<p>How will LAC's handle having fewer applicants this year? After years of stats only improving, will they decline this year? Has the economy caused the biggest graduating class in decades to actually have an easier time getting into these schools?</p>
<p>Here are my thoughts:</p>
<p>I think there will some of that for full pays, or very low need. I think those that require a large amount of merit aid and/or financial aid are going to need to have similar stats to the past. I think that they will need to offer admission to more students to make sure seats get filled. That does not mean lowering standards in a big way, IMO. I also think that FA will work harder to get an accepted student through the door in cases where a small amount of money will make the difference btn. filling a seat, meanting lower need cases where students are not so high need (less gap, slightly higher on the grant than self help). Overall, I think that schools will be happier to meet the need of 2 B+ students requiring 15-19k than one B+ student requiring 38k to meet need. JMO.</p>
<p>Someone put forth the theory that the numbers are down but that the majority of those numbers probably represent either kids who wouldn't necessarily choose the school anyway even if they got in and kids that for whom it is clearly a huge reach. I mean it's pretty hard to understand why numbers would be down at say an Amherst when they guarantee aid and a loan free package. And I would suggest that this makes sense because these huge leaps in applications transpired over the last few years and is directly related to the increase in online applications. As for "an easier time" that is supposing that the 1.5% decrease in apps at a school like Amherst or a 17% decrease at a school like Middlebury are all students that are well within the range of acceptance, which I very much doubt. If anything, the decrease in applications reflects 1) application fees during a recession and 2) narrowing down the reaches and putting more safeties on your final list.</p>
<p>So based on your theory Northeastmom, are you saying that need blind schools might make packages slightly MORE attractive to the low need kid with the better grades? Doesn't that kind of negate the whole need blind admission's policy? Or is it just a loophole regardless?</p>
<p>I always thought that financial aid would only look at family income numbers and admissions would only look at the academic piece. Certainly, even I know this is on the naive side, but I can't imagine a school (especially one claiming to be need blind with no merit aid) would ever be so blatant as to confirm that they are need bind in admissions, but accomplishment aware when it comes to financial aid awards.</p>
<p>I think we should be careful about generalizing here because so far LACs are all over the map on their applications, which portends something about selectivity. Wesleyan is reporting a 21.6% increase in apps, which means it will probably become MORE selective. Most other LACs are down, but that ranges from down only slightly (Amherst -1.2%, St. Olaf -1.5%, Bowdoin -1.7%), to down significantly (Bucknell -5%, Colby -7%, Macalester -9.7%, Kenyon -10%), to really getting hammered (Middlebury -12%, Gettysburg -15%, Hamilton -16%). Many others haven't yet reported, which may or may not signal bad news. It's hard to see how you can remain as selective if your applicant pool is down 10 to 15%.</p>
<p>What they've all got to be concerned about is yield. I expect more families to do much harder comparison shopping this year on net COA, i.e., COA less grants/scholarships. Schools that "gap" (don't meet full need) or that provide a large percentage of financial aid in the form of loans or work/study (both essentially forms of self-help) may find that they're not cost-competitive with other privates or with in-state publics, and their yields might decline---which necessarily means they'd need to reach a little deeper into the applicant pool, and their stats should dip accordingly. Those that can afford to offer really attractive FA packages may actually do BETTER in this market and will be able to maintain their yields and their admissions stats. </p>
<p>They'll all be hoping to have a higher percentage of full-pays and low-need admits. At schools that don't pledge to be "need-blind" in admissions, this is easier to arrange through the kinds of measures northeastmom suggests ^. But at need-blind schools it's more of a challenge unless they find quiet ways to cheat on that pledge. If they're truly need-blind and generous in their FA awards they could be looking at a much bigger total FA bill because more families will need more aid, and more will be making it a pivotal consideration in their final decisions---all at the same time the schools' own budgets are getting whacked by shrinking endowments. I don't envy the adcoms and administrators at these schools; they've got a tough year ahead of them.</p>
<p>It honestly depends which LAC. A top LAC like Amherst will have top applicants anyway and choosing the best from a slightly smaller pool will make no difference.</p>
<p>My guess is that a lot of the decline comes from those families that could have comfortably been full pay in the past and still qualify for no aid but can't/won't pay $50K. I've seen many families who fit that description looking to state flagships and merit aid schools. These are savvy consumers who sized up their situation and told their kids where they could apply.</p>
<p>It will also be interesting to see if they accept more next month expecting lower yields or they accept the usual number and heavily rely on wait lists.</p>
<p>I have the feeling wait list action will be lively until the day classes start.</p>
<p>It could be a great year to be a full-pay kid. I think a lot of middle-class families will be taking good, hard look at State U as an alternative to private LACs/unis. If enough of those families opt for State U, the applicants remaining in the private LAC/uni pool could have more and better options than in past years.</p>
<p>It really seems to be getting prohibitive for parents with multiple children to go the private college route. Declining home values, lay-offs, escalating college costs... I mean what a brutal time! Even in the state schools things will be desperate because they states' just don't have the money. UMASS just plugged in a 15% increase. Even if your S or D gets 15 or 20K you've still got to pony up another 25 to 35K. Not possible for most non- Wall Street folks I know.</p>
<p>I agree with #6, and I was not thinking in terms of higher tier LACs.</p>
<p>Modadunn, some of the need blind schools, I had read somewhere, are going to go/ or have gone to need aware. Don't know where I read that, sorry, so I don't recall which schools. My son is not looking for "need blind", so I did not pay much attention to that. I would think a direct call to admissions if it is not stated on a school's website should clarify that for you.</p>
