<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>He will have Reed and Santa Clara on his list. I don’t think he’d have much trouble getting into Gonzaga or USD (maybe I’m wrong and those have gotten more difficult to get accepted).</p>
<p>BTW…what’s up with USD? Has it recently gotten to be a more impressive school. I’ve always known it to be a "good school,’ but it seems like it has become more impressive in recent years…Am I wrong? What’s changed there?</p>
<p>WashU 10 char</p>
<p>Is WashU “need aware”…if so, that would be a great choice for him. </p>
<p>In recent years, I’ve been annoyed at Wash U for trying to drum up its application numbers by implying that they have such great F/A & scholarships…but it seems like their main goal is to be able to declare that they reject a high number of applicants.</p>
<p>I know it’s a great school…so no objection there…</p>
<p>^^Of course, the downside with WashU is they, like USC, are rankings-driven, and thus numbers-hungry. (You can’t rocket up the USNews rankings by ignoring below average test scores.)</p>
<p>OP’s question is excellent. It’s unfortunate that some posters misinterpret it to such an extent.
If an Adcom has three apps and can only admit one, and the only difference is two have 30/31 ACT w/need and the third has 29 w/no need, why not go with the 29? He has so much else going for him and can clearly do the work. This probably won’t work with the top 10, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the next level has some great possibilities. There may be a place to check how the university endowments have been doing, and how much FA was given to the class of 2013 compared to prior years. Yes, the schools are watching their stats, but this has been an unusual year, and I don’t think this next year will be much different. I’ve been so totally surprised at where some kids got in this past year, until I found out they were paying full freight.
Money won’t overcome truly low test scores, gpa, no ecs, etc., but this is a great kid. With wonderful essays and great recs, he’ll get into more places than the “29” might lead one to believe.</p>
<p>Bonnie, I don’t think posters are misinterpreting. According to the OP they are looking for “top schools”. There are indeed many schools where a full pay 29 scorer will be embraced. Not too many of the “top schools” will be among them.</p>
<p>Thanks Bonnie…you interpreted my original post correctly. I don’t mean a school has to be a “top 10” in order to be a “top school”</p>
<p>Yes, my nephew wants a top school, but he knows top 10 is not likely and that they are usually “need blind.” He’s not applying to any 10 ten “National Universities,” My question is really for National Universities ranked about 11 thru 30…“Masters” universities ranked in the top 5 for their region…and LACs ranked in the top 20…and so forth </p>
<p>You totally understand my original post…your example captures our concern…or even when the stats are equal…Where will a “full-pay” have an advantage?? </p>
<p>I realize some may have find it distainful that some colleges might give an advantage to those who can pay…In a democratic nation that may seem “unfair.” </p>
<p>Does anyone know if Davidson is “need aware”?</p>
<p>11-30 National Unis? Tufts. </p>
<p>Don’t forget that Wake Forest is test optional.</p>
<p>Often, admissions people at info sessions state that “if FA is an issue, don’t apply ED”. That’s one big reason why harvard & Princeton got rid of ED.</p>
<p>I also should point out that some schools suffered greater losses due to the Great Recession than others. Endowments are down substantially at all schools. And while all schools would be affected proportionally, some schools use their operating costs based on those endowments, particularly LACs.</p>
<p>“That’s one big reason why harvard & Princeton got rid of ED.”</p>
<p>I would reword that a bit: H & P got rid of ED because of the erroneous belief that students needing FA should not apply ED. The common app ED instructions say:
<a href=“https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/docs/downloadforms/ED_Agreement.pdf[/url]”>https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/docs/downloadforms/ED_Agreement.pdf</a></p>
<p>wow, lima, “Great Recession?” Not even close. Heck, not even as bad as the '70’s. </p>
<p>btw, Harvard did not drop binding ED, they had EA. You might check to see how many more poor folks that Harvard & Princeton now accepts…I’m still waiting for thier gloriious press announcements. :D</p>
<p>Or even UVa since they also dropped ED at the same time. (Hint, at UVa last year is was NINE additional poor kids!)</p>
<p>Nephew lives in California…are the UC schools “need aware”? I know he’ll get into some UC schools, but he’d really like to go to either UCLA or Berkeley…or does “need” not make a difference at UC schools.</p>
<p>But what does that really mean? If a student applies ED to a school with a TCA of $50k, and his EFC is $25k…can he really decline if his F/A meets “need,” but his parents won’t pay the other $25k? </p>
