Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Now that's a pretty presumptuous title, so bear with me.

Lots of so-called elite schools claim they are "need-blind" - that is, they do not consider need for financial aid in admissions decisions. Some of these go further and claim they do not offer "merit" scholarships (even though offers to two admitted applicants with the same EFC may be radically different in loan portions and work expectations). Some claim they meet 100% of need (as they define it); others that they only consider need for the last 3-5% accepted (to make sure they don't go over budget.)

But it is obvious, if you follow the numbers, that each year, schools end up with classes with virtually the same percentage of students receiving needbased aid. Davidson always in the 30s. Williams and Yale and Brown always in the low 40s. Dartmouth and Princeton in the high 40s. Harvard and Swarthmore around 50. UChicago and Caltech in the high 50s. MIT around 70. The statistical likelihood of this happening without need being considered quickly approaches zero. Some folks have noted that right on the front page of many applications it asks whether one is applying for financial aid, and that to assume admissions officers would ignore information they themselves ask for would be very odd. Others (myself included) note that admissions officers, in forming a class, can get a sense of the percentage of financial aid admits by looking at zip codes, schools, and ECs.

This week there was an article that appeared in the Williams Record about Williams' fundraising efforts, including quotes from Prez Morty. He stated that one of the purposes of the fundraising would be to reduce loan expectations of financial aid recipients. But he also stated that another reason for the fundraising was to increase the number of admits who could be offered financial aid!

Now, how could Williams increase the number of admits who could be offered financial aid if admissions were already needblind? (inquiring minds would like to know....)

(Major slip! It's nice when occasionally they expose themselves to light of day.)

By Lefthandofdog (Lefthandofdog) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 01:48 pm: Edit

I agree that's an interesting slip - but I wonder if it's a slip of the reporter's pen. Maybe the reporter doesn't understand the significance. Or maybe the fundraising will allow them to target/market in certain zip codes that they know will be lower income. In other words, they're offering fin. aid to all who qualify, but maybe his complaint is that the number of low income students who apply or meet admissions criteria are too low.

It really is odd that the numbers stay fairly constant. It amazes me that 60% can just write the check at Williams, Yale and Brown. I wonder how much of it is like going to a restaurant. When you're not dressed up, you'd feel awkward walking into a dressy restaurant. You want to eat where you feel comfortable. Comfort is often just familiarity, so kids stick with the tried and true neighborhood places (state schools) not knowing that their meal might be on the house.

By Alita (Alita) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Perhaps he meant the number of people already admitted that asked for financial aid, and didn't get any, who could then be able to have aid along with admissions?

Although I do think its kind of funny that they ask the question on the middle/front of the apps-shouldn't it be at the back, where it wouldn't matter till the person was admitted?

By Mini (Mini) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Doubt it was a slip of the reporter's pen - it is what they are saying in their alumni fundraising appeal. For years, like many if not most other elite schools, Williams has been trying to "do diversity" on the cheap - either by admitting substantially only very wealthy minority students, not recruiting in minority schools, or expanding face diversity by admitting well-heeled internationals. (There is no doubt these students deserved entry, so don't misread me, just that it doesn't serve much in the way of expanding campus perspectives.) And they have become so conscious of the rankings game that they fail to notice that pursuing higher rankings through test scores, etc., can actually result in a decline in the academic experience of all students.

Amherst and Smith and Occidental have proven that a school can radically expand economic diversity on campus, but that is is very expensive, and requires a commitment of a decade or more to do it, and that it requires changes in the admissions office, not simply the financial aid one.

Alita - no, Williams (like most of the rest) claim to be both "need-blind" and meet 100% of need - if you get in, they offer you the aid you need to attend (in their view.)

The consistency in the numbers is extraordinary, isn't it? The admissions office people (in all of these schools) are true professionals, and they know what they are doing.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Now, how could Williams increase the number of admits who could be offered financial aid if admissions were already needblind? (inquiring minds would like to know....)
Mini

Mini,
put that way, it is a very interesting question! I know they say they are need blind at these schools and I have believed them but that question you just raised does kinda put a tweak in the whole deal. My child applied for need-based financial aid at all of her schools and yes, often she had to check that off on the application itself. I would like to think that it had no bearing on her admissions results. Your question or the issue you just raised makes ya wonder....

By the way, she did get varying amounts of needs-based aid at each school to which she was admitted. Two schools offered her merit aid (one very substantial) on top of the need based aid and we did not even know that either one even had merit aid until she opened the acceptance letters that selected her for these honors/aid things, so that was a nice surprise. I am not counting the free ride at the state university which we did know about.

Funny but in the middle of my posting, my D just called from Brown saying she just came out of a meeting where she signed for her loans!

By Garland (Garland) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit

I'd like to see that fundraising appeal. It's hard to imagine they are admitting in it that they have been limiting admits according to need (if they've already been telling you that, then why is this interview big news?)

Seems like either Lefthand's analysis is more likely, or Williams is announcing in several forums that they are not actually need-blind; not too likely.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Very interesting Mini. One possibility for the consistency of number might very well be that they use pretty sophisticated marketing recruiting techniques - they know which zip codes are most likely to have higher income levels and may very well concentrate their marketing efforts at those schools. They also use sophisticated programs to determine yield so perhaps that also somehow takes into account the financial picture of who is offered admission resulting in fairly consistent classes? Not saying that there is discrimination in admissions, just discrimination in recruitment to begin with.

