Their FA budgets are not unlimited, but they are skilled enough to design admissions processes and criteria to produce an admissions class that will not exceed their FA budgets, without having to directly look at or consider any individual applicant’s financial need.
@ucbalumnus are those processes published anywhere? where is the source? or do people just assume that there is a process?
One additional approach not mentioned yet in this thread, as I recall when D and I visited Swat, they told prospective applicants that they were need blind in admissions for US candidates, but they reserved the right to consider need for international students.
@annamom - the processed used by admission are a closely guarded secret by each admissions dept, and they vary from school to school according to their institutional needs, which can vary from year to year - they typically know if they need more male theatre majors, or if they need another drummer, CS major, etc. Once they have met their needs for the prospective class, they go to their rankings of remaining students.
OP - When full needs-met schools are asked by prospective candidates about what factors they use to determine family need, these schools are vey very helpful. For example, they will tell a family, in general terms, what to expect for FA changes in future years when a younger sibling also attends college at the same time, and they will tell them what to expect when the older sibling graduates. Do they treat a graduating older sibling in grad school differently than one who goes off to work? They will tell families what would happen to FA if the family income rises or drops by a material amount. What happens if the family moves to another house in another town, or state? What happens to your FA if you’ve been living in grandma’s house, and you become the home owner instead? LOTS of families tend to be focused only on the first year FA aid package only, and then are surprised when the aid changes after a year or two. The FA department at full needs met schools is always happy to help - AID is part of their name, after all. They look at their mission as how can they help students attend their school, and they realize that needy families deserve information in order to make their decision not just to attend, but also to apply. Don’t be afraid to ask the schools that claim to meet full FA what that means in your situation - they likely have dealt with it before. The full needs met schools are generally need blind, which means the admissions dept won’t know if you ask the FA dept any particular questions.
“There seems to be a lack of transparency around which schools are “need-aware” and “need-blind”.”
True, that’s why you should assume all schools are need aware. For sure if you’re a public university, you’re need aware, you have to be since you have different tuition for OOS vs. in-state. Elite colleges are made up of mostly upper middle class or higher income students, not a coincidence.
is not exactly true. As I posted upthread, with the exception of the very selective colleges, many of the meet full needs schools are not need-blind for admission.
I agree there is a lack of transparency as many posted on their website that they meet full demonstrated need, but many do not post that they are need-aware.
Fair enough - my experience, visits and discussions with the FA directors, were all at the very selective colleges.
Even apart from the issue of what “meeting full need” means, I think it’s far more important to know that a college “meets full need” than that its admissions are “need blind.” Lots of colleges say they are “need blind” in admissions, but their financial aid offices are like a separate admissions department that determines whether you have really been admitted or not. If you think regular admissions is not transparent, financial aid offices at non-meet-full-need colleges are a complete black box.
So, sure, applicants with high need have a somewhat lower admission rate at need-aware colleges. But it’s not like such colleges are trying to get the wealthiest class possible. Practically all colleges want to have an economically diverse student body, including a good representation of kids with financial need at various levels. Non-need-blind colleges admit many students with need.
And even if a college does not meet full need, that doesn’t mean the college does not meet full need for anyone.
@JHS I agree that if a college does not meet full need does not mean the college does not meet full need for anyone and it is one reason I question why colleges are moving to declare they meet full need while not being transparent that they are need-aware. I suspect this put “high” need non-URM students in a disadvantage as they have a “lower” chance of being admitted even they “may” be able to pay some of the college costs, say they may have siblings who work or grandparents who are willing to help or they may even be willing to borrow part of the tuition, those students will get a better chance for admission at need-blind schools.
I recalled there was a post a few months back whether someone is asking whether it is beneficial to apply without asking for financial aid, I forgot what the general suggestions were.
@JHS, could you clarify what you mean by this? Are you saying that colleges that CLAIM to be need blind really have a shadow process where financial aid people will overrule a decision by admissions? If so, that seems very disingenuous and really not need blind at all.
Or are you saying that admissions decisions are truly need blind, but the financial aid package may not meet full need and essentially make an admit decision unviable?
I’m naive in these matters.
It is pretty well known that some criteria and processes can tip the admissions class toward higher SES admits, without having to be need-aware for individual applicants, since many criteria will indirectly favor higher SES applicants. For example:
- Early decision is not usable by those who need to compare financial aid offers.
- Legacies are all kids of college graduates, who tend to be higher income than non-college graduates.
