<p>It’s also possible that Smith, attempting to ensure enrollment levels sufficient to cover the portion of its budget which is dependent on tuition fees, admitted more students than it otherwise would have. Before colleges decide how many students they will admit, they must predict, each year, what percentage of admitted students will actually enroll. The predictions in the Higher Ed community last Fall were that gloomy economic circumstances would cause students to decline offers of admission–but no one knew how many students would find themselves in this position. Some colleges admitted extra students. Curiously, the predictions have not come true, especially at the top schools like Smith. Students are finding ways to make it work. To some extent, this is because the number of prospective students is so high (a so-called “baby boomlet”); even in difficult economic times, there are qualified students who can pay or earn scholarships, and/or are willing to go into debt. “Need-blind” admissions policies have been finessed into “need-sensitive” assessments of ability to pay, at some schools (I don’t know how Smith has handled this). And some schools cover their bottom line in a manner which the term “finesse” describes not at all: earlier this year, Reed College reworked its list of prospective admits to eliminate 100 financially needy candidates in favor of 100 who could pay full costs. (Downer, bummer, I know. By comparison, Smith’s helpful approach to its own mistake seems refreshing.)</p>