<p>
</p>
<p>This simply isn’t true. Admissions directors get reports from the financial aid office about budgetary issues at every stage in the process. One of the most important “institutional priorities” is keeping the college solvent. </p>
<p><a href=“which,%20magically,%20result%20in%20a%20balanced%20budget”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that this sort of magical thinking must explain why so many people were fooled by Bernie Madoff. These things don’t happen by magic, they happen through intentional manipulation by the people who have control. </p>
<p>Even at so-called “need-blind” schools, the admissions director is getting reports back from financial aid as to the state of the budget. I’ve looked at stats from Barnard (supposedly need-blind) that show a significant drop in the percentage of admitted freshman getting need awards after the financial meltdown in 2008. </p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>Percentage of entering freshman getting Barnard-generated aid & average Barnard grant:</p>
<p>2008-2009: 42% - $27,060<br>
2009-2010: 38% - $26,030</p>
<p>I simply don’t believe that with the economic downturn in the fall of 2008, there were fewer students qualifying for need based aid, who needed less grant money on average, seeking spots in the 2009 entering class, especially since there was a 3% increase in COA from 2008 to 2009. But Barnard has a very small endowment and not much flexibility in its aid practices, and the economic downturn would have increased pressure on the financial aid budget from already-enrolled students. </p>
<p>There is no such thing as a 100% “need-blind” college. ALL colleges accept “development” cases (admits done as a favor for large donors), and there are also other ways that colleges can manipulate their admissions, such as by pulling full-pay students from their waitlist. They can give greater weight in admissions to factors that they know are indications of ability to pay (such as participation in costly EC’s) - or they can target recruiting efforts to higher paying demographics. If the school does not promise to meet need of internationals – and most don’t - then they can also admit more international students. </p>
<p>I have no clue what Barnard did to bring down the financial aid numbers for the 2009 entering class. but I don’t believe that it was “magic”. They did admit a much larger number of students ED – the 2008 admitted class had 186 ED admits (27% of the first year class) - the 2009 number was 212 (31% of the entering class). So perhaps that shift was enough to account for the difference.</p>