By Mini (Mini) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

The quote is from the Williams Record of September 21, 2004, and specifically notes that the fundraising will go toward "expanding the number of aid packages offered each year." It is also in their most recent fundraising letter. I don't think they meant to announce that they aren't really need-blind (and none of the schools are); it just "slipped out". I wish they'd just come out and say it - as an alumni I'd be far more likely to pitch in (though I don't have much to "pitch".)

There is discrimination both in admissions, and in recruitment. It is likely that discrimination is greater in the latter, though, and to change it requires much greater effort (and MONEY) on the school's part (Amherst being a prime example.) But it requires commitment to change.

By Garland (Garland) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Again, that could still mean: recruiting more heavily among need-likely applicants. These are not dumb people; things like this don't just "slip out" especially in several places at once.

I don't disagree that schools like W. lean heavily toward wealthier students; I'm just not seeing the smoking gun here.

By Emptynester (Emptynester) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit

I believe it's a lie, but am not sure what to do with that belief. Avoid certain schools? Send our kids to state honors colleges instead? What is the appropriate response here?

By Hubbellgardner (Hubbellgardner) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit

College education is a BUSINESS, not a charity. Colleges with huge endowments can afford to be more charitable than others, and some may be more altruistic than others, but, it's mostly business.

By Mini (Mini) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Oh, I don't think there is one. Think of it as "useless expose", and that you can take what you actually hear from the snooty places (both I and my daughter either attending or having attended) one with two fistfuls of salt.

By Katwkittens (Katwkittens) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

If a student is eligible for an application fee waiver which is obviously included with the application, of course admissions knows the applicant is low-income. If you qualify for the SAT fee waiver, college board then issues fee waivers for applications. When DD applied in the past, the fee waivers were bright neon pink. Could not miss that piece of paper.

And when GC includes a request for a fee waiver attached to their recommendations, that can't be missed either. Or on the apps where they ask for parents' education info? I think these would all be HUGE hints at a student's need for aid. As my kids would say, "duh".

I think need-blind doesn't mean they are not aware of your financial circumstances just that it should not be a negative when they are looking at admissions. There is no way they aren't going to know, and with the knowledge that one is not able to pay full fare it would come into play somewhere, good or bad.

Kat

By Sokkermom (Sokkermom) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:54 pm: Edit

We also wondered if an applicant was discriminated against if he/she checked off "yes" on the application form where it asked if you are requesting aid, yet the school (financial aid office) determined that you do not qualify for such. The admissions people may think you are a risky matriculant. If they don't offer you aid, you may go elsewhere. That would not be good for matriculation rates!

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Some of the arguements re marketing/recruiting might make sense in the case of Williams and other schools that are not well known by the general population. But how can Harvard and Yale explain coming up with the same percentage who need aid each year?

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Also, I'd be curious to know if the number of full payers changed at all during the recession of the past few years.

By Nycdad (Nycdad) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Somehow I just don't think that this is rocket science. I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all of us, could sit down with a pile of applications from any school and sort them based on family economics.

You know what school they went to. Where their parents went to school. What the parents do for a living. Where they live. Activities. Interests. Essays about all of the above. Any one or two of these might be ambiguous...taken together, well...
it simply isn't surprising that year after year each school is able to replicate the previous one.

I think it's fair to say that it's to the credit of some schools that they recognize that there's more to be done and that they're making an effort to do something about.

And while "need blind" may not yet or ever mean what we'd all like it to mean in an ideal world, it's also true that there's quite a few deserving kids attending some very good schools who wouldn't have been able to do so years ago. I'm surprised to see so many kids and parents on this board shying away from top schools in the belief that they can't afford them. The reality is that financial aid is often better at top tier schools.

And if you look it at it from the school's point of view, exactly what are they supposed to do? Most schools have a limited amount of money available for financial aid. After all, they've got to pay the faculty whether the students are paying or not. It really shouldn't come as a surprise that they've learned to manage this aspect of their operation, too. I haven't heard anyone marvel how they almost always seem to admit just the right number of students to account for summer melt. (A few schools are so good they almost never resort to their waiting lists!)

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

I believe someone pointed this out a few months back, but my guess is that many schools either 1) determine who gets admitted via extracurriculars or 2) change their admissions standards so that the wealthy are favoured. In situation 1, the university would prefer the kids who spent the winters skiing and the summers horseback riding to the kid who works 20 hours a week. In the second scenario, the college could virtually make it a requirement of admission that the kids be "well-rounded," in that they do something significant outside of school. That would pretty well eliminate the kids who just lack the resources to do too much.

There are a huge amount of clues on an application as to the wealth of the applicant's family. Geography is pretty easy: the kid in Oklahoma would probably have a tougher time paying $40k/year than the one from the Bay Area. Better yet, all of those applications ask for parent's occupation. A high school teacher and a stay-at-home mom v. the orthopedic surgeon and the lawyer? That's an easy one. Even the education fo the parents is a big tip-off. Maybe if Grandpa put Mom through an Ivy, he's willing to help out with Williams. "How my Habitat for Humanity trip to a 3rd world country enriched my life" essay... come on. First of all, the kid doesn't need to work summers, and second, someone paid for that "volunteer" trip. Even SAT scores are a good indication of wealth, and Williams is a big SAT school. In the era of professional college counseling, the more "polished" application would indicate wealth. Let's not forget the section where they ask what your siblings are up to in their lives. The clues are everywhere.

