Yield

Parents Forum
41

<p>
[quote]
But why should they have to "merely" drop down to a less selective school if they are as qualified as the wealthy?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because that's the way the game is played. Why would Harvard want to offer an upper-middle class family a merit-aid discount incentive? It's not like they need to increase their published SAT statistics. </p>

<p>If you want non-need-based incentive discounts, you have to apply to schools where your SAT scores are of value to the college, i.e. higher than they would otherwise get.</p>

<p>Consumers have a wonderful array of choices. They can opt to play a selectivity/prestige maximization game. Or, they choose to play a merit-aid incentive discount game. Each family can choose the strategy that best fits their priorities and everybody wins, given that there are several hundred or more schools that provide an excellent undergrad education.</p>

42

<p>Byerly: Thanks for the answer. It makes a lot of sense to me that the problem would become a circular one. I had been wondering lately whether the recent application frenzy would ultimately impact yield. </p>

<p>The reason I asked is that I know of a few kids who applied and were accepted to several selective colleges. Interestingly, some of the ultimate choices were not ones which I would have expected. I am sure that financial aid, merit awards, or other personal considerations contributed to some of these unexpected decisions. </p>

<p>While I know that this is only anecdotal evidence, it started me thinking that such situations might become more commonplace as more kids apply to more colleges and more schools dangle financial incentives to increase enrollment. If that’s the case, even the most selective institutions might see a drop in yield. I figured that despite the obvious drawbacks of ED, many schools would revert back to it in order to better manage enrollment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
extending offers of admission based on. . . . . . <em>zip code</em>!!

[/quote]

I had not heard that before. Wow!</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
If that’s the case, even the most selective institutions might see a drop in yield.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is already happening. Where "need-based" aid used to be a widespread policy, we are now down to only perhaps a dozen schools that don't make extensive use of merit-discount incentives. The money to fund the incentive discounts is coming directly out of the funds available for need-based aid. This trend is a serious threat to the prospect of lower-income students.</p>

<p>The bidding/begging for high-stat URM students the last couple of years has bordered on obscene.</p>

<p>This appeared in the Boston Globe earlier this week:</p>

<p>
[quote]
MINORITY REPORT This year's freshman class at the small, elite Amherst College has only about two dozen black students, 6 percent of the class and fewer than half as many as the year before. Amherst prides itself on its diversity, so officials were alarmed and decided to study what went wrong. Their conclusion? The culprit was ''monkey business" on the part of other top colleges, said Tom Parker, the dean of admissions and financial aid. Parker said schools that say they don't give merit scholarships and award financial aid only on the basis of need were quietly violating their policies by fiddling with their aid formulas. He said the schools, which he refused to name, were ignoring such factors as rental property income, or the salary of a non-custodial parent, even though that parent would be able to help pay for his or her child's education. ''Clearly, enrolling African-American students is a high priority for them, and they were willing to stretch the definition [of need-based financial aid] like I have never seen before," Parker said. Amherst refused to change its financial aid policies, so this year it has redoubled its efforts to identify low-income high school students and and fly minority students in for campus visits. The result? Among the 1,100 accepted students, 161 are black, 17 percent more than a year ago. Once the replies come in, they hope about 10 percent of next fall's incoming class will be African-American.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Amherst has been one of the most committed to affirmative action, minority recruitment. Swarthmore is in the same boat. Despite having long-standing commitments to affirmative action, they are increasingly getting outbid. I don't honestly know how long Amherst and Swarthmore can stick with need-based finanicial aid in today's environment. With their endowments, they could swing a pretty big bat in the merit-aid bidding war.</p>

44

<p>Buying of upper tier students will always continue. At many places, even the 'merit' scholarships are not really merit. They are given to meet their recruitment goals in race, gender, zipcodes and field of study.</p>

45

<p>"The fact that consumers are given the option to evaluate a product, decide the posted price is acceptable, and consumate a deal without further shopping is hardly "repressive". Happens all the time in the real world, the instant any consumer decides to stop shopping and make a purchase."</p>

<p>That is true interested Dad but a consmer can do that without signing a contract first for any other consummable. Here the seller is conspiring with other sellers of the same product and saying they will only consider your offer to purchase if you withdraw all others. When I go down to the car dealership to buy a Lexus he doesn't first shove a paper in my face and tell me I have to sign a contract promising not to visit the Mercedes dealership or the Jaguar dealership.</p>

46

<p>Actually, any car salesman worth his salt is trained to do precisely that. At the point in time where the customer is ready to establish the terms of the deal, the salesman always confirms, "If I can get you that price, are you prepared to buy right now?" </p>

