2collegewego

cpt, but the school your cousin's son applied to was openly need blind. The schools I'm talking about were not need blind. In the example I gave, the school says it is need aware and meets need. The other school is a school with which I am very familiar-- they don't meet need but accept many upper middle class kids and give them enough $ to attend and attract (scholarships). The only low income kids I've ever known who attended were athletic recruits. At the time my kid applied, we had substantial need. My kids were accepted to more competitive schools that were need blind (some met need and some don't) and both of those were the only fluke decisions in the pile. This is part of why I like kids to have more than one safety-- because if your match is a private need-aware school (or private school that doesn't say one way or another how it handles financial aid), $ may be a factor.

And I don't think it would be that hard even with your model for financial need to have a considerable effect. Instead of just looking at the lower tier students, the beancounters could come into play at the match level. At the other school where my kid was rejected, $ was also openly used to attract top students and there were a large number of merit scholarships given. So obviously, the beancounters were involved in decisions for higher tier students. I'm just suggesting that they also review match kids and screen out the ones who need a lot of aid.

cptofthehouse

Usually, merit awards are made by admissions, not by financial aid. There are schools where the office are one or may work heavily with each other, but from what I have seen, merit money is awarded by the admissions office because ALL students, not just those who have need are considered. The merit money is to go to the students the college most wants. I've seen some major disappointments when kids who get both financial and merit awards find out that they have to be integrated. Ideally, the merit awards are communicated to Fin Aid and the Aid awards are adjusted for them, but the communications does not always go as planned.

Of course each school operates differently, and they can do whatever they please with the money, but I have found that admissions does tend to be need blind and there is a strong desire to attract the strongest students in those schools that are need aware. I do believe the small percentages reported of those who are not accepted due to need, for the most part, given what the schools' missions are.

I've yet to find a school that will t tell you if it is need blind in admissions if you ask. IF there are stipulations, then they are not. Simple as that. "For the most part" means no. "Most of the time" means no. The only exceptions being those made for transfers, wait list and international students, as those exceptions are common.

And yes, if you have need, you have to cast a wide net. Most need aware schools are pretty danged selective and are not really matches for anyone. As the selectivity percentages go down, even if you are in the upper 25% of the stats, it doesn't mean you are a match for a school.

Over the past 12 years that I have seen admissions decisions made by those need aware schools which tend to be targeted by the kids at the schools my kids have attended, I have to say that they seem to be as fair as their need blind counterparts, and the GCs seem to think the same. There are a couple of schools and a couple of occassions when they have felt that need was a creeping factor they tell me, but rare, and parents tend to attribute that more often than the GCs thing it happens. They just nod and agree when this happens as it it does assauge very hurt feelings and no one is going to get to the bottom of this anyways.

lookingforward

The Ivies will tell you flat out that they are need-blind for US kids.

None of this can be handily summarized. Some of need awareness depends on all the other usual factors- the umpteenth kid from one area, for that major or with the same exact CA presentation as hundreds of others (ie, not compelling) could be labeled "high need" and reviewed accordingly. (I see this with international applicants, in a need aware context.)

At a need aware, you increase your chances by being a good holistic match, to begin with. As in all things admissions, that's more than stats and love of the school.

cptofthehouse

NYU and Fordham will tell you flat out that they are need blind as well, at least for US freshmen. But they do not guarantee to meet need. I don't know if NYU gives any merit money outside of need. They do give merit within need and I have seen kids get some sweet deals that way. Fordham does give a lot of merit money, and that is awarded by Admissions, not by the Financial AId offices and Admissions does not care what your need is when they make those merit awards. Fin Aid has to integrate them with need, reducing need packages accordingly.

Schools like JHU and Wash U are need aware. I know JHU does not guarantee to meet need either though they come close. I don't know about Wash U. In a number of schools, looking at kids accepted to both schools, I've seen high need kids accepted to both were not tip top applicants, and kids who were equally qualified academically rejected or WLed with similar stats who did not apply for aid. My kids went to a school that tracked every single app and result carefully and the results were carefully recorded in a looseleaf binder for parents to peruse. The candidates were not identified but their attributes (legacy, URM, gender, recruited athlete, special talent, celebrity, development, financial need, etc) were all noted. There were a lot of disappointed full pay parents with kids who looked like there were matches for such schools. Many of them felt that the fact that they were full pay was a disadvantage, and that is not so far fetched. "Silver spoon" kids are not particularly beloved in admissions. Any book written by admissions officers out there makes that abundantly clear. It's when the bean counters have to distribute the beans, and that is rarely in the admissions offices of such schools that need comes into play detrimentally because if there isn't the money to distribute, someone has to be cut.

I've also been told, and I believe it, that most of the top candidates tend to be full or near full pay. Income and economic strength of household and success academically are very strongly linked in every single educational study. In fact, many highly selective programs, and I've been on panels for some of them though not in college admissions, in order to get more diversity in economic backgrounds, a boost has to be given to those who are low income, or it just doesn't happen.

thirrdplanet

At a need-aware school, being full pay would not be a bad thing. When I asked an admissions officer if it would be harder for me to get in based on need, he flat out said yes.

lookingforward

Whoa, now we're into boosts. We should consider what actually makes applicants compelling, beyond superfificals of stats, wealth vs financial need, and diversity. This cannot be translated into a formula and assumptions are assumptions. We sit here on CC, wth a lot of anecdotal experience and, sometimes, a darned good sense of what happens. But, not perfect. Doesn't Smith lay out exactly how their quirky need aware/not need aware works?

When schools state the % of kids on aid, it seems clear "most of the top candidates" are not high SES.

