if they were athletes, or joined up with the immigrants if they were not.</p>
<p>That was us.</p>
<p>Today I know all sorts of people who fit into dozens of categories who are mortaging and borrowing from their 401K's to pay their EFC. Were the schools more generous back then since there weren't quite so many non-elites who even dared to apply? Were my parents richer than I thought (or richer than they thought) since with severe belt-tightening they were able to come up with their share? Were we part of some bizarre social engineering experiment, since the children of the elites couldn't predictably fit into campus activities except for the frats, theater,ski club and what was left of the anti-war movement????</p>
<p>Gosh I miss the 70's.</p>
<p>OK, here's the data I promised. This is from Swarthmore's annual financial reports, but I have no reason to suspect any other elite college is materially different.</p>
<p>Thes numbers compare 2005 to 1970, twenty five years earlier. Everything is expressed in inflation-adjusted, constant 2005 dollars, so these are pure cost increases. These are all per student figures based on average enrollment for the academic year, so they may not exactly match published sticker price, etc.</p>
<p>Sticker price per student increased 229%
1970: $17,219
2005: $39,408</p>
<p>Financial aid discounts per student increased 408%
1970: $2,727<br>
2005: $11,137</p>
<p>Note: This is mostly due to an increase of students qualifying for need-based aid from 36% to 50% of the student body.</p>
<p>Average price paid per student increased 195%
1970: $14,492
2005: $28,271</p>
<hr>
<p>Blossom, to answer your question: there is no such thing as a non-merit discount school. For example, Swarthmore is a need-aid only school, but wait:</p>
<p>In 1970:
$29,992 Avg. per student expenditures (not inc. fin. aid)</p>
<h2>$14,492 Avg per student fees</h2>
<p>$15,500 Avg per student "merit discount"</p>
<p>In 2005:
$69,212 Avg. per student expenditures (not inc. fin. aid)</p>
<h2>$28,271 Avg per student fees</h2>
<p>$40,941 Avg per student "merit discount"</p>
<p>The big endowment schools all offer significant implied discounts. The offer a lot of value (in dollars and cents) over and above the student charges. That's why they have customers lined up around the block. Think of the demand for a $69,000 Mercedes if the dealer put it on sale for $28,000.</p>
<p>That equation hasn't changed in twenty five years. The average customer at Swarthmore pays 229% more (in constant dollars) and gets a product that costs 231% more to produce.</p>
<p>What makes the product more expensive? More faculty. Nicer buildings. More support services (psych, deans for every race, creed, and religion). Nicer science building. Soaring benefits costs for employees. And, so forth and so on. I think anyone comparing their college experience in 1970 to their kids today can see the added "luxury" features.</p>
<p>"The question I have for you is: why would they prefer to do it at the admit stage rather than at the financial aid stage. I knew plenty of people who got in everywhere and ended up going to a state school because they couldn't afford it."</p>
<p>I have no idea if mini is right or wrong, but if he's right, the reason for doing it at the admit stage rather than the fin aid stage would be yield and enrollment management. The schools we're talking about want to admit as few students as possible. If you admit an extra 500 poor kids and then "reject" them at the fin aid stage (by giving them offers sure to drive them away), then you look less selective than you would look if you never admitted them in the first place. Your admit %age is going to be higher than it needs to be to get the class you want, and no school wants that.</p>
<p>The process mini describes reflects nothing more than the fact that colleges are corporations, mostly non-profit, but corporations nonetheless. People who assume that colleges, even those with large endowments, will admit students without keeping a running tally of the cost are simply naive. There is a finite amount of money in the pool at the beginning of the cycle and that is all there is to spend for that year. Period. The amount may be readjusted for the following year, but not on the fly. I don't know of any Dean of Admissions of any college that would wildly overshoot its financial aid bugdet and still keep his or her job. </p>
<p>Whether the school has an explicit ratio of full-pay versus financial aid students or runs regular checks during the admissions season may vary, although I would tend to believe the second scenario is more prevalent. My experience has been that most waitlisted and transfer students are full pay as the financial aid pool has run dry by the time they get up for evaluation. </p>
<p>I frankly don't see a problem with the process as a any other system would be a recipe for mismanagement if not disaster. I also think it is unfair to criticize the so-called "need-blind" institutions who have made vast progress to admit low income students over the past decades. Where else but in the US can a high achieving low income student get an essentially free education at a top private institution. The student body at Harvard or MIT is a lot more diverse economically than that at Oxford or Cambridge. </p>
<p>If anything the non-need blind institutions who offer merit money to high achieving students with the hope of siphoning them away from better ranked colleges deserve much greater criticism. Any merit money is money that could have been allocated to the need-based pool. Even mini's revered Smith College is know for milking its legacy applicants to fund its very generous program for non-traditional students. But in the end, the money has to come from somewhere. At least they have the honesty of not claiming to be need-blind.</p>