<p><<we found="" some="" schools="" wanted="" middle="" class="" kids="" who="" needed="" fa,="" while="" others="" to="" save="" most="" of="" the="" fa="" money="" for="" urm’s.="" it="" was="" clear="" see="" institutional="" bias.="">></we></p>
<p>mythmom, how were you able to determine that?</p>
<p>Unless you are privy to seeing many applications and data points over a period of time, it really isn’t right to make sweeping statements on a few examples where you suspect a situation. My nephew was turned down at a school with stats better than my son’s. Since I knew some people at the school, I did go and ask about the situation and encouraged the mom to do the same. We got the answer from the adcoms and it made sense. But without the specific info, it could look like some sort of other thing was going on. </p>
<p>There are not that many schools that are need blind and guarantee to meet full need. You can get the list. There are also not that many schools that are need aware and tend to meet full need. Most schools just gap. And of the schools that meet most or all need, some of them do use loans liberally.<br>
So we are really just talking about a small number of schools that run into the situation where they have to fund everyone accepted.</p>
<p>This is where the ugly fact that most kids with high need are not at the top of the admit list arises. Many times, those kids who are truly needy have to have a boost to be admitted. Yes, they can be admitted, but if the fact that their need were not taken into account as a FAVORABLE factor for admissions, a overcoming challenges, first generation, type of a thing, they would not be plucked out of the pool. So those numbers can be controlled.</p>
<p>I saw this when we were doing the scholarships when I was on the committee. With rare exception, the kids most qualified for the scholarships when we evaluated on a need blind basis, turned out to be the ones who least needed it. So we would have need in the picture as part of our “holistic” critieria so that we weren’t just giving money to kids as pure gravy, and that kids who needed the money were getting some of it. A reality check to me. I knew all of this in terms of educational statistics as I did a lot of work in statistical analysis, including in the field of education, but to see it so blatantly there was a surprise. </p>
<p>Yes, there are major exceptions. There are the few crown jewels who have overcome any amount of adversity. There is also a group of kids who are economically not up there in terms of family finances but enjoy a socio-educational advantage in that they are from families who place a huge value on education, and are knowledgeable about the process. Some of those families had well educated parents who simply did not earn much money, nor had much in assets. But the households were as directed towards academic achievement as any upper middle class family’s. A number of Asian and Eastern European families would fit that profile. </p>
<p>But seriously, if you go into the schools in the NYC area that have the famiies with the lowest incomes, you are not going to find many candidates with the stats, having taken the courses to be prepared fo the most highly selective schools. Just not going to happen. Yes, you might find a handful, but if you go to Scarsdale High in the suburbs, the catch is going to be a whole other story. That high school probably serves one of the most well to do population in the US. The kids from there go to the selective schools in percentages where it is the rule rather than the exception, and it isn’t the financial need block being checked that is the reason for those poorer schools not getting kids accepted to those schools. But yes, ultimately, it is the money that made the difference.</p>
<p>"
Post #456, of course nobody knows including you that is why I highlighted the think. I remember one CC member(je<em>ne</em>sais_quoi) who was also a legacy, her kids with perfect stats and great esays but needed aid and was rejected from NU. "</p>
<p>The year my son got in, NU’s legacy admission rate was 36% vs the regular admission rate of 18%. Which means, for the math impaired, 6 out of 10 legacies got rejected. So you “know” that jnsq’s daughter was rejected solely for needing fin aid and otherwise should have gotten in? I had no idea you were an NU adcom. </p>
<p>Again, arrogant. When plenty of kids who are qualified are rejected, it simply means there isn’t enough room. How arrogant to pretend you know why a given candidate was rejected. Unbelievable.</p>
<p>I see lots of helpful info here and I look forward to the publication of Rachel B. Rubin’s work, hoping that it’s challenged and defended well in the peer review process.</p>
