<p>I’m not sure why there was so much angst in the response. My point was that the published numbers for SPS (average grant at 87% of tuition) actually indicate a healthier aid program, covering both full-need and middle-class students, than the 94% cited and that it is quite similar to Andover.</p>
<p>Regarding PA I wouldn’t make too much of the 75% figure. That’s just a broad strokes proclamation that doesn’t even specify whether it is solely considering aid awards to boarding students. The detailed figures from the Andover site are:</p>
<p>“In 2009-2010, 44% of the student body receives financial aid; 12% receive full scholarships. The average grant for boarding students is $35,200 and the average grant for day students is $25,100.”</p>
<p>From that one can do whatever calculation is desired. </p>
<p>Lastly, I wasn’t aware of the cited figures from the Phillipian as I no longer receive it. It would be disappointing if there has been a significant decline in new full aid students, but, if true, I suspect I know the reason. I believe there are some named programs (with presumably named endowments) that specifically target such kids. In that sense PA was arguably not being need-blind, but actually need-aware to the benefit of such low-income students. If those endowments were put at risk it may have caused a reduction in new admits at that level. </p>
<p>On the other hand the percentage of Andover students on full aid has either held steady or actually increased slightly. I know the school, like many of its peers, provided increase aid to returning students impacted by the financial downturn. However, I doubt it would have resulted in enough new full aid students to offset a dramatic downturn in similarly situated new admits. Perhaps from the article we could find more clues. Can you provide a link or at least the date of publication so I can find it in the archives? Thanks.</p>