I agree that the information should be more accessible. That said, when our family toured Wesleyan about 5 years ago, they explicitly acknowledged the policy during the information session we attended. They told us that they didn’t take ability to pay into account when assembling 95% of the class, and that an applicant’s financial status came into to play only for the final 5% of the class.
1 Like
I guess the question is whether the applicant would have decided not to apply to Wesleyan if she were to find that the acceptance rate was 14.4%* instead of 16%. Considering that there’s no actual way to know the acceptance rate for her particular demographic otherwise, and that a 1.6% swing is smaller than past year-to-year variation, I would tend to doubt it.
*90% of the class accepted need blind, last year’s acceptance rate = 16%. Assumes worst case scenario in which not a single FA beyond that is accepted. .9 X 16% = 14.4%.
ETA: Cross posted with @TigerInWinter. So recalculating, 15.2% instead of 14.4%.
^ A smart way for a resource-constrained (need-aware) college to make sure that they hit their financial numbers would be to manage their number of full-pays through the WL and transfers.
I wonder if most of the need-aware schools take 5-10% of their student body off the WL these days.
For need blind schools – applying for aid will not impact an admissions decision.
For need aware schools – applying for aid can impact an admissions decision particularly if an applicant is not among the very top tier of students being considered.
Every school, even need blind schools, has budgeted revenue from tuition. Nobody admits purely on merit and then gets surprised in June. They all shape their class to meet a budgeted revenue. Schools with massive endowments have more wiggle room, but they still pay attention.
I think the best and most likely system is to have a target during ED and then adjust if needed during the WL stage. The ED admits should get the school to a comfortable spot where the WL can be used to hit the number.
@AlwaysMoving, that makes a lot of sense. Though if they are truly need-blind during ED, schools would have to look for other signals of welath/income.
This is similar to what we heard from GWU, as an aside. They didn’t mention a specific % of the class, but said that as a need-aware school, when it came down to the borderline decisions for the last places, full pay would tip the scale.
An applicant with high need surely should care. S/he should seriously consider whether her/his time and other resources are better spent elsewhere.
Some schools are only need-blind up to a degree. Claiming to be need-blind improves the school’s reputation and competitiveness in attracting certain types of students.
Generally true but not in all cases.
Thank you everyone for your insight and thoughtful comments. They are very helpful. My daughter is an unhooked student who attends a public school. Her public school offers a total of 6 AP classes (2 in her junior year and 4 in her senior year.) Her school does not have the funding to offer more. She took all the AP’s that were offered and received A+ in all. Her school does not rank. She is in the top 20 of her class (her school report lumps top 20 with a GPA of 96 - 100 into first tier.) She has very strong EC resume and “best ever” sentiments in all her LOC. From what I understand she can never be in the top tier of applicants because the top tier are from elite private schools or well funded public schools that offer upwards of 15 - 18 AP classes. On rigor alone she cannot compete. The kids in her school who got into selective colleges in the ED round are either meeting diversity requirements or can pay full fare. I think my take away is - paying full fare simply gives one more advantage in a system where it’s all about maximizing advantages.
It probably can help at lower tier schools but most top colleges are need blind.
From personal experiences among family and friends, being full pay doesn’t help at these colleges as lots of wealthy and upper middle class apply but being a multimillion donor sure can help.
Colleges that supply a lot of financial aid are one of the very few things in the economy that practice price discrimination by wealth. Because of this your odds are greatly improved if you are a high need applicant. This is because if they used standard pricing where everyone was charged the same, your effective odds would be zero because you wouldn’t be able to afford it.
About one half of one percent of US colleges are need blind and meet full need; even fewer are need aware and meet full need. So with 99% of schools not meeting need, it comes down to affordability, with the blind/aware issue fading in importance.
If a university wrote off $200k for every student that couldn’t afford it, they’d go bankrupt before the end of the next semester. Grades get you in the school, but the real screening is in the financial aid tuition bill. Hence the term, “waitlist.” Are these schools full of super geniuses with perfect scores? No, they’re full kids with money, and the parent doner with the most cash has the best chance of Junior getting admitted.
Your D can certainly be in the top tier of applicants without being full pay. The lack of AP opportunities and overall rigor of the HS can be difficult to overcome though.
@coolguy40 "Grades get you in the school, but the real screening is in the financial aid tuition bill. Hence the term, “waitlist.”
@AlwaysMoving “Your D can certainly be in the top tier of applicants without being full pay. The lack of AP opportunities and overall rigor of the HS can be difficult to overcome though.”
Yes I agree - it’s hard to overcome - when we toured UChicago we had dinner with a Freshman who attended an elite private high school. Thirteen students from his graduating HS class were accepted to UChicago. The UChicago regional admissions counselor did not visit my D school.
When colleges talk about “rigor” they mean “the most rigorous courses that the high school provides”. If your daughter’s high school only has 6 APs and she’s taking them all, so she has the “rigor” part covered.
Not being full pay is one of the least important and least common reason that kids who attend underfunded high schools are not accepted to “elite” colleges. Lack of resources to prepare them, lack of ability to participate in ECs, especially ones that garner awards, lack of money for tutors and prep, or simply because they do not apply because they either cannot afford to attend, or think that they cannot afford to attend. Moreover, if a family does not know anybody who ever attended an Ivy, they will assume, mostly correctly, that colleges like Ivies are “not for people like us”, and will not even consider applying.
So while it could have been the fact that your daughter wasn’t full pay, I am more of the opinion that she was just one of the many well qualified applicants who are rejected from colleges with very low acceptance rates. However, despite what I wrote above about rigor, your daughter may very well have been at a disadvantage because of the limitations on what the school could offer academically, and as ECs. I think that may have had more to do with the deferral.
I assume that you were being critical of the “elite” colleges, not of the students, however, writing that students in your daughter’s HS were accepted because they were “meeting diversity requirements” comes across as insulting and belittling to those students, because it seems to imply that the kids were not qualified. I do not think that was your intention, and I assume that you were not questioning the qualifications of the students, but that it how it can seem from your remark.
Two of the lesser-recognized factors in college admissions IMO are need-aware admissions AND the school report. @thurpam, your D will have an advantage as compared to those attending elite private high schools. Her application will be evaluated based on the context of her educational opportunities. Taking the maximum number of AP’s at her school, and being a “best ever” student there will work in her favor.
In our area, schools sending highest percentage of their students to top colleges are from the magnets of weakest school district from inner city. Most students have $0 or very low EFC, are URM or first generation but talented and hard working.
If ability to pay was considered, nearby districts with top suburban schools of upper middle class Asian high achievers would be sending a higher percentage.
Every student is measured against his peers, if district doesn’t offer 20 AP, it’s not going to be held against anyone. If SAT average is 100, they won’t expect you to have a perfect 1600.
@MWolf “I assume that you were being critical of the “elite” colleges, not of the students, however, writing that students in your daughter’s HS were accepted because they were “meeting diversity requirements” comes across as insulting and belittling to those students, because it seems to imply that the kids were not qualified. I do not think that was your intention, and I assume that you were not questioning the qualifications of the students, but that it how it can seem from your remark.”
I was not trying to be insulting to any of the students and I am so sorry if it sounded that way. All the accepted students we know in the ED round were very highly qualified - all in top tier of their class - all had strong EC resume etc. I am trying to make sense of the process. Trying to understand “all things being equal” if there is a trend in acceptances versus those who were waitlisted or deferred. I am not trying to be critical of the elite colleges either. They have a business to run and are under increasing pressure to create a diverse well rounded class. Admission Officers have a very hard job.