As mentioned earlier, the recruiting is crucial as well. It's easier to admit a wealthy class when mostly wealthy people apply.

By Dadx (Dadx) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit

The title fits with the current trend of using the word lies and liars inappropriately.

Michelle Hernandez says in her book that it might be to your admissions advantage to check the box that you're applying for aid even if you're not......but she thinks it would be unethical.

The thumb on the scale is on the other side of where you wish to suppose it to be.

By Driver (Driver) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit

"Put simply, your financial circumstances will not affect your chance of admission to Williams in any way." That's what it says at the Williams admissions site. Hate to say it, but Mini has a point.

Is it a lie? I don't know. I think what they mean is, if they decide to accept you, money will not be an object. But they clearly have an idea that around 41% on financial aid is their current ceiling, and as Mini notes, they're trying to expand it. But is it really the "gotcha" moment he portrays it to be? I think they should clarify what they mean by "need-blind," but I don't think it's nefarious. Some might even think it's generous that one of the top private colleges in the country would provide so much financial aid. Williams could fill its classes with academically perfect applicants paying full freight, if they chose. But they don't. Which means the statement quoted above is false for applicants with substantial means, as well. There is a limit to how many full-payers the college will accept. BTW, unless something has changed drastically in the last year or so, Amherst belongs in the low 40s with Yale and Williams, and Brown belongs down in the 30s.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:44 pm: Edit

I thought many people were advised to apply for aid, for several reasons, even if you were only expected to get merit aid. after all each schools policy shakes out a little differently.
I don't think that is unethical, but I know that people who are fairly sure that they won't qualify for need based aid, really don't want their financial info out there, even if they are interested in merit aid.
I also didn't think that finaid and admissions had much to do with each other, aren't they processed differently?

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Ariesathena, trust me, no priveleged kid with a clue lets on that they spend winters skiing and summers at paid for community service projects. Counselors at schools where kids are of wealth teach that downplaying wealth is key. Obviously this is hard to do completely. Few needy kids are accomplished equestrians. So dadx has a point.

I also agree it's not nefarious. It's a simple reality that you need full paying students in considerable numbers to support those he can't pay.

So the real question is, why do they say it's a needs blind process when it's obvious it can't be? Wouldn't it be OK to say that we can only support X percent on financial aid and that the number grows with endowment growth and other factors? Theses are private institutions. It's wonderful that they want to be complete meritocracies, but there are financial realities too.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 04:41 pm: Edit

I worked as a lowly clerk in an admissions office at a highly selective college many years ago. I heard a lot of the chitchat, many things that I should not have heard, things that should not have been said. But I never heard any discussion of sorting kids by financial need, nor did I hear any whispering about that sort of thing. It would have been of great interest to me as I was once a full ride student and the way things were looking then, I was going to need financial aid to send any of my kids through college.

There are certain statistics that remain steady, just because of the way things work, and this could be one of them. First of all there are very good reasons for asking if the candidate is applying for financial aid for internal processing reasons. When a candidate needs financial aid and is an "accept", the file goes over to the FA office for processing there. The files do not all get dumped there after everyone is accepted. There is also a sharing of some administrative resources between the offices such as alerting the candidate if they have all of their forms in. Asking if someone is applying for financial aid in its self is not a big info item. Kids apply for aid and are not eligible, some are eligible for just a little bit and some are eligible for close to a full ride. It takes a detailed analysis and the FA forms to determine the category of financial aid a kid will be in.

I know that the school where I worked categorized the kids they accepted as "A", "B" and "C" acceptees. The designations were internal and basically were for merit aid for the "A" group, special early invitations for the "A" group and for the juiciest financial aid packages for the the "A" group. When those kids who requested financial aid were examined at the FA office the make up of the package offered was determined by the letter designation. "C" kids got mostly loans and whatever was left, a few were gapped and a few were lopped off the accept list if the funds ran out. I never saw any curiousity about the financial situation while the apps were being assessed at admissions.

Curiously, at S's school, certain percentages remain stable as to kids applying to ivy league schools, acceptances, etc. The percentage of kids applying for financial aid for college is also stable. And there is no manipulation that I can see going on there. At the inner city school where I do pro bono work, the numbers stay amazingly stable in kids applying to colleges and the test scores.

There is no question that the system is stacked against the kids who are economically challenged as a whole. But in my experience the biggest problem is that it is the kids who have disinterested or dysfunctional parents who are the most disadvantaged. I know hundereds of parents whose kids need financial aid and the parents struggle economically as they do not make much money, but they are interested in their children's educational prospects and life and are supportive. They introduce the kids to the library, free cultural events, read to them, work with them on homework, take interest in their school, and are committed to spending time and resources on education. These kids will do well despite the fact that the family income is not high. I have Asian families as clients whose income is very low, they live several families to an apartment, yet the kids are given a big push toward achieving in education. Those kids will get the financial aid and will be accepted to selected colleges. In families where the parents are distracted by other issues and are not focused on their kids' education, it's a different story. I see those kids not getting through college even if the parents could pay every cent of it.