<p>I know a half dozen highly qualified full pay kids who were turned down this year by Northwestern. They all got into some peer schools. When you are looking at who gets rejected at these schools that accept less than a quarter of those who apply there, you see some amazing kids that do not make the cut. My neighbor’s daughter was accepted at Vanderbilt, Cornell and Colgate, but not NU. A young man we know was accepted at Vanderbilt and NU and he got a half cost need package from each. Wash U and Cornell waitlisted him and other ivies .to which he applied turned him down. The school where a couple of my kid’s went who really track these things, does not feel that need is an issue at NU. There are some schools where those counselors harbor some suspicions that need plays a role in the admissions and those schools are not coming out and saying so, but Northwestern is not on that list. In fact, it is one of the few schools to which that they feel comfortable having kids with high need applying ED. I was specifically told that they’ve yet to see a package that was not generous in that situation from there.</p>
<p>post #483. I believe JNSQ’s daughter applied 2008, same year as my daughter. I remembered even JNSQ said something to that effect. Perhaps the only difference is that JNSQ’s daughter did not apply ED. And what made you think the 6 out of 10 kids didn’t need some sorts of financial aid? Perhaps, I must have hit some nerve there.</p>
<p>There are some peer schools, excellent ones, highly selective, top 25 schools that say outright that they are not need blind and that they do not meet need. Hopkins is an example. These schools that say are need blind put a lot on the line if they are lying. There are enough people in on the process that would know. There are some schools that are mum on the process.</p>
<p>1moremom (and everyone else): I don’t mean to be arrogant in suggesting that different schools target different populations when deciding who to give their money to. I am not calling foul or sour grapes.</p>
<p>I determined this by following our high school for five years, following CC for five years, but more than that, looking at the data sets from the schools themselves and reading the mission statements of the schools. In some cases Adcoms went on 20/20 type shows and revealed strategies. </p>
<p>And I don’t admonish any of these schools, even though at times it worked against my kids.</p>
<p>For example, Smith has a greater percentage of Pell Grant students than Barnard. Just as an example. This is just one of the many factoids that led me to believe that Smith was dedicated to admitted more low income kids and distributing their money in that way. I say, “Brava.”</p>
<p>There are only a small percentage of need-blind, meets full-need schools. Perhaps ED gives some control over the process.</p>
<p>My two children were fortunate in that they were each accepted into one of these schools (each their first choice – they are sort of the poster children for these schools) with FA we found doable so again, I am not speaking out of personal interest here.</p>
<p>The bigger threat than needing finaid at a needs blind school is, sorry to say, the quality of the kid’s app. </p>
<p>Northwestern’s application and admissions process presents you with the opportunity to paint a full picture of yourself, showing your academic achievements, extracurricular interests, writing ability, and personality. Each application is carefully reviewed by several members of the admission committee. Seeking information beyond school transcripts and test scores, we take into account your involvement outside of class, read your essays to get a better sense of your interests, and review recommendations from secondary school teachers and counselors to add additional perspective to your achievements.<br>
Sounds pretty holistic to me. Ie, multiple points in which you must succeed. </p>
<p>Myth- when D1 was applying, I thought I had discovered a formula for figuring which schools were more likely to be more generous with need-based aid. Some wacky multiply this by that and divide. I wondered why more parents didn’t see it, clear as day. I realize now how wrong I was, though all D1’s offers came in virtually the same.</p>
<p>DrGoogle, you need to stop digging. :)</p>
<p>Post #490, I don’t know what you mean. I stated the truth that applying ED as a legacy with full pay is a hook. I thougth everybody on CC knows that.</p>
<p>Mythmom wrote:
</p>
<p>and then,
</p>
<p>I agree with you that some schools might want to target their aid to more low income students, but you are very much mistaken to equate Pell grant eligibility with URM status. My daughter qualified for Pell grants in her first and last years at Barnard; my son qualified for Pell grant his senior year of college. We are white, Jewish, & both parents have advanced degrees – nothing URM about us. </p>