<p>Applying Early Decision is that point in time when the consumer is indeed ready to 'buy right now'. Both parties to the transaction are clear on that. The college evaluates the application with that fact in mind and may well evaluate the app differently than the kid who is still kicking tires. In any commercial transaction, the confirmed buyer takes precendence over the tire kicker.</p>

<p>Probably the better analogy is putting in an offer to buy a house. At that point, most of us are precluded from continuing to shop for other houses. If the offer is accepted, we have bought a house. If the offer is declined, we go back into the market.</p>

47

<p>No interesteddad - the college has not evaluated the application at the point the want you to sign off on the deal. In fact they explicitly say they will not even consider your offer to buy and your suitability to buy unless you promise not to visit the Mercedes dealer first. On top of that if they catch you visiting the Mercedes dealer they will inform the Mercedes dealer and the Jaguar dealer and probably even the guy selling used Yugos and they will all blackball you because they have a collective no compete agreement.</p>

<p>The really strange thing about this is the "contract" the school wants you to sign is probably not enforcible or even a legal contract. That is why the colleges never go to court.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
In fact they explicitly say they will not even consider your offer to buy and your suitability to buy unless you promise not to visit the Mercedes dealer first.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is no requirement that you stop shopping just because you file an ED app. My daughter had already submitted applications to two additional colleges and had a third ready to drop in the mail on Dec. 16th had her first choice college not accepted her "offer to buy".</p>

<p>The ED school provides the financial aid package with the ED acceptance. If you can't swing it financially, they will release you from the ED commitment to pursue more affordable alternatives. Doesn't happen very often.</p>

<p>People seem to think that ED is just for those looking to "game" the system. Believe it or not, there are kids (and their families) who are absolutely, positively sold by November 1st. There was not a shadow of a doubt in our house and I suspect the same is true for most, if not all, of the other 310 kids who applied ED for her class. I'm trying to understand the downside? It's not like anyone was pulling the wool over our eyes.</p>

49

<p>idad:</p>

<p>"The money to fund the incentive discounts is coming directly out of the funds available for need-based aid."</p>

<p>That is why I advocate that schools should meet 100% of financial need for all students before they offer merit aid. Once they do that I do not see what the issue is. For example, once a school satisfies 100% of financial need then they can provide merit based athletic scholarships to the football team.</p>

<p>Byerly has pointed out in the past that once those athletes can no longer play they lose their scholarships. I do not see that as an issue if they then go into the regular financial aid pool where they get funded 100%, basically losing nothing from where they would be at an Ivy league school.</p>

<p>If it is just about full paying seats let schools raise thier prices and fill the place with those who can pay. The downside is that they will be viewed as elite and not meritocracies. A fine line that all the schools walk right now similar to the 50% ED line.</p>

<p>Further, as a tax payer who supplies federal funds to these private, tax exempt, non-profit institutions I expect to see some societal benefit from what we are providing them by granting them that status. I applaud many of the Ivy league schools that are finally starting to use their funds to enable well qualified but less economically advantaged students to attend.</p>

<p>Sorry, your ED argument does not wash with me. It is all to the advantage of the schools against a 17 year old student who is not able to drink, vote or execute a valid contract in many states.</p>

50

<p>I don't like ED but on the other hand I don't see where/why private colleges and their customers have an obligation to fund need. It may be a nice thing to do but for the cost of funding one very needy student you could probably make the school affordable to three middle or working class kids with high test scores and GPAs.</p>

<p>Private colleges are increasingly becomming the bastions of the wealthy and a handful of the poor. For a kid from a family with an income of $45-55 a year, a little above the median the price of a private college education is prohibitive. In other words for most the kids in America.</p>

51

<p>Usually ED/EA threads make me go EEEEE! but there are some good posts on this one.</p>

<p>When I first took a look at ED policies a couple of years ago I was very negatively disposed toward them, primarily as I viewed them from the perspective of students with poor support for their college search and high financial need. In these cases, just getting organized in time to get a solid ED app in can be challenging, and a $1000-3000 annual variance in college costs can really mean something to the family. The latter factor makes it less likely that a low-or middle-income student would even risk an ED app. </p>

<p>From that perspective, and from a broader social perspective I am still no fan of ED, but I do not see any real downside to an upper-middle-income or upper-income student going ED. So the family ends up spending $3000 more at Colgate ED then they would have with a Trinity or Bates RD acceptance. BFD. And I don't see any real downside for schools offering ED, as long as peer schools are offering it. Other Ivies might move to SCEA over time, but not because it is fairer to students or a "better" policy. . .they'll adopt it if they believe keeping ED is lowering applicant pool numbers and quality. </p>

<p>Regarding RD yield as an element of the USNEWS rankings. . .wouldn't that just add a questionable, easy-to-game (via use of waitlist) element to an already problematic measure?</p>

