<p>I’m sure this is true to the extent that a student doesn’t have the stats and good fortune to be admitted to one of the highly selective and very generous schools. Our S did and we are extraordinarily grateful for his opportunity. We are trying our best to impress upon his younger sister what she needs to accomplish in high school to have similar options. Clearly if she does well, but not stellar, we’ll have to adjust our strategy - certainly it is a process that requires a lot of analysis and a little bit of luck. As an optimist, I’m convinced a workable solution can still be found by a family/student, no matter what the circumstances.</p>
<p>My friends who are in selective college admissions at need blind schools tell me that that they absolutely do not use need as a criterion except as an advantageous factor. Michele Hernandez who worked as an adcom and others who have written their “tell all” books have said the same. If anything, adcoms are prejudiced AGAINST those silver spoon kids whose parents can so easily afford the cost of colleges that cost more than what these admissions folks make.</p>
<p>However, the entire system of admissions is slanted towards those who make more. Test scores are directly related to income. Taking rigorous courses also is. The type of activities that make the high marks are often the sort of thing that low income kids are not going to be able to do. Heck, even the idea of applying to these schools is something that low income kids are not going to think about doing, much less building their resumes and practicing for the the SATs, taking the right courses. So, absolutely, there is a built in mechanism.</p>
<p>In every single scholarship program where I have seen the inner workings, the majority of truly low income kids who are the ones whose parent or other adults have really helped the kids even be aware of what is available, the test scores are not there. Not to say there are not exceptions, but overall that pool has the lowest test scores. THis is a constant in every educational study done. </p>
<p>That accepting lower test score kids does not decrease the average for the whole group does not mean that those kids have the test scores. That can easily be done by simply accepting more kids with high test scores. The most selective schools can easily do this. </p>
<p>The so called “Asian” method of getting their kids into the top schools is truly the most effective way to increase ones chances. If your kid gets close to 4000 on the SATs, has taken the most rigorous courses, is at a rigorous school and gotten straight A’s, s/he is certainly going to get into a highly selective school even with few top ECs and even if the GC and teachers don’t have the most glowing recs, which they generally do for such kids. That those kids who have this profile are rarely the lower income kids is a fact.</p>
<p>You cannot tell from the application alone if someone is PELL eligible. Gotta look at the financial aid info. That is a deliberate seeking of information that does not escape notice if done as part of admissions. I believe those schools that say they are need blind do not look at that information except when the time comes that they are told they need to be accepting more PELL eligible kids. They then have to find out who those kids are and which ones they can accept to bring up the number. </p>
<p>As for kids needing aid, about half the kids in most highly selective schools qualify for some financial aid. Even more families take out loans in order to meet what the colleges say they have to pay, and the stats are not available for those taking out private loans or PLUS. The loan burdens reported in any of the services like College Board and USNWR are way low because of this omission. </p>
<p>NYU gets a lot of flak for gapping kids. The reason they do is because they accept on a need blind basis but make no attempt whatsoever to meet the need of most of the kids they accept. Fordham U does the same thing. Columbia will meet full need as they define it. Plenty of full pay kids denied at all three of these schools, and our GCs will tell you that absolutely they see no prejudice against those who have need in applying to those schools. For some schools, even though there is no outward claim one way or the other, it is pretty clear to those in the field, that need can make a difference in admissions. Gettysburg and Dickinson are two schools that fall into that category. Wash U of SL has come right out and said that they are not need blind, as have a number of need aware schools. Still many stay mum on the subject but if you ask admissions directly they will usually tell you that they are mostly need blind but after whatever percent, they are not. I have found admissions officers forthright about this subject.</p>
<p>International students are a whole other story at most schools, and that policy is also made clear. </p>
<p>The process to get a nomination to a military academy, by the way, or even a ROTC scholarship is construed in a way that a kid without an adult to help him/her in the process is at tremendous disadvantage. As someone from a family who did qualify for financial need, and have members who have and are ROTC and military academy material, the pool of those who are PELL eligible is very small. There are a lot of rich kids at WP and Annapolis whose parents could easily have afforded to send them to full cost privates. </p>
<p>But severe economic need is a hook factor in an application for the most selective schools, not something that is ignored. It is one of the few things that will give a kid with slightly lack lustre stats consideration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The other possibility is something like the following (for schools at the very top of the selectivity and prestige scale):</p>
<p>School has 1,000 slots for admission.</p>
<p>Of the 20,000 applications, the school has 16,000 4.0 GPA applicants, of which 15,000 are non-low-income and 1,000 are low-income.</p>
<p>If the school specifically wanted to increase the number of low income admits, it could easily do so without affecting the GPA profile of its admits.</p>
<p>“You cannot tell from the application alone if someone is PELL eligible. Gotta look at the financial aid info.”</p>
<p>Well, the Dean of Admissions at Williams College clearly disagrees with you, at least as regards “low-income” candidates (he might not know the actual Pell status). He quite literally - with a reporter in the room - COUNTED the number of “socio-ec” candidates accepted as they went through the process. The Presidents of Amherst and Princeton clearly disagree as well - when they make a decision that 50% more low-income candidates will be accepted (and attend!), magically in their “need-blind” process, 50% more low-income candidates attend.</p>
<p>The reverse could be true as well, though no school will ever admit it. If H. decides in its global budgeting that it wants fewer than 6% low-income students (as they consistently have), it’s pretty easily arranged.</p>
<p>“Not to say there are not exceptions, but overall that pool has the lowest test scores. THis is a constant in every educational study done.”</p>
<p>Sorry, but the Gordon Winston study proved the contrary. Not that they had the highest scores. But that within the pool of potential applicants, there were four times as many low-income candidates with scores substantially the same as those accepted as were actually attending. But yes, it is true that low-income candidates have lower scores. A study done by the College Board about 8 years ago for students with M/CR scores above 1,000, found that $100,000/$200,000 in additional family income over $50k was worth about 100/200 points.</p>
<p>“If the school specifically wanted to increase the number of low income admits, it could easily do so without affecting the GPA profile of its admits.”</p>
<p>Precisely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this was for the schools at the top end of the selectivity scale, then a 4 to 1 ratio does not seem to be all that high, since the overall ratio of applicants to admits (note that admits > matriculants) is greater than 10 to 1 at many of the schools at the top end of the selectivity scale.</p>
<p>There isn’t a need-blind school in the country.</p>
<p>Sorry, Mini, but you’re wrong. There are some publics (especially in the South) that have auto admit policies for various stats (and some of these req’ts are quite low). So, yes, those schools certainly are need-blind. The last thing these southern publics need is some news-story saying that they aren’t admitting some qualified AA’s, other URMs, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim students because of lack of funding.</p>
<p>Bates gave us an excellent FA package. No loans, a $41K grant and $1,800 work study. Since are EFC was in the low $20k’s we had no idea when DS applied that he would be getting such a fantastic package. COA will be $16K year!</p>