thirrdplanet

What I am trying to say, is this feeds the never ending cycle of wealthy kids going to fantastic private schools and landing a job or getting into law/medical/graduate school whereas lower income children, as you even suggested, go to a two year school and transfer to a four year, if they can even afford that. This student might have higher stats but they are rejected because they can't pay.

I am sure some schools only take aid into account when it comes to the last few students they are admitting. However, there are those who I am sure toss out applications because the student is full need. On top of this, a low-income child may be forced to go to a public high school without good programs such as AP and IB and can't afford to have their parents pay tutors to get better scores on standardized tests. I'm not angry with the schools because of I understand they have budgets to meet. I'm angry at the never-ending system.

romanigypsyeyes

^ Luckily, in the vast majority of fields, what you do at school is far more important than the name on your diploma, especially for undergrad .

I can write a whole paper on your theory of tutors for AP/ACT/etc, but I don't want to derail the thread.

Yes, low-income kids are at a disadvantage. BUT there are plenty of different avenues to achieve success and few of them start with an over-priced LAC that doesn't want you because you can't afford it.

dodgersmom

This "never-ending system" you complain about is one that pretty consistently produces good results for anyone willing to put in the hard work to achieve those results. Yes, it requires hard work, but there is more opportunity for upward mobility here than in several countries I can think of. Take a look at the Questbridge forum on CC . . . there are always huge numbers of highly qualified applicants, even though a requirement of eligibility is to be low income. And, yes, many of those applicants attend public high schools and can't afford tutors . . . but they still manage to achieve very impressive results.

It's true that some kids may not be able to attend college immediately upon graduating from high school. They'll get a job first and attend college later . . . and, once they graduate, that work experience they had is likely to stand them in better stead than the kid who went straight through school without ever having a job!

lookingforward

We don't even know your situation, third, what research you've done, what finaid savvy you've developed, but we hope things work out for you. That takes more than an opinion that things are skewed. Take that energy and use it to focus on your best options. Don't assume that, if you have accomplished in hs, your app will end up in the can. Don't apply to schools with limited funds or dream schools where you are under-competitive. Do the research.

thirrdplanet

I am doing research. As I stated before, my family is middle class. It just frustrates me when people say it's for good reason that their apps get thrown out. If you also look at that program, it is very hard to qualify. There is a small percentage of lower income students that go to elite private schools. This is a fact. Hardwork does pay off, but it is much less uncommon for those without parents who can fork out 50k+ for a private school.

romanigypsyeyes

Who says this?

And again, the "elite" schools are not the be all, end all.

lookingforward

Lots of us, depending on whose definition, are middle class and well assisted by finaid from need aware schools. To me, the key is in carefully identifying what levels (and sorts) of support particular schools tend to give- and being a solid match for those schools. Not just stats; the sort of kid you are, your energy levels, vision, interests and accomplishments- the whole Common App- should match that school very well, what it likes and seeks in its freshmen.

Run NPCs. Look for merit aid opportunities.

charlieschm

There are many colleges that need to be careful about how many students they admit who will not even be able to pay for their own housing and food. However, most private colleges assume they will have to discount their tuition for most of their students.

ExhaustedDad

Just did some calculations on a number of Cal State schools and a student from a low-income family (less than 50,000 with few assets) would have all but $1000 covered. So, while I guess this does represent some "skin in the game", I sure don't want to cover the rest with my tax dollars. That $1K contribution is less then 10% of what a typical middle income family would pay. So, your statement about the vast, vast.... blah, blah blah, is a bit gray at best..

mom2collegekids

What I am trying to say, is this feeds the never ending cycle of wealthy kids going to fantastic private schools and landing a job or getting into law/medical/graduate school whereas lower income children, as you even suggested, go to a two year school and transfer to a four year, if they can even afford that. This student might have higher stats but they are rejected because they can't pay.


So what? You're wrongly assuming that those who can only afford the public school route can't end up as doctors, lawyers, PhD students, etc. And that thinking is wrong.

romanigypsyeyes

California schools have about the most generous aid policies for low income kids in the country. Not at all a good sample, ED.

2collegewego

I agree that California has more generous aid for instate students than most other states.