Financial aid and admission can be processed together at some schools, and in those cases I do wonder about how the info is processed. But in the highly selective schools where I have visited the admissions offices, looking at them on an operational standpoint, the decisions are made very separately. If anything, in such school, kids are appraised in light of their priviliged backgrounds. Michelle Hernandez mentioned that applying for financial could be an advantage. I don't know if there are points on a check list for that, but I do know that a student who is midrange in the acceptance scale in some of the most selective schools but lives in a wealthy zipcode area, goes to a top knotch school, and obviously from the ECs has had a lot of money put into him, is assessed differently from someone in a less advantageous environment. For the top school, there is a stigma to being a "silver spoon" applicant. You better show that you are using your opportunities well. Do remember that many of the admissions clerks and financial aid people earn far less than a year's tuition at these schools and do not tend to give favoritism to kids who have everything.

Now the much less selective schools, the smaller ones in particular, have come to the point of being need aware and do have to be careful that they do not accept more kids than they can afford to take and that they accept enough kids that can afford the tuition. Being able to pay the full tab is factor in the admissions process in such school. If you can pay, and you show strong interest so that they think you will come, you have a good chance of getting into some of these schools even if your stats are below the norm.

Mini, why don't you ask Williams about the fact that their percentage of financial aid kids stay the same over years? Is it the percentage of kids needing aid or the $ amount of aid or the percentage of tuition? I know that my alma mater is very straight forward about how they coordinate financial aid as are a number of colleges where I have asked.

By Cangel (Cangel) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I think "need ignore" would be a more accurate term than "need blind" - I think they have a pretty good idea of low, middle, upper income, but they don't sit around discussing it while discussing admission files - unlike the schools that are need sensitive for a small percentage of their students. For that small percentage at the end of the admissions cycle, the ability to pay might be a boost.

I'm with NYCdad - how much are they supposed to do? Mini's kind of on a crusade - but frankly, I'm not sure how successful Williams in particular would be attracting low income kids even if they went all out. Most of the people I've talked to down here of various races and income levels look at me as if I've grown another head when I talk about these schools - why would you want to send your kid there?
Williams vs Swat or even Amherst or Smith is more isolated (a big thing when even bus fare is a sacrifice), heavy on art history and economics, tutorials in Oxford (Imagine telling your Momma working 2 jobs that you want to go to this $40K a year school to learn about modern art - I don't think so?!)

I guess the thing about "increasing diversity" that bothers me most is when I have read some academic administrative types' articles on it, the theme of the discussion is less about bettering the futures of or nurturing the talents of disadvantaged students, and is more about broadening the horizons of the majority who will presumably go on to "be our leaders". Excuse me? It smacks some of condescension, there's a flavor of use 'em and discard 'em. Put the kids under a microscope or parade them around as "token poor kid". Our current candidates are the poster children for this, but you know, if the future presidential contenders need broadening, maybe they should go to UConn, or UMass or North Texas State where the real people are, rather than taking a couple of poor kids and dropping them into a situation where they may have a great experience or they may be miserable.

Developing a support system and a community that works is a lot harder than admitting a few kids of different races or incomes and publishing the stats in next year's viewbook - ask Candi about it. I'm not saying it can't be done, but if Yale is struggling to get it right, why are we surprised Williams is different?
I just wonder if the priorities are straight?

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit

I wanted to write this earlier, but I was afraid it wasn't politically correct. Cagels post raises a lot of thoughts for me. I go to the Williams of high schools-70% full pays and the rest on sxcholarship. Many fairly recent immigrants in the latter group. What I have found, is that they don't want to share their different backgrounds or perspectives. They badly want to assimilate and emulate. They become the most preppy dressers, the most eager to fit in. Those in my graduating class who are poor seem to be the most likely to be seeking college educations that will yield high paying jobs. It's as though they came for a makeover. I wonder if this is different at the college level.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Can it be that a particular financial aid policy tends to attract a similar percentage of students year after year? Don't laugh. I say this because Princeton has deliberately changed its financial aid package in order to attract more low-income students, and it says it is getting results, with a pretty big jump in one year: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/0920/index.shtml
Most of us who run businesses or organizations recognize that unless we take specific steps to work toward growth, we stay the same or shrink.

By Driver (Driver) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

I don't think it's a matter of *attracting* a certain percentage of students, as much as it is a matter of what the college thinks it can afford. Williams could probably completely fill its class with qualified applicants who would need financial aid in order to attend. It could also fill its class with qualified students whose parents could pay the whole bill. They seem to think that 40/60 works about right, in terms of what they can afford while still maintaining their standards (and not eating too far into the principle of the endowment). To expand financial aid will require more funds, which they are apparently trying to raise, for that very purpose. A "specific step to work toward growth." I agree with Mini that the "need-blind" statement needs clarification, but it seems overly-cynical to not cut these schools a little slack. I think that they're trying to encourage students who might otherwise look at the price tag and say "no way." I don't think they're trying to fool anyone.

By Carolyn (Carolyn) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Jamimom, As usual, your post is a well of common sense and valuable information. Thank you.

