@citimama9 – the direct full pay “boost” would be at a need-aware college.
Of course, there is an indirect boost simply as a result of coming from a more financially secure background, and all the benefits that are accrued along the way. Things like parents who can pay for private schools or private tutoring, participation in costly EC’s, or the benefits of being raised in a home with college-educated parents. But those factors aren’t directly tied to current level of need.
So colleges value applicant qualities that statistically tend to correlate with higher wealth.
I do think that my kids benefitted from those types of policies. We definitely needed aid – even at in-state publics – in part because of the impact of divorce. My son was an NM finalist, from a public school where no one was expected to do that well on the PSAT --so his qualifying score was from his first sitting for the test in 11th grade, with absolutely no prep. The NM qualifying system is inherently biased toward wealth. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/)
Even though money was tight in our family, I always prioritized experiences over things – so I paid for dance studio fees for my daughter for many years, and financed educational travel abroad for her during high school. So those were two very strong EC’s on her record that would have been financially out of reach for many.
Do I think that the colleges looked at their apps and thought “NM Finalist? must be rich!” or “travel abroad? must be full-pay!” - absolutely not. But my point is that they favor those qualities in college admission decisions. They don’t favor them because they are tied to wealth, but rather because they perceive them as good qualities for students to have. And that in itself creates an implicit, wealth-favoring bias throughout the system. (I am using the term “wealth” broadly here).