- CSS Noncustodial Profile screens out those with financial need but have uncooperative divorced parents.
- More application items (recommendations, CSS Profile, SAT subject tests, interview) favor those in high SES high schools where counselors are more likely to let students know about them early enough.
- Counselors and teachers in low SES schools may have little or no practice writing good recommendations, because fewer students in low SES schools go to colleges that use them.
- Interviews can be a built-in advantage to those from high SES upbringing, as their cultural habits are more likely to fit well with alumni interviewers than those from low SES upbringing.
- Test scores tend to correlate more strongly than grades/GPA to SES, so emphasizing test scores over grades tips the admissions class toward higher SES.
- Emphasis on expensive extracurriculars over such things as paid work to help support one's family favors applicants from higher SES.
Of course, such “economic diversity” could still be highly skewed. For example, the most selective private colleges typically have something like the following distribution:
- About 50% no-financial-aid-grant students. Realistically, means the top few percent income families.
- About 25-38% with financial aid, but no Pell grant. Realistically, means the upper half of the family income distribution, except for the top few percent.
- About 12-25% with Pell grant, along with other financial aid. Realistically, means the lower half of the family income distribution.
@JHS probably means that a financially needy student needs to be “admitted” twice:
- By the admissions office, which may be need-blind when reading individual applications.
- By the financial aid office, where "admission" means being offered sufficient financial aid to afford to attend.
Of course, whether financial aid is transparent and predictable (at least for common financial situations) before applying (i.e. with the net price calculator) varies by college. Merit scholarships, or unstated merit in the case of preferentially-packaged financial aid, can add another variable.
At the colleges that don’t meet full need, I don’t think that the financial aid department works separately from admissions – I think it is more that the admissions department works hand-in-hand with financial aid, with the admissions department scoring or ranking the applicant in some way that communicates to financial aid the relative desireability of each student. I know that, for example, NYU uses a tiered system and within each tier there is a very consistent range of grant aid, regardless of level of financial need.
When schools are leveraging their aid or combining need-based with merit money, the financial aid office can also have enrollment management responsibilities beyond the scope of the admissions decision.That is, the admissions department decides who they want to admit, while financial aid crunches the data to try to figure out what is the least amount of money they can offer to secure maximum enrollment. This is where too much demonstrated interest can work against a candidate --it is a factor that can lead the college to make a low ball aid offer. It’s not really a mysterious process – just one in which the applicant doesn’t have access to the information the college is working with.
@calmom writes ‘…too much demonstrated interest can work against a candidate.’ I was wondering though, in the RD round, if making a low ball offer could be risky (for the college) to a kid who has visited twice and communicated with her area rep and so on. Maybe she is choosing between just 2 of all the colleges she’s been admitted, will go to either, and will go to the one with the best fin aid package.
I think they consider many factors to help them predict how likely the student is to attend, and then tailor the financial aid offer. But for both the admissions department and financial aid department, it is mostly a numbers game, not something that is focused on individuals. They don’t expect or want every student they admit to attend. They know what their usual yield is – so lets say a college has a 33% yield – that is, they expect 1 out of 3 students they admit to actually attend. Their goal isn’t to get student A. to attend; their goal is to develop a statistical model that will assure that out of every 3 students admitted, 1 will attend. If they offer too much money, and their yield rate goes up among financial aid recipients . then they have a huge problem, because by definition that over-extends their budget. If that college with its 33% yield has offered a $25,000 grant to student A-- they have also offered the same $25K to students B & C. They are lcounting on the fact that that only one of the students will take them up on the offer in structuring the aid.
So the question isn’t what happens with individual students – it is what happens, on average.
And keep in mind that colleges that leverage their aid dollars also expect to negotiate aid as well. So they offer $25K to student A – and maybe another college offers $35K and the student opts for that other college. But the student might also contact them and ask them whether they can match the other college’s award – so it is not as if they have lost all possibility of the student attending with a low-end offer.
@calmom Your last post makes perfect sense to me. When parents and hopefuls go on tours and meet with college reps, they see the genuine interest schools have for individual kids. At the same time, higher ed is a business, and the numbers game is part of that. I don’t have a dispute with that either.
They should also know that some students are more likely to attend than others. Even if “level of applicant’s interest” is not used to make the admission decision, it can help them estimate how likely an admitted student is to matriculate. Of course, students who are reaching for the college are more likely to matriculate than those who are “overqualified” for the college, so that can be taken into account when estimating yield.