52

<p>"For a kid from a family with an income of $45-55 a year, a little above the median the price of a private college education is prohibitive."</p>

<p>I've not done any exhaustive research on this topic but I do know that for many kids just above that income level selective private schools can be less expensive than selective (i.e. flagship state unis) public schools.</p>

<p>Also, the funding of low-income students by private colleges blends several motives. There is a sense of obligation, perhaps intensifying now as public college tuition moves up sharply. Many schools see a benefit to having a varied (by race, geography, academic interest. . . and family income) group of students on campus. And for a variety of reasons, selective schools are anxious to add as many 4.0/high SAT kids to the mix as they can.</p>

53

<p>reidm - for kids just above that level 45-55 slective schools with need based only aid become prohibitively expense. Pop the numbers into FAFSA and see what the EFC is. The need only school will saddle the kid with loans bigger than the family mortgage. For these folks there are only a couple of viable options - merit aid or in-state and probably a commuter school school at that.</p>

<p>The highly selective need only schools are for the rich and a handful of the poor and that goes a long way in explaining why they have a monlithically liberal culture.</p>

54

<p>Patuxent,</p>

<p>"I don't like ED but on the other hand I don't see where/why private colleges and their customers have an obligation to fund need."</p>

<p>Funny, I always viewed it as the bargain they struck with the government. Schools are supplied federal research dollars and have tax-exempt non-profit status. Further, some of the federal and state money they receive is for financial need students. </p>

<p>I believe it is also the reason the private colleges watched the UMichigan case so closely. They wanted to ensure they complied with federal regulations so they could continue to receive federal money.</p>

55

<p>Riedm,</p>

<p>Agreed on the new way to game the system using RD yield. However, I think it is a bit harder to game it via that mechanism. Further, it may create a different issue, the size and certainty of the class has been pushed out into the summer instead of May 1 (with tweaks from the waiting list thereafter).</p>

56

<p>It's all circular logic. Harvard College's yeild is highest because it is perceived to be the best and Harvard College is perceived to be the best because of its high yeild. The same circular logical arguement can be made with respect to HC's increadibly qualified student body and the career success of their graduates.</p>

<p>In reality it becomes very difficult to quantify any college's ability to provide a "value added" academic program. In fact of the colleges my son researched, the College of Wooster may have been tops in that regard.</p>

57

<p>InterestedDad, I agree with everything you've stated here, especially your comments regarding free-trade. I fail to see the evils of ED and how it precludes the student from visiting other schools. Hasn't the intelligent student and family ALREADY visited other schools and that's EXACTLY why one particular school has been CHOSEN BY THE STUDENT as the first choice? Much like how you would have already visited the Mercedes dealer and decided you DID NOT want to own one BEFORE signing a contract to buy a Lexus? My Junior daughter has visited seven schools and already has a clear choice out of the group. Before choosing to apply ED, both parents and she will visit again this summer, then one more visit for an overnight and interview fall of senior year. The admit rates at this school are 12% BETTER for ED applicants and my daughter does not have a 4.0 or high SATs. The next step for us is to look at how this first choice meets the finanicial need. If the school claims to meet 98 - 100% of the demonstrated finanicial need, then what's the downside? I suppose the school could grant less and loan more, but wouldn't the educated consumer have that discussion with the school BEFORE submitting an ED application? Your kid gets an advantage admit %-wise, plus they are applying to their FIRST choice.</p>

<p>If after those additional visits, and the financial aid discussion, the school remains her top choice, she will apply ED. </p>

<p>I wonder why ED is viewed as anti-free trade/quasi-criminal. For my family, my daughter will be able to communicate to a school that she WANTS to attend there and the school knows that if they accept her, she will.</p>

<p>How about the high stat kids who apply to and get accepted to 10-20 schools, many of which they haven't even been bothered to visit? These kids are playing the money game at the expense of other more interested students. Aren't they falsley indicating an interest to attend while at the same time taking a seat and money from a rejected or wait-listed student for whom the college is a first choice? If ED is removed as a application option, students with a first choice school lose out.</p>