By Thumper1 (Thumper1) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Just a note...DS checked the "yes" box indicating that he was applying for finaid everywhere he applied. Bottom line, however, is that we didn't qualify for a nickel of need based aid and we knew that before we filled out the FAFSA. When you check that box on the application it only indicates that you are applying for finaid...it does NOT indicate your family financial status or the amount of aid you might or might not need to attend.

By Coureur (Coureur) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit

>>He stated that one of the purposes of the fundraising would be to reduce loan expectations of financial aid recipients. But he also stated that another reason for the fundraising was to increase the number of admits who could be offered financial aid!
Now, how could Williams increase the number of admits who could be offered financial aid if admissions were already needblind? (inquiring minds would like to know<<

Sorry, but I don't see the big scandal here. The president's statement as quoted doesn't blow the lid off of anything nor let anything "slip". It doesn't say anything at all about admitting more needy students. It merely says that if they raise more money they'll have more money to give away to the students who need it.

Here is William's policy taken directly from their website:

"Williams is firmly committed to admitting talented students from all backgrounds, regardless of their families' financial capabilities. Your chance of admission to Williams will not be affected by whether (or not) you have financial need. Williams' need-blind admissions policy applies to international students as well."

They don't promise (as some schools do) to meet 100% of demonstrated need, only that having a need won't be a factor in the admit decision.

I'm guessing that every year they look at the incoming class and see which students request aid and how badly they need it, and they look at the money pie they have to work with, and they slice the pie up as best they can. The president is merely saying that raising more money will give them a bigger pie, not that it will cause them to admit more needy students.

Think about it: There is a big difference between "increasing the number of admits who can offered financial aid" and increasing the number students needing financial aid who will be admitted.

By Momrath (Momrath) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit

I think you have to look at effort as well as results. For the class of 2008 Williams admitted 369 URMs and only 150 chose to attend. This is well under the ratio for their non-URM matriculation rate of 390 out of 605. (I took the internationals out of these figures.) Now admittedly URM status doesn't exactly equate to financially disadvantaged, but I think there's a valid relationship. The point is that bright dis-advantaged students URMs or otherwise, are in great demand at all of the selective colleges. It's a small pool nationwide, who are being courted, flown to diversity weekends, groomed from junior high, by all the elite colleges and competition is fierce. When given the choice of H/Y/P or A/W/S most likely these kids are going with the big names. I'd say that Williams needs to do a better job in making sure those acceptances stick, not in accepting the kids in the first place.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Interesting discussion.

While I agree with Mini that the phrase "need-blind admissions" is, to some degree, marketing double-speak, I think we have to be careful not to unfairly target the wrong schools. The fact of the matter is that there are very few schools remaining who base their financial aid decisions purely on need and who practice "need blind admissions" at least at it applied to an individual student. The number of these schools nationwide may be only three dozen or so. These schools are under trememdous admissions pressure from the vast majority of schools now practicing merit-based admissions/financial aid. If we are to complain about motives, these merit-aid schools should be our target. They are directly reducing their need-based aid dollar for dollar to increase the quality of their student bodies through merit-aid to students with less need.

Having said that, "need based aid" and "need blind admissions" are luxuries available to only a handful of the wealthiest colleges in the US, those with massive endowments. For example, based on 2000 data, Swarthmore had the 7th largest and Williams the 8th largest per student endowments of any college or university in the country. This whole discussion isn't even relevant to the vast majority of schools. Furthermore, the cost of playing the need-based aid/need blind admissions game has gone through the roof in the last couple of decades. A practice that was widespread in the 1970s is increasing rare as colleges simply can no longer afford the price tags -- hence well-heeled universities like Brown discontinuing their "need-blind" admissions policies out of fiscal necessity.

Of course, being able to offer so-called "need-blind" admissions depends on having a stable and large base of full-fare customers -- just like the airlines need full-fare business travellers to offset the heavy discounting. As long as well-heeled colleges keep their percentages of full-fare customers up in historic ranges, I do think they offer "need-blind" admissions. Of course, different schools have different traditional levels of full fare customers -- reflected in their applicant pools. For example, Williams only had 60% of its freshmen apply for financial aid compared to 71% at Swarthmore. Thus, it's not terribly surprising that Williams has 46% receiving financial aid while Sat is somewhat higher at 51%. Also not surprising that Smith has 59% receiving need-based aid, given that 79% of Smith first-years applied for financial aid. There's three data points for schools with somewhat different institutional priorities, admissions standards, and recruitment efforts.

Before we hand the gold medal to Smith, we should remember that it is the only one of the three that does not even pay lip service to "need-blind" admissions and the only one with significant merit-aid recruiting. Likewise, before we hammer Williams too hard, we must remember that, with all their good intentions in the world, they are trying to sell air conditioning to Eskimos. Selling a school that has been white and wealthy and Wall Street for 200 years in a location that had zero minority population to low-income, minority applicants is not an easy pitch. And, for reasons of relating to the same 200-year traditions, I'm not sure the college itself would know what to do with more low-income students, even if they got them. Several of my closest friends at Williams were from very low-income families. They felt like aliens.

By Cheers (Cheers) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

Mini is right. They are not technically "need blind".

So, clever folks, what about some alternative phrasing?

Need blind(folded with peeking)?

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 01:11 am: Edit

I suspect Mini is right with regard to Williams, though there is an outside chance that the president and the development office feel that "more money for aid" is a better fundraising pitch than "we're loaded with money, but not quite loaded enough."