OP, it really depends on the school. At least two of my kids had rejections that I think were based partly on their financial aid needs. In both cases, my kid was a match for the school, had displayed great enthusiasm about attending and was a URM at a school where that probably helps but isn't a strong hook. They were turned down but accepted at similar, need blind schools. At the end of the day, there's not much you or even the school can do: both you and they have a limited pool of money and the numbers don't add up. Apply to a variety of schools and see how things go.

cptofthehouse

The vast, vast majority of colleges out there are need blind in admissions. The vast, vast majority of them also do not guarantee to meet financial need even as they define it, and they do not meet it for the vast, vast majority of their accepted students. It is only a very small number of colleges that guarantee to meet financial need of all of their accepted students and even a smaller number of colleges that say that having need could impact admissions decisions. Even that very small number of colleges that are need aware will state that it is only a small percentage of students who are affected by their need aware policy at admissions since most, like over 90% of the admissions decisions are made without regard to need and only the last 10% are impacted by the need issues. An awful lot of students seem to be packed in that 10% when decisions come out. I've yet to hear a college say a student was rejected due to financial need. It's usually an assumption the student/family makes when not accepte. Maybe, maybe not.

But it all depends on the individual schools and how they do admissions. At some schools the admisisons director is also sitting at the aid table. At others, admissions just accepts who they want with an estimated overage due to anticipated shortage of funds. Students are rated as to whether they are the most desired, in which case they may get special invitaitons, early acceptances, special phone calls, merit money, and financial aid primarily made up of grants. Those in the last category are those that the Financial aid officer tries to work out packages so that the optimal number can be accepted, and those with the most need in that group are most likely to be turned down. Better to use $50K in that caseto accept 5 kids with $10 of need apiece, than on one kid who needs the entire amount.

Most schools will just accept more kids, knowing that a certain percentage will not come because they can't come with them money. In some cases, the family will go through all sorts of contortions to get the funds even if it is a damaging financial move. IMO, it's the way to go since it is a family's personal business as to how they come up with the money. Those schools who make that decision due to need are trying to protect their yield figures, pure and simple. Otherwise they can just accept more kids and just not offer the money. Then it is very clear who truly made the accept cut and who did not, and who in that accept group, the school just decided was not worth funding. When schools are need aware, you never really know why you were rejected.

2collegewego

Cpt, I think the reason you are seeing an awful lot of students packed into that 10% is because colleges are not being completely open and honest about which schools are need aware and for whom. I realize that very few schools admit to being need aware and, when they do, they invariably say it affects only a small number of borderline students. But the truth is that there is a significant number of private colleges-- perhaps not large as a percentage of all the colleges in the US but a group that is mentioned in these forums frequently-- that do not have unlimited endowments but are very aware of where they stand in the magazine rankings and very much want to increase yield, all while keeping their financial budgets remarkably consistent year after year. Oh, and when I say that one of my kid's rejections was based on need-- that college actually contacted my kid *after* the rejection (and after their deadline) and offered to re-open the application because my graduate had won a huge national scholarship that completely changed our financial picture.

cptofthehouse

2College, in your case, with that extra info, it may well be the case that need was an issue. But at my alma mater which is need aware, they do a "body count" of those kids who were accepted by admission but designated as third tier in qualification and how many of those kids are cut. It's a very easy count to make and the % is very low. Part of why it is so low is that the sad truth is that in order to make that % low, as few kids as possible are so rejected by rejected the third tier ones who have the highest need. If a school rejects 10 kids coming up with $5K a year in need, it will show a lower % of kids accepted on a need blind basis, whereas rejecting just one kid needing the full $50K brings that number down drastically.

My cousin's son was waitlsted and then accepted at a school that I very well know. He was accepted off the waitlist after getting a NROTC scholarship as an alternate. His mother would swear to her dying breath that he was initially waitlisted due to the need. But knowing how this school works, they truly are need blind in admissions and could not care less if you can afford the school or not when making the admissions decisions and their acceptance rate reflects this as they will get low yield since a number of kids will get accepted that cannot afford the school. That he was awarded the NROTC scholarship is an honor in itself, and additional info that could affect a decision EVEN IF IT DID NOT RESULT IN A DIME OF MONEY. The same with a huge national scholarship. Some schools collect kudos more avidly than the money, and in a school that is need blind in admissions, it is one less factor they have to deal with and they gladly dispense of it.

So it depends very much on the school and how they do their admissions. Most admissions officers are that--ADMISSIONS. They want to admit and they hate, hate, hate, having to turn down anyone for economic issues and many will give a boost to those from needy factors. They accept and then let the beancounters do the culling for financial reasons, euphemistically called enrollment management, it the group of kids considered the lower tier of the accepted group.

If you think about it,it makes sense. For an adimissions office trying to juggle all of the factors for an admit decision, throwing in the financials which then have to be fit in is really a crazy job. Easier to admit and then move the financial issues to those who specialize in making the numbers work.