Of course you are “competing” with US applicants too, hypothetically if the international applicant pool was much weaker than US then even the best international would have a tough time. Of course that’s not the case. As has been explained, the pool of internationals is judged on a somewhat different basis than locals for various reasons including being need aware (where being able to pay helps) and in general it is more difficult as an international to gain admission to a given college. Please don’t latch on to being full pay as being a compensation for other factors. It is a small advantage at some colleges vs other internationals who are not full pay. But plenty internationals are also full pay.
For a sense of scale: of the 6,700 undergraduates students who are currently undergraduates at Harvard, 791 are international, of which 10 are from Japan, 63 from China, 25 from South Korea and 21 from India.
Despite the recent cheating scandal, it is difficult to buy your way in w/o a 7-8 figure donation. Full pay is not so rare that it is an advantage- it just lessens the disadvantage.
The money thing is complicated for international applicants.
Some colleges and universities will require you to demonstrate that you can cover the full cost of your education when you apply. If you can’t show sufficient support, you can’t apply.
Colleges and universities that offer some aid for international students will decide how much aid you need based on your financial aid application. What they think you need and what you think you need might be very different. If they have a need-aware admission policy, your application will be rejected if they decide they don’t want to give you the aid they think you need. Yes, they might offer more aid to a student they like better than they like you.
Your student visa application can be rejected if the visa officer doesn’t like what they see in your financial information even if both you and your college think that you have enough money to pay for your education.
They get more apps from China, take a proportion that meets the colleges’ needs. The get fewer apps from Japan, take a smaller number. If they feel 10 current students from Japan fills their needs, they can take fewer freshmen. IF that ten is spread among all four classes, it means maybe 2-3 get in next year. Are you one of the top 2-3 students in Japan, as defined by that US college?
If you’re asking these sorts of questions, you likely don’t know what makes one candidate better than another, in holistic. Some of your questions could be answered by going to their web sites.
Being Indian in Japan may make you interesting. That’s not a tip. In general, if your primary culture is Indian, that will factor, not just that you reside in Japan.
@skieurope - not sure how I am confusing the matter when you posted something like this:
From Cornell’s website:
I believe many top tier school are need aware, except for some tippy top schools. Of course, one may consider Cornell to be a much further down school.
Schools report to the US government two stats - race and whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic. That is only for US students (citizens or permanent residents). All the others are ‘international’ so the the ‘lot of admissions stats’ might be those reported to the government. All those are self reported, so a student can choose not to answer or check several boxes. Some schools may have a lot more Asians on campus than are reported on their websites or in the data sets.
@skieurope can speak for themselves, but I think you are conflating two things, @oldfort: Cornell is a tippy-top, and they will evaluate your application in part on whether you need financial aid (need-aware), but they will not give you an advantage b/c you are full pay. Put another way, being full-pay removes a negative, but does not add a positive.
Call me simple, but I definitely view Cornell’s statement as “if you are a full pay international student then it is a hook.” I think they giving full pay international students more advantage when they are “eliminating” students who are not full pay (less competition).
@oldfort Need-aware is not synonymous with full-pay advantage. You may consider it semantics, but being full-pay at most need-aware schools (which is the majority) is not going to move the needle appreciably, although needing full aid may leave one immediately out of the running at those same schools.
And you do not think by eliminating some applicants give full pay students more advantage?
How do you know that? I do not believe there are that many people outside of US who can afford 250K+ college tuitions, and also have good enough stats to get into those “top tier” schools.
I know this is not part of the discussion, but I just did a quick check and many top schools like Duke and Brown are not need blind when it comes to admission, which to me it means students who are full pay would have advantage over other students who need aids.
In the future, if you’re going to question me (or anyone) @oldfort , at least have the courtesy to quote the entire paragraph, so relevant content is not omitted.
To answer, I don’t know, nor do you. But for elite need-aware colleges for internationals, which as I said are all but a handful, (and yes, I count Cornell and Brown and Duke in that elite cohort), being full-pay may be a feather on the scale versus full-need. But at the end of the day, the college’s international cap is the main constraint. So at MIT, which admits 2.4% of internationals, being full-pay (and well-qualified) brings it up to 3.5%? 4%? It will still be well under, in my opinion, the 7.9% domestic acceptance rate.
Having said that, I have heard that there are less-selective colleges where being full-pay would make a meaningful difference. That, however, is not my area of expertise, so I cannot cite examples. But @MYOS1634 undoubtedly has some examples, is they’d like to weigh in.
Cornell has over 22% international students, Brown has 18%, Duke has around 20%. MIT is one of very few schools that has such low quota. In my opinion, 20% of students admitted through need aware is quite significant, and I would think many of them are full pay.
MIT is one of the few schools that are need-blind and meets full need for international applicants. Therefore, I don’t think its policies are very representative.
The information we heard on college tours last year accorded with the impressions stated above (there were always internationals in our info sessions.). The way it was specifically explained by a need-aware college around #60 in the rankings was that full pay can tip the balance when the last batch of offers are being decided and budgets are being borne in mind. It other words, it can tip a marginal candidate into acceptance over another marginal candidate. This is not really what I would consider an advantage in admissions, at least not the way OP was asking it.
Other colleges do approach it differently. The top UCs are fairly clear that full pay can certainly be an advantage, but there is no difference there between US OOS and international full pay.
I used MIT as an example because they are one of the few schools that break out acceptance rates domestic vs. intl. Thank you @sj2727 for the balance of your post and stating it in a way more eloquently than I did. Particularly the following, as it pertains to the OP (emphasis mine):
I am not sure about this. From what I have seen, schools in general admit certain number of students from each region. Yes, applicants do compete with each other in general, but AOs are not going to compare Indian students to Mexican students or NJ students. I do not see Cornell/Duke/Brown dropping their international students too far below 20% (who would pay full fare or provide that diversity then).
First, “many top schools like Duke and Brown are not need blind when it comes to admission” refers to international, which may be getting lost here, for lurkers or newbies. .
Then, you dont have a conventional hook for being a full pay international. It doesn’t vary or deepen the review, lessen or flex any standards, offer any real tip.
Only greatly qualified intl kids have a chance, to begin with. And there are plenty of those. If one is very qualified, but has extremely high need, they can get the reaction, “…but we cant afford her.” Or the like. That’s need aware with intls. The next great applicant may also have need, but more in line with FA constraints, policies, or ideas. He may get the admit.
And that wealthy FP kid may not be so compelling, in the context of that pool. No tip for him just for being FP.
At the same time, many of those unis say they have limited funds for international students because their first obligation is to the US students (rightly so), therefore the flip side is if an international student needs aids then he/she better be a tippy top student. When a school wants around 20% of international students and have limited funds, the reaction with a qualified full pay may be, “you have good enough stats and you can afford the school, so we can offer you a spot.” Whereas someone who needs aids, the AOs may need to think about the applicant a lot more carefully (should we spend our limited fund on him/her."
We all know many need blind schools become need aware schools during the wait list cycle, and guess who usually get off the WL.
I do want to add that schools want to see their students succeed and graduate from their schools. Aside from finance, they are looking for students who can adapt and thrive in a new environment. Going to college is a big adjustment for most students, but it is especially true for international students who need to travel thousands of miles and be away from their family for longer period of time. I would some how demonstrate to AOs you are adaptable, mature and able to handle changes.
