Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

Wesleyan no longer need blind

12346»

Replies to: Wesleyan no longer need blind

  • SlitheyToveSlitheyTove Registered User Posts: 6,326 Senior Member
    In which case Wesleyan could be need-blind for admissions while not guaranteeing to meet full need. That could also be seen as being both honest and unfair. Your choice if you define fair as "admissions based entirely on merit" or "affordable regardless of family income". Only a handful of schools can meet both definitions.
  • smartalic34smartalic34 Registered User Posts: 775 Member
    In which case Wesleyan could be need-blind for admissions while not guaranteeing to meet full need. That could also be seen as being both honest and unfair. Your choice if you define fair as "admissions based entirely on merit" or "affordable regardless of family income". Only a handful of schools can meet both definitions.

    Very true, and Wesleyan hopes it can meet both categories again as soon as possible. President Roth has made a conscious decision to stay full-need, and I think this will help those on the very low end of the income bracket (I realize their chances of admission are decreased, which is the downside to all of this). The issue with staying need-blind in light of the financial situation is that Wesleyan would be giving aid packages with loans well in excess of peer schools. Wesleyan's yield would plummet (you can go off on a US News tangent here, but first and foremost, talented students would go elsewhere). At least with staying full-need, Wesleyan can hopefully keep the poorer applicants it wants, as it will be able to keep loan levels down. Giving poor students $40,000 in loans isn't going to do much for them, except put them in a pickle when they graduate. Yes, Wesleyan will be admitting fewer poor students (I'm using poor as a catch-all for lower on the socioeconomic scale) but those that are admitted will actually be able to afford attending. By inflating loan levels, even the admitted students lose.

    Basically, eliminating need-blind affects maybe 10% of the applicant pool, while eliminating full-need would affect up to 45% of the student body. Wesleyan is choosing to send its graduates into the world without unconscionable loan levels, at the cost of decreased access. It's a tradeoff, and you can make the argument either way, but it sucks no matter which way you look at it. Hope the campaign raises enough money to restore need-blind.
  • cptofthehousecptofthehouse Registered User Posts: 26,432 Senior Member
    It would decrease yield to be need blind and not meet full need, and that is a figure that is very important to colleges. Yield is what often "makes' a college "better" that another.

    To be need blind and not meet full need, is giving those students who have need come up with other options if they are out there. Wesleyan is eliminating that possibility. A student who is needy but has a grandparent that just might ante up would be an example. Or has parents who decide it is worth taking out private loans. A school eliminates those choices when it makes the decision for the student that the family does not have enough funds to afford the school.
12346»
This discussion has been closed.