Note too that a school could be need-blind and still gap all students, which would result in need-blind admissions but might not result in additional economic diversity. (Hypothetical. . .I have never heard of a school doing this.)

I also suspect that other need-blind schools aren't quite there, either with their general policies or at least with waitlist manipulation. I have a lot of respect for schools like Carleton that just come right out and say they are need-blind up to a certain percent of their acceptances, and then consider a students' ability to pay.

But there are some truly need-blind schools. Mini lists Amherst, Smith and Occidental, and I know that Macalester qualifies. I'm sure there are a few others.

BTW - I'm tired of seeing ten-year old anecdotes from two unique and selective school cultures (Duke and Dartmouth) trotted out as proof that there is a bias against wealth at selective universities. Everything else points the other way.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 02:15 am: Edit

AnnieIvy: You are entirely incorrect. I base my statements on what I've seen and heard personally:
*As an alum interviewer, I've talked with kids who discussed travel as their main summer activity;
*During an alum interview summit, we saw admissions files. Wealth was readily apparent, quite sadly;
*In the course of being on these boards, I've read and edited several dozen admissions essays;
*I know what my peers have written for essays; one girl got into an excellent school with an essay describing her passion for horseback riding;
*Finally, I've talked to admissions officers and they are quite clear about how many applications they see every year which mention foreign travel.

Babe, you've got it wrong. I've seen enough ot it to know that it happens fairly frequently. I am not discussing the uber-wealthy, just the upper-middle class with enough money to afford four years of private school, a feat which only a small fractions of families can manage. There are applications which smack of wealth, and the students are admitted to excellent schools. They are intelligent, talented, and very well coached individuals; it is apparent from their applications and their interviews. Their activities and backgrounds are not those of their true middle-class peers, and no amount of application editing will make it so. Nothing will add in a paying summer job as a necessary way to spend June to August; the skiing and sailing awards are there; and their parents are professionals with advanced degrees.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 02:30 am: Edit

Ariesathena, I don't doubt that you're right. I guess what I'm saying is that at my school we have been told from the first college counseling meeting in grade 9 that looking wealthy and spoiled would hurt our chances at top colleges. We were told to get jobs at least one summer, and encouraged to do community service that you don't pay for. But you're right, in the end there is no way to hide clear privilege. Hopefully we can be proud that in spite of our advantages, we are real and dedicated contributors.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 02:41 am: Edit

>> But there are some truly need-blind schools. Mini lists Amherst, Smith and Occidental, and I know that Macalester qualifies.

Smith and Amherst are conceptually no more need blind than Wiliams. In fact, both Amherst and Williams had the same percentage of full-fare customers last year -- 54% of the incoming freshman class did not qualify for financial aid. Amherst actually had a higher percentage that didn't even apply for financial aid 43% versus 40% at Williams.

Smith has a much lower percentage of full-fare customers, but does not even claim to be "need-blind" in the admissions office.

Swarthmore is functionally "need-blind" (again within the luxury of knowing that a consistent half their students fly full-fare). The proof is at least one recent year when the Board of Managers has approved an "on-the-fly" increase to the total financial-aid line item to cover an unanticipated jump in total need-based financial aid. Another interesting stat is that their yield number for financial aid freshman has been 1 point higher than their overall yield, indicating that their aid packages are sufficent to let students make the same choices about enrollment regardless of their aid status.

I think the accurate way to put it is that the schools that claim to be "need-blind" are need-blind for individual admissions decisions and will remain so as long as their anticipated percentage of full-fare customers remains stable. Of course, they can force that number to remain stable by increasing or decreasing the offers to cover the "gap" funding, a gap that is inherent in the fed's "need" calculations.

Simply put, Southwest Airlines can only afford to fly my daughter from Philly to New Hampshire for $29 as long as they know that half the people on the plane will be paying $99 because they didn't book 2 months in advance. Same concept with so-called "need blind" admissions. It is as truthful for Podunk to advertise "need blind admissions" as it is for Southwest to advertise $29 fares.

-------------------

I also saw an interesting stat for Mini on family income breakdowns. Half of the Swat students receive need-based aid. Of that aid group:

23% have family incomes below $40k
24% from $40k to $60k
25% from $60k to $80k
28% above $80k

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 03:17 am: Edit

Ok, so Smith doesn't have nearly the endowment of many top schools. It also doesn't have the huge number of top grads interested. So have they just made a decision to spend their money differently to get the best possible group of students? What gets sacrificed when you offer more aid to draw in those who could go to higher ranked schools?

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 03:24 am: Edit

The college counselor at my hs touts Smith to all of those who have iffy grades. She presents it as a place that is not too hard to get into but still has a good name. She tells kids you can go there and act as though you go to Amherst! Yesterday she told a friend that since so many students there were into things like art history, it would be a great place to apply to professional school from. Last year they took kids from the very bottom of their class. My mom says Smith was wonderful in her day. What is Smith today.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 11:00 am: Edit

Smith was, and is, a superb womens' college. It has one of the largest endowments of any liberal arts college, only slightly behind Williams, Wellesley, Pomono, Swarthmore, and Amherst. It is a little lower on the per student endowment (23rd or so), only because of its relatively larger enrollment.