<p>The quote doesn’t say, “the student may decline if ‘demonstrated need’ isn’t met”…the quote just says that the student may decline the admission if his F/A doesn’t make attendance possible…that seem ambiguous.</p>
<p>And…what if f/a is mostly student loans, and the student was expecting some kind of free grant?</p>
<p>ED apps go in before FAFSA is submitted. So, theoretically, a student (and his parents) might not know their EFC is $25k. At the time ED gets submitted, they may “think” that their EFC is going to be about $15k a year…so the $25k F/A award would not “make attendance possible.”</p>
<p>I wonder if that quote really only applies to a student who has a need of - say - $40k, but his F/A package is only for $25k…leaving him 15k short.</p>
<p>I think that because of the ambiguity, people are afraid to apply ED unless they can pay full freight.</p>
<p>mom2:</p>
<p>Officially, the UCs are need-blind, but they give admission tips to low income kids. Thus, they cannot truly be need-blind.</p>
<p>^^ It may seem ambiguous, but the quote doesn’t make sense if it’s not the family’s decision to decline. At a school that meets full need, the offer is, by definition, one that meets the school’s definition of full need, so only the family’s definition of it being not enough makes sense. Schools that gap are not meeting need anyway, necessitating the ability to decline.</p>
<p>There is a strict definition of loans that are considered part of FA, always in the student’s name. Other loans help a family pay their EFC and are not part of FA.</p>
<p>Schools provide estimates of FA based on income info provided with the ED application. At schools that meet full need (important to know), if actual income drops, the aid is revised upward. If actual income rises, aid is lowered, but the income increase is expected to cover the difference. At our D’s LAC there has never been a change of enrollment plans due to ED FA changes from estimated to actual (the FA director told me). Schools want the ED applicants they accept, full freight payers for obvious reasons, and those on FA because they really want them.</p>
<p>The common app “decline” wording is an attempt at fighting this perception that only full-freight students should apply ED. Some schools have chosen to eliminate ED because of this belief by students and families.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>But for those who need F/A, they might want to still compare what other schools will offer, which they can’t with ED, but can with EA. </p>
<p>Can “100% need met” mean loans? If so, no wonder why some are going to be afraid of ED.</p>
<p>^ Yes, ED should be used only for that one dream school which would be attended above all others if there is any way to make it work financially.</p>
<p>The amount of loans in an ED FA package could cause the student to decline the offer, but it shouldn’t 
prevent applying ED to the dream school. </p>
<p>Loans made as part of FA (Perkins and Stafford) are capped by federal rules ($4,000 per year for Perkins, $23,000 total for Stafford). A school’s Common Data Set section H5 gives the average per-borrower cumulative undergraduate indebtedness of those receiving loans as part of financial aid from the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, loans can be used to “meet need.” And while federal loan amounts are capped, there is no such cap for private loans, which can be added to the mix in meeting 100% of need. Indeed, NYU and George Washington are known for this practice, as is Wake Forest. Heck, WF used to even footnote their practice in their common data set reporting – essentially changing the directions of the “common” report.</p>
<p>The distinction should be made between loans meeting need (defined by federal rules and proper Common Data Set reporting) and loans helping families pay their EFC (e.g., PLUS loans). Schools that bend the rules should indeed be pointed out.</p>
<p>I understood the OP to be asking about schools that were not need-blind with the hope that they would perhaps give a little bit of preference to someone who did not need any money, so some of these posts may not be helpful for that purpose although they provide useful information in other contexts. </p>
<p>Re the OP’s query, I recall visiting Hamilton several years ago (before all the endowments tanked) and being surprised because it was quite open and even apologetic about not being 100 percent need blind. It is is certainly a very good LAC and might be worth a look. I seem to recall that it also has pretty flexible policies about test scores.</p>
<p>Also, the 29 ACT isn’t bad. I would also look carefully at the GPA though–a 4.3 suggests a weighted average, and it would be good to know what the unweighted grades are. Colleges generally use their own weighting system based on the applicants’ unweighted GPA (I remember that from an excellent visit to Colgate a few years ago.)</p>