58

<p>Patuxent, I do agree with what you are saying, but I think the income threshhold is above what you express. I would say more in the $90K range is where it gets shaky. Those kids do not qualify for pure need based aid, so they have to pay full freight to go to colleges that only offer financial aid. So if the family situation is such that it cannot be done, or the family is unwilling to through the austerity and deprivation it would take to pay for an expensive private college education, than that is it. Kids below those threshholds can get pretty generous packages at the top schools. Many of them are even loan free or very light on loans. I do recognize that even a $15K contribution from a family at the, say $60K level is a tough go, but it is doable with the kid working like a maniac over the summer, even starting immediately after acceptance, scaling down the school load for that. And there are some state schools, notably in Pa who charge more than that and are not like to give much aid at all. My friend's daughter does get some aid going to Pitt, but it has been tough since the tuition alone is close to $10K. She commutes which is an expense as well, and there are the books and supplies fees as well. She did not make the cut for the substantial merit awards so she gets about $2500 which still makes the total cost of a state school, as a commuter about $10K when all is said and done. Had she gotten into a school with generous financial aid, her nut would have been about $15K, but she would be living at the school. When the EFC is the full $45K+, the dollar amount is just a difficult hurdle even at the 6 figure income range. Bring it down to about $15K and there are ways of meeting the cost even at the $50K income range.</p>

59

<p>I'Dad,
The problem I have with some of your arguments is that more than just economics/business is involved. (Your points, good as they are, seem focused on the college search as strictly a business proposition; it is partly, not entirely, that, I maintain.)</p>

<p>I think the strongest point you make concerns the overall reduction in RD apps that results from ED acceptances. That reduction would seem to be universally beneficial! However, there are other aspects to ED that make it not universally beneficial:</p>

<p>(1) Financial aid unknowns (already discussed, will not belabor);</p>

<p>(2) Your apparent focus on applicant Desire (vs. the institution's priorities for the freshman class) as the key dynamic (and the <em>reason</em> to apply ED). The sureness/commitment on the student's part is not not driving the admission <em>decisions</em>. In prioritizing applications, the institution couldn't care less whether the applicant wants to Take Them To The Prom. (And that's part of the problem I have with ED; the student CC forums are filled with protestations from rejected ED'ers about why the college in question should have factored in how much the student "loved" them.) Well naturally they react that way: it's because adults keep telling them over & over that they "should" apply ED if they're in love with one college. The "love" is the practical & legal sine-qua-non; it should not be the motivator for the application, because it is NOT the motivator for the college's acceptance of the student.</p>

<p>I see ED as an equal match game, college-to-student, only for exceptionally qualified students and/or those with some highly unusual asset to offer. In that case, the institution has as much to lose by rejecting or deferring that applicant, as the applicant has by gambling on eliminating other acceptances. In all other cases, I think ED is weighted to an extreme for the college, against the applicant. And in my view there are far too many "other cases" than is healthy or stabilizing for the system. I see ED to be easily just as destabilizing for some (colleges & students) as it is stabilizing for other colleges & students. (For example, rejected ED'ers tend to panic, often multiplying their subsequent RD applications by a factor of 2 or 3 --versus those with no ED appls at all). The "yield economy" gained in ED may be somewhat sacrificed in RD.</p>

<p>(3) Sureness & commitment prior to an Early acceptance may not translate 5 months later. This is also why I prefer EA to ED. My D who visited campuses in Jr. Yr. was not the same person who applied early in her Sr. Yr, nor the same person with more to consider & weigh in April of this yr. Each of those 3 time-markers represented a step in her development. Prior to late April, the conventional wisdom (hers, family's, friends') was that the Early admission would be her ultimate choice. Thank goodness that she had the time to consider more carefullly. There are students who can predict their college choice accurately from a wee age; there are others, esp. those for whom the setting itself is crucial, who need re-visits, re-consideration to make this decision.</p>

<p>I like ED as an option, yes, because there is a critical mass of applicants, such as your family's case shows, for whom it is a two-way benefit. I just don't share your general enthusiasm for ED as a panacea for the problem of application numbers & yield. I will probably continue to feel this way until I see a more accurately self-selected pool of ED applicants. In my opinion, we are far from there in this country.</p>

<p>(But I enjoy the lively discussion.)</p>

60

<p>Eagle79 - Contrary to leftist dogma everything does not belong to the state save for what they deign to allow us to keep. In fact it works the other way around.</p>

<p>Colleges get federal researech money because the people and hence their government wants to promote the common good by curing cancer or polio or predict the weather or earthquacks or tsunamis. The people and hence their government want charitable and educational institutions to flourish because the people believe this enhances the common good and so we have have non-profit corporations.</p>

<p>There are many good things that can and are done by people and legal personages but there is nothing and should be nothing that compels them to do ought but but what their consciences dictate. A Quaker school should not be forced to have an ROTC program though the vast majority belive we need an army and a Roman Catholic hospital should not be forced to perform abortions or distribute birth control pills though these are both legal in the country and widely supported.</p>

<p>When you through our government force me to stop beating my neighbor you are protecting my neighbors fundamental rights and promoting the common good. Bur when you force me and only me to assume the burden of feeding that lazy bag of bones you are a tyrant. </p>

<p>If the poor need an education then the burden of educating them should be spread generally and not levied only upon the private schools and their customers and financial supporters.</p>