Understand that forty years ago, you had men's schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Williams, Amherst) and girl's schools (Radcliffe, Barnard, Pembroke, Wellesley, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Vassar).

As the colleges began projecting the end of the baby boom enrollments in the late 1970s, they realized that they would need to fight for students. The male schools all started to go "co-ed" in the late 1960s, early 1970s in order to make them more attractive to "modern" youth. This left the womens' colleges hung out to dry as their entire applicant base suddenly had many new options. They no longer had a captive customer base.

Some simply went out of business, folded into their male college counterparts. Radcliff was gobbled up by Harvard. Pembroke by Brown, etc. Some, such as Vassar, went co-ed. However, these have had more difficulty in attracting male students than the old male colleges have had in attracting female students -- which says a lot about long-standing gender stereotypes, I think.

A few have decided to stick it out as all female colleges. Of course, this hurts their application numbers. You have just ruled out half of your potential customer base, plus gender-segregated schooling isn't exactly the rage these days. As a result, these schools are the best admissions bargains in the country. Wellesley, Smith, and Bryn Mawr are absolutely terrific schools with huge endowments that have artificially high admissions rates relative to their overall quality. The same kind of principle makes schoole in the less desireable midwest better admissions values than those in New England. Same quality school in Iowa is easier to get into. Same quality womens' college is easier to get into than the identical coed college.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 03:38 pm: Edit

Smith is a terrific school. It is the only school we visited, however, that was utterly candid it stating that it does not offer need-blind admissions.

By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Just a quick note:

The Questbridge program which gives full rides to URMs with stellar qualifications is in negotiations with Williams to add it to the list (Amherst, Grinnell, Rice and a few others are already on it).

I have to say that many urban folks are somewhat deterred by Williams location, whether they are affluent or not. I would assume that this would be particularly an issue for lower income students. I remember reading an article by bell hooks describing how she had decided to attend Stanford. She had no idea what it would take to get herself and her gear there, and no money to do things differently and schlepped everything on Greyhound. And since she had no money to come home on vacations, she basically alienated herself from her community, as had been predicted and as she had failed to understand when she decided to go to Stanford.

By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Bye bye Annieivy aka Mom101...

<moderator>

By Chinaman (Chinaman) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit

I just wnat to add my views. One of the top 10 prep school gave my kid admission, but did not offer us fin aid pacakge till we tell them that we will send the school a letter that if our kid choose to matricualte in that school. They promised us that our aid will be around $30,000 if we give them any verbal aggreement. Since my kid did not matriculate and decided to go to other school, they send us a packagee $500 in fin aid and $ 32,000 in loan applicantion.

I was upfront with all prep schools both times about fin aid requirements. I told thhem that without aid my kid will not be able to attend. Both time they did ask us what was our first choice and I said it is upto the kid as both have differnt personalities.

By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Smith is NOT need-blind. On the contrary, they are VERY need-conscious, as they have a 30-year commitment to economic diversity, with 25% of the student body on Pell Grants. In other words, they actively seek students with very high need, and want to know it in making admissions decisions. They are also not need-blind in that, occasionally, if they've run through their financial aid budget, they will check need for the last 3% or so of candidates to make sure they do not go overbudget. They do meet 100% of need of admitted students. But, unlike some of the other schools, because they have spent so much more on high need candidates (roughly 2 1/2 times that at Swarthmore), there isn't much room to negotiate.

Amherst is a tricky one. They claim to be need-blind. But yet for more than a decade they have had a program seeking to increase the percentage of students who come from economically poor backgrounds. Now that seems contradictory, doesn't it?

It's funny how "need" can change. I watched with delight last year as friends of mine sent copies of their other offers to Ivies and other "need-blind, 100% of need schools, and found themselves judged poorer as a result. All of a sudden, their need increased! Loans turned into grants! $5k-$6k per year was added to aid packages. Workstudy expectations were lowered. All from schools with EFC "calculators" on their sites, etc., where need was calculated down to the penny! All of a sudden all talk about being "need-blind" disappeared.

ID's stats for Swarthmore are exactly correct. If 23% of students receiving aid are from families with incomes below $40k, it would be approximately 12% of the total student population on Pell Grants. That is precisely what the entitlement index data from Mortensen showed, so it is great to have outside confirmation.

By Chinaman (Chinaman) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 03:05 pm: Edit

One more thing: I have told each college in person or through email that my kid will not attend the college without any substantial fin aid. So far we have contacted harvard, princeton, Yale, UPenn, JHU, Duke, Ahmerst and MIT. Most university have told us that they are needd blind and since our son has full tutition at prep school he has a very substantial chance to have similar pacakge provided our financial situation did not change substantially. Harvard and princton and wharton email seems to have emphasized that we need to apply as they are looking forward for our kid's application. I hope asking fin aid does not count agianst admission.

By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:34 pm: Edit

At Amherst, it will likely work heavily in his favor.

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Chinaman:

I should not think the fact that your S is on finaid will work against him at all.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Chinaman, friends whose kids were applying to schools with small endowments were told that the finaid need might have a negative impact on admissions. At the schools where your s is applying, I don't think there will be any problem of this kind.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit

Chinaman, I would not send e-mails or highlight that your son will not be going without substantial financial aid. It is sufficient that your son has checked off the financial aid block on the application. It can set the wrong tone to send that kind of message to the schools. You are better off having your son research the merit awards that the schools offer and have him send a very nice letter to whatever department awards this aid asking that he be considered for those awards with a brief highlight of why he would be qualifed and a resume attached.