<p>Both Smith & Barnard are need-blind in admissions and meet full need (as they define it) of all students, so those particular schools wouldn’t prioritize their aid based either on isolating URM or weighing amount of need any case. Institutional priorities may play a part, but a big reason that Smith has more Pell grant students is that Smith is better endowed ($1.4 billion vs. $1.7 million), and Smith is less selective and is SAT optional --for example, 23% of entering first years at Smith have CR scores of 590 or below; only 15% of Barnard entering students have similarly weak scores. [Given the correlation between family income levels and SAT scores, you should expect that the average SAT scores of students who qualify for Pell grants would tend to be lower]</p>
<p>Further, Barnard has a higher percentage of low socio-economic status URM’s than Smith (19% Black or Hispanic at Barnard vs. 12% at Smith). (By that I mean students identified with minorities that tend to be lower socio-economic status as a whole; obviously there may be many students whose family income levels do not fit racial stereotypes)</p>
<p>That might be a reason for Smith to prioritize an attempt to attract more minority students, and as Smith gives merit aid as well, they certainly may choose to target merit money at students who help them reach their diversity goals … but my point is simply that I don’t think there is any reason to believe they are trying to target their financial aid dollars toward a lower status group. The average first year aid package at Barnard is $40K, vs. a $37K average package at Smith – so while Barnard has less money to give overall, and subsidizes a smaller percentage of its students (41% vs. 63% at Smith) - those students who receive aid are getting the same amount overall. [Barnard’s average aid package is $3K more, but so is their cost of attendance] </p>
<p>I’d note that Barnard accepts a larger percentage of its college early decision, which is one other mechanism by which they control their financial aid; early decision pools are heavily skewed toward more affluent students. </p>
<p>I do agree that colleges that do not meet full need of all students will definitely use their aid dollars to meet institutional goals, including diversity goals – but the full-need, non-merit colleges don’t really have the means to use aid dollars for that purpose. Any student they admit, by definition, will get whatever aid she needs – so whatever preferences come into play have to take place at the admissions level, not with financial aid allocations.</p>
<p>Re post #491 - obviously being legacy + full pay is a “hook”, but that doesn’t mean that the student who needs financial aid is being rejected for that reason. The particular student you cited as an example had other weak spots as an applicant – I’m not going to detail that here, but the point is that with a holistic process, you can’t draw a conclusion as to why a student was turned down from “stats”. </p>
<p>That kind of brings us full circle back to the beginning: parents and students who misunderstand the admissions process will look at the kid’s grades and test scores, look at published data about a college, and assume that if their kid’s “stats” are in the the top 25%, the kid should be entitled to admission. They never stop to consider that three times as many kids with scores below the top 25% enroll every year – the “stats” get the students past the first cull, but they are no guarantee of admission anywhere. I honestly don’t think the ad coms at the high end selective colleges even look at the stats as long as they are above whatever the college has set as a minimum threshold --and this impression was confirmed somewhat by the Inside Higher Ed. article – since all of their applicants under serious consideration are high-stat students, the stats are no longer a meaningful basis for comparison.</p>
<p>My child applied to 4 universities, Stanford U was an early decision, and you do know that ED means a commitment and that this is the school that the student would really want to attend. But my child was rejected and I can understand how you must have felt seeing your child so devastated, upset and angry!
But in the letter from Richard H. Shaw, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid of Stanford attached an article that he wrote for LA times and here’s an excerpt from his article -
“An undergraduate degree from Stanford, or an Ivy League college, may well end up being only one line at the bottom of a resume. What parents and college applicants across the country need to remember is that the news they receive, whether good or bad, is but a single step on a much longer journey.”
I so agree with this statement, soon enough my child got over it, …on to the next one! 
I sincerely believed that there’s a school out there that’s meant for your child, a seat is waiting for him!