OP, yes, need "can" make it harder, but they very app process itself and all the assumptions about what makes a kid a good candidate...are far more deadly.

emeraldkity4

As I've mentioned earlier, my D was admitted to a 100% need met school even though academically it was a reach for her and even though she had significant need.
She also was first gen college, which disproves the theory that schools are only about collecting tuition.
But perhaps they didn't have enough spunky blondes on campus without tattoos.

There's always room for diversity.

cptofthehouse

"At a need-aware school, being full pay would not be a bad thing. When I asked an admissions officer if it would be harder for me to get in based on need, he flat out said yes."

Of course he did. As a rule, it is. He doesn't know who you are. For him to say otherwise when that need aware specter exists would be a lie. At any need aware school, it is a fact that if you need aid, you are not on a level playing field with those applicants who are not asking for aid because there is a certain real risk that you could be cut because you have that need. How else could he answer? He'd be in trouble if he answered otherwise. That is the whole issue with need aware schools; there is a risk that your need will put you in the reject pile.

However, most of these schools are striving, striving to be right up there in terms of the attributes of their students. The reason they are need aware is so that their yield figures stay up there which affect some ratings, and also in some cases so that merit money can be given to the students that they want the most, or that more generous packages can be given to those they want the most. So there comes a merging point where the desire to have a student and what that cost is, comes together. The more desirable that student is, the less likely need will come into the picture and there is a point where the class is pretty much defined as the kids they most want, and then it's up to financial aid to figure who in the last whatever percent (and it's usually a low percent, from what I've seen) that the school can fund so the student is likely to come.

For top students, the aid packages can be better at these schools since there is a push to get these students. If you look at the stats of these schools, it's not as though they have a whole lot more full pay kids. THeir stats are about the same in terms of kids who are getting some form of financial aid.

But, yes, if you apply to a school that is need aware and you have financial need, you will be in a category with a lower accept rate than the group who is not asking for aid.

lookingforward

Colleges rethink need blind admissions in favor of meeting need | Inside Higher Ed

thirrdplanet

"I've often commented that there is no such thing in the US as "need blind admissions." If you think that ignoring ability to pay counts, you're just wrong. Essentially, the farce of need-blind admissions says that you can be admitted if you're poor, provided, of course, that you look like wealthy students in every way except your parents' income.
If your admission process looks at SAT or ACT Scores, you favor students who can afford to take the test multiple times and pay for expensive test prep; if you are impressed by a transcript filled with AP classes, you are selecting from the high schools with the highest socioeconomic status; if some students seem to be more aware of how to manage the process and that makes a good impression on you, it's probably because they have college-educated parents; if you like the captain of the lacrosse team more than you like the kid who worked 20 hours a week to help buy his own clothes, you have just given an advantage to the wealthier kid who doesn't have to work. And the list goes on.I once had dinner with a group of people who were invited by an organization that supports first-generation and low income students. The admissions person from one of the most selective institutions in our region told the director, "Your kids say they're 'pre-med' but I don't think they really know what it means to be a doctor." QED.If the nation's most selective institutions were truly need blind, they'd enroll more low-income students. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating."


I agree with the majority of what he is saying. A comment on that article.

cptofthehouse

I agree fully. Mini and I go back and forth on this. But when put that way, I absolutely agree. The entire system is biased towards those who have parents who care, have the knowledge and resources to best prepare their children for college, and most of the time, by far, that means those who are more well to do. Not always, but the relationship is there.

One of the stats often shown as proof that no college is truly need blind is the steady percentage over the years at various schools that state that they do not take ability to pay into account in admissions, is the number or percentage of kids who are PELL eligible or who require financial aid. For it to remain so constant requires some sort of quota system is what is said. And, yes, in a sense, there is but not in the way critics imply. Those schools that are able to be need blind and give 100% of need, and who define the need generously, tend to also give a leg up for those who are in economically challenged environements. First generation to go to college hooks and tips help as do giving kids of certain areas of the state or a city some preference and also kids from programs like Questbridge or ABC or PREP for PREP in high school. The boosts are given up to a constant point each year.

lookingforward

^Well, OP's quote is from a commenter, not the author.
I work for a school that is need blind for US kids and we do not take applying for FA into account, we do not see FA info. Yes, we see parents' jobs and ed on the CA. And, yes, you bet, any kid, rich or poor, has to be qualified for the academic challenges and have shown personal strengths that matter to the college.

For anyone to assume poor kids need to "look like" rich kids is a) to overstimate how compelling wealthy kids necessarily are, and b) to assume poor kids can't be held to the same high standards that work for the college.

This certainty about the decks being stacked against any category of kid...the energy would be better put into refining a great CA. That is your one vehicle to offer a great self-presentation.

Lots about college admissions isn't "fair."

Sadie2

As the parent of a non hooked child who nevertheless ,by anyone's account, had a stellar application to a top "need blind/ full need" LAC, and was today rejected, I want to say... I think "need blind" is a farce.
My daughter needs a full ride ( our EFC is 0) Don't mean to sound like sour grapes, but I'm sure thats the reason she is not in. Hooked, either by athletics or URM, and I'm sure it would be a different story. For the most part, top colleges in this country are very much for those who can afford them.

higgins2013

Would it be fair to say that the upper-middle class B+ student with a high EFC would do far better merit-scholarshipwise at a private LAC or university ranked Tier 2 (USWNR 80 - 200), than at a public college/university or a higher-ranked private school? Friends' student was offered a $18,000/year merit scholarship from a less-expensive Tier 2 college, but nothing from a "Tier 1.5" school, with the ranking differential about 40 spots apart.

Sadie2

The wholly need blind college my daughter applied to for ED required the CCS Financial Aid Profile the same time as the CA. Some schools have a separate later date for the CSS which is the same for everyone no matter if they apply ED or RD.
When I see several much less qualified students get in to this college from my daughters home school - I smell a fish in admissions processes. All these families are likely full pay.