Although adcoms and financial aid personnel are professionals and attempt to make decisions without getting personally riled, there are people who really hate the slightest feeling that they are being pushed, bullied, manipulated, threatened. And by saying that your kid will not go without substantial aid is sending a message that can be interpreted negatively. At some schools they do gap slightly and may not be completely need blind. You are basically challenging them to reject your son rather than going 90% which may well be enough. From what I recall about your son, he is not likely to have any issues getting on the "A" list for financial aid, and is prime for being considered for some top merit awards. You don't need to give the schools any reason to feel they are operating under the gun and it could backlash depending on who is reviewing your son's file.

By Cyclingdad (Cyclingdad) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:10 am: Edit

I agree with Jamismom and have always found that tact goes a long way in these matters. From what I've read here CC, its seems as if waiting for the FA offer, then sending a tactful letter requesting reconsideration of the offer, if warranted, might be the best way to go. Just my 2 cents.

By Chinaman (Chinaman) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:50 am: Edit

Jamimom:

Thanks for your concerns. I have always valued the information from this board. I tried to be upfront with prep school and it worked. So I have tried to take the similar approach. My kid told each admission officer why the school is best fit by his academic and EC strength. We took our financial records and IRS forms and papers filled with regional, state and national awards. Each admission officer somehow knew beforehand who my son was. So I maybe wrong but my kid and I have decided to be upfront with admission office that who we are and what what my kid will bring to school. We are not lying or blackmailing but just merely stating facts and making sure that we do not waste their time and our time. Somehow I feel we were recived very warmly. All of them have said that they look forward to reading his application. Each admission officer asked what will be our number one choice. My kid told that he has an open mind and will look each school more minutely before commintting to matriculate. We have recived some nice letters from some colleges departmental head why my kid should apply to the college. In some school incluing IVYs, he is invited to spend time with some faculty and to look more closely with their research work. I hope these are good signs.

By Marite (Marite) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Excerpted from my S's school's newsletter:


The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation seeks nominations for the Gates Millennium Scholars program for low-income students of color. Eligibility: Students are eligible to be considered for a GM Scholarship if they:
Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American, Are a citizen/legal permanent resident or national of the United States, Have a GPA of 3.3 on a 4.00 scale (unweighted) at the time of nomination, entering a U.S. accredited college or university as full-time, in the Fall of 2005, demonstrated leadership abilities in community service, extracurricular or other activities, and Meet the Federal Pell Grant eligibility criteria.
The Deadline for Submission of Nomination Materials is January 14, 2005 12:00 midnight (EST).
For more information about this scholarship and for application materials, visit www.gmsp.org or call 1-877-690-4677.

By Idler (Idler) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit

So if colleges are not in fact "need-blind," but have only a specified amount of aid to give out, however they decide to slice up the pie, does it not follow that needing aid puts you at a disadvantage, because the number of aided spots is significantly smaller than the total number ?

By Emptynester (Emptynester) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Idler, exactly my take on it and why I have a problem with the need-blind "lie" BUT I think the highest stat kids aren't disadvantaged in the process. JMHO

By Sybbie719 (Sybbie719) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Hi Chinaman,

I truly understand where you are coming from in the belief that you are being upfront regarding your financial situation, because the cost of tuition can be pretty daunting.

But college is not prep school. Many colleges go in with the mind set that they will not be getting into a bidding war over students because quite frankly there are more students applying than there are spots. When you made the statement: "my kid will not attend the college without any substantial fin aid" it comes off as if the shcool really wants your kid, they had better come big or stay home. I believe that we are partners in the process and at the end of the day, does any school "owe" our child an education, or atleast big bucks to attend?

Also, many schools feel that if your child really wants to attend the school the focus should be on the education not the money. Do schools negotiate? It depends on who you ask. I remember going to an information session where representatives from Brown, Amherst & Columbia were there and they said if someone gives you a better offer and it is about the money, than you should take the offfer.

When my daughter was accepted at Amherst, her package from them to my suprise was the lowest among the schools to which she was accepted. Tufts, who I had heard, did not give great aid, actually gave her a generous package.

All in all Williams gave her a very generous package (least amount of loans), but she had her heart set on Dartmouth, so we sent the Williams offer and requested to be re-evaluated by Dartmouth, and like Mini stated, loans were lowered and scholarships were increased.

By Idler (Idler) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit

Right, Emptynester, it seems an inescapable conclusion. The "need-blind" system, which is very generous, finds room for the most attractive applicants in need of aid, but when the money is used up, that's it for that group, and the advantage shifts to full-payers.

By Chinaman (Chinaman) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Sybbie 719:

No school owe us anything. I do not think I can afford to be confrontational with school. Anyway it is too late to make any correction as we have done all the talking in summer vacation break with different adcoms.

By Lfill (Lfill) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Not to worry Chinaman, I think prep schools (good ones) are more similar in approach to top colleges than most people understand. For us, it seemed easier to get our kids into ivy than into top NYC preps. My sister would say the same for the top boarding schools her kids attend. If a top prep fought for your kids, top colleges will too.