<p>foolishpleasure, I agree, esp. if instate COA is low.</p>
<p>Foolish I agree, my full pay D was accepted into her first choice, but her GC said sit tight, and have my checkbook ready. I said we didnt mind losing deposit, and wanted to get first in line for housing, and my D is set on going there, but GC (very high perfoming but yes, public HS) said the GC staff is expecting phone calls early may and after, that on the very QT, if they have kids within certain parameters, get late applications in.</p>
<p>I agree, hmom5, on the likely heavy use of wait-lists. I have a high-financial-need son who matriculated last year at Amherst. I wonder if his odds would have been as good this year, although the school administration at all levels, so far as I can tell, is ethical, principled, and altruistic. Still, reality is reality, and even a slightly higher percentage of full-pay students, or even mostly-pay students, would likely be a big help in a time when they're looking for ways to cut costs.</p>
<p>My daughter, on the other hand, has an application in to our flagship state u's honors college. I do imagine they are looking at a big increase in applicants who would be competitive at the more selective privates, and looking at it with the likelihood of a higher yield. It's a very small progam --only 600 students total-- so I can imagine they will be making much use of the waitlist. Poor daughter... she so would love to go there. It is not her back-up choice, it's her 1st choice. She's at the very top of the 25%-75% range. Waiting, waiting.</p>
<p>I think another reason some students who would otherwise go to privates may end up at state universities this year, is that the economic crisis gives their parents permission, in a way, to say 'no'. I think a lot of parents on one hand want to provide their students with the opportunity to go to a very-desired school, and in better times have a hard time justifying saying no even though it pains them greatly to fork over the big bucks. In these times, I think they can go to their kids --and even if they still <em>could</em> afford it if they had to-- they can tell them times are too uncertain, and it's just not possible. They are off the hook, the kids need to respect the gravity of the situation, and the parents probably feel much relief.</p>
<p>"GC staff is expecting phone calls early may and after, that on the very QT, if they have kids within certain parameters, get late applications in."</p>
<p>I am surprised by the number of prominent (but not to 30) LACs whose admissions web pages CURRENTLY announce that they are continuing to accept applicantions.</p>
<hr>
<p>"It really seems to be getting prohibitive for parents with multiple children to go the private college route. "</p>
<p>Thank God my two will overlap for only one year.</p>
<p>Yes, foolish, and at the same time the number of publics that closed applications early.</p>
<p>Middlebury received around 6,800 applications this year (a preliminary number that was expected to rise somewhat after all applications were counted). That's still well above the number of applicants in 2006 (6,184). The overall acceptance rate in 2006 was 24%, and the September acceptance rate was 22%. </p>
<p>This year, 968 students applied Early Decision, of which 276 were accepted for September entry and 41 for February entry. The projected class size this year is 600 September matriculants and 90 September matriculants. So that means that the college needs 324 September matriculants and 49 February matriculants from the RD pool to fill the class. </p>
<p>We have no data on how many ED applicants were outright rejected (as opposed to being deferred to the RD pool), but when you subtract the ED I and II admits, that leaves approximately 6,483 people vying for those remaining 324 September and 49 Feburary spots. If you factor in traditional yield rates, the college will need to accept around 1,500 (ED and RD) to fill the class. That translates into an acceptance rate of 22%. That's higher than this past year's 18% acceptance rate, but still among the most competitive in the country. I wouldn't count on things being much easier this year.</p>
<p>I dont think the Middlebury's, Amhearsts etc will see a decline. I do think that one step down will. I almost wonder if we are going back to my parents time, where almost everyone went to a state school, unless they were truly well off.</p>
<p>The percentage of students going to state schools has been growing consistently for 30 years. (and the student bodies are the prestige privates are, in aggregate, less economically diverse than they were 30 years ago.)</p>
<p>My son is full pay. My feeling was that a safety was one where you were clearly above their 75th percentile. He has solid EC's and his recs are really good right down to the AP Bio teacher with two PHd's who insisted on writing a letter to add to his midyear report. He is on the bubble of two of his schools (in the mid to high 50th % of their stats) and at two he is definitely still in their mid 50's but the selectivity of the school is going to be huge factor. At other four he should be fine. So.. we'll see where he actually gets in barring any kind of hook (at one point I considered him an athletic recruit but I think that boat sailed without him). If he gets into the schools where he is on the bubble, the jury will be out because he may have gotten in either way. However, if he gets into his two remaining big reaches, I'd say his being full pay probably played a role.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and the student bodies are the prestige privates are, in aggregate, less economically diverse than they were 30 years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can this possibly be accurate, especially in aggregate? Can I ask what your source(s) is/are?</p>
<p>You actually can look up (I've posted previously) the percentage of Pell Grant recipients from 1993 til the present (it is lower now.) You can also find online the cost of attendance to prestige privates in 1980 as a percentage of income at the 5th percentile (i.e. no need-based aid) and compare it with what that looks like today. You'll find that even though the percentage of those receiving need-based aid has increased marginally, the percentage of middle-income students (and I really do mean "middle to upper middle income - $43k-$100k today) has actually declined substantially.</p>
<p>The percentage of students attending state u's has ballooned as places at state u's (especially 2nd and 3rd tier ones) has massively increased. The same hasn't happened at the privates. The median age for an undergraduate student in the U.S. today is 24.5 - 18 year olds are an anomaly. This is a pretty recent development, as is the large increases in minorities (and women) attending college and universities in the past 40 years, with women now being the majority.</p>