if you want to view the full article, here’s the link -
<a href=“http://files.e2ma.net/37634/assets/docs/rick_shaw_rea2010.pdf[/url]”>http://files.e2ma.net/37634/assets/docs/rick_shaw_rea2010.pdf</a>
I thank you for giving me the chance to comment and share!</p>
<p>Calming: that wasn’t my implication at all but something you added. And it was just an example, not a main point. But I know you will find some issue to skewer me with whatever I say so you have now bounced me off the thread. I was sharing a phenomenon that does exist in the mildest, most disinterested way. But I suppose a fly must be swatted with a cannon.</p>
<p>The college ds1 attends is upfront with its “mostly need-blind” process. They select 85% need blind and then consider need for the remaining 15%. And I’m sure glad they do because ds is on massive amounts of FA and wouldn’t be at his excellent school if it weren’t for those who can afford full freight.</p>
<p>That’s weird. So, as they’re admitting, when they reach the 85% mark, they start looking at need? So, those apply towards the deadline are more likely in the 15% or what? </p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t think any school can possibly be totally need-blind. A student’s zipcode, the high school name, the and the essays all give some insight as to how needy (or not needy) many students are. And, when we hear statements like, “my child goes to a top private high that typically sends 25 kids to elites each year,” then there’s no way that the elites don’t know that those are likely some well-heeled kids.</p>
<p>At my last college reunion (Brown) a hot topic of conversation was how many of our kids (single legacies, double legacies, in some cases three generations of legacies) had been rejected. Many of these kids ended up at “peer institutions”- Penn, Dartmouth, Cornell, JHU, Northwestern, Columbia… where they were not legacies of any kind, so presumably, Brown would not have had to hold its nose to accept them. Our conclusion (which has since been borne out by some actual research by one of my classmates) is that legacy in and of itself is essentially meaningless at highly selective schools right now.</p>
<p>If your kid is a legacy and you are a United States Senator- then yes, legacy is meaningful. If your kid is a legacy and you are CEO of a large corporation, an Academy award winning actor (Grammy, Emmy and Tony also works), if your kid is a legacy and is exceptional (Intel winner, composed a concerto which debuted at Tanglewood last summer performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra) then legacy is meaningful. And if you live in Wyoming or another under-represented geography, then legacy is meaningful.</p>
<p>In other words- if your kid would have gotten in anyway, then legacy pushes him or her into the admit pile. But if your kid is a BWRK from Belmont or Great Neck or Atherton or Highland Park and you’ve been dutifully sending in $500 a year to your alumni fund and you and your spouse have good jobs- you’re a social worker and she’s a public defender… well, don’t count on legacy as getting you other than a waitlist (i.e.soft turndown).</p>
<p>People who claim they know why a kid was rejected from one institution but accepted to another suffer from unbelievable hubris. You literally cannot imagine the depth of talent that adcoms see every year. Your darling wrote a phenomenal essay on her fossil collection. Wow. How could she know that it was the 14th fossil collection essay that the adcom at Dartmouth or Cornell read this season… and while hers was well written, the one just before it was brilliant. So your D got rejected at Dartmouth and Cornell, but accepted at Columbia, where the other 13 fossil collectors had not applied, since their parents wanted them in a “safe” rural location and not in a big bad city. </p>
<p>Not a nefarious plot by the adcoms… just reality that they cannot accept a kid who does not apply, and that they have the luxury of picking and choosing to admit exactly who they want to attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then school is not need blind, it is need aware/need sensitive. This usually does happen toward the end of the admission cycle or when the school is close to exhausting their budget. When it comes down to choosing between 2 similary qualified applicants, the student who needs less of the school’s resources would get the tip for admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not necessarily true. For example in NYC it is not unsual for the super or on-staff maintenace person to have an apartment in a high rent building. On paper, the super’s child could be living at a 5th avenue address and still be pell eligible. In addition with programs like ABC and high $$ prep schools that offer scholarships/need based aid to low income students, it could be very deceiving to first look at the school/address and assume that the family comes from money.</p>
<p>No, legacy is not meaningless at highly selective schools. Last year (2011 freshman class), Brown’s admit rate for legacy applicants was 36% while their overall admit rate was 9%. Princeton’s admit rate for legacy applicants for the 2009 entering class was 42%. According to a 2011 article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, children of alums (primary legacies) got a 45% boost in admission chances on average at 30 highly selective colleges. Being a legacy doesn’t “get you in”, but it surely helps to raise your chances.</p>
<p>My daughter applied to a smallish private hs. They had a freshman class of 200. So divide that in half, and she was in a pool of 800 applicants for 100 slots. Doable.</p>
<p>So of that 100 15 spots were give to jocks, so now its 85spots of 785 applicants. Then it was siblings. Another 12 slots. So it’s 73 of 773 spots. Alumni another 8, staff, another 3, kids from a sister school another 7. So right of the bat, almost half the freshman class is accounted for before even looking at the rest of the pool. So it was 755 applicants for 55 spots. Without even having the application looked at.</p>
<p>Oh and they charmingly wait listed pretty much everyone who wasnt a felon who wasn’t accepted.</p>