I dunno. Maybe this is putting too fine a point on it, but if a college doesn’t award any money from its own resources, is it really accurate to call it need-blind?
However, each school defines “need” its own way, so a potential applicant should not rely on promises to “meet need”. Net price calculators are more likely to be of use in estimating which schools are more or less likely to be affordable.
Why wouldn’t it be need-blind in admission if it does not consider student/parent finances in admission?
Because I think the terms need-blind and need-aware both become irrelevant, if there’s no skin in the game so far as the college is concerned. It’s like a restaurant calling itself, “all-you-can-eat” after it’s run out of food.
I understand your point.
But…even if a college doesn’t generally give need based aid they might still offer certain scholarships that require need, or participate in federal work study (requires need), or give need based aid to in-state students but not OOS.
Additionally, many colleges, including publics, charge less in tuition/net costs than what it costs them to actually deliver the education, because the school’s costs are subsidized by the state and/or its own endowment.
Most (maybe all) community colleges don’t award money from their own resources…their financial aid awards are federal and state funds. And they are need blind…and most have open admissions (at least for initial entry).
I tried briefly to coin the term “need indifferent” for colleges without need aid for your type of applicant and who don’t in any way factor in your ability to pay when making admissions decisions, but it didn’t get any traction.
I note those two things may not always go together. Like, a selective college without need aid could actually take into account ability to pay in some form in a yield model, and that yield model could conceivably affect its admissions decisions.
But good luck figuring out if that is happening.
This. I don’t think people understand. I was privy to all of the financial information at the small school where I worked. We were understaffed for the things that were needed to keep the school running properly. We were paid less than we would have earned in business if we were performing comparable tasks. Even the school’s director was paid less than what they should have earned based on responsibilities. But wow, it costs a lot to operate and maintain the physical space, to keep things clean on a daily basis, to deliver mail & packages to students and faculty, to staff for groundskeeping and moving things around on campus, to pay for utilities and garbage services, to contract for necessities like counseling and food services for students, etc, etc, etc. We had annual fundraising, endowment campaigns, and development staff trying to secure donations. It’s very expensive to operate a college. Those costs are not all passed on to students.
For the record, we were absolutely need blind for admissions. And we did not meet need. Most colleges are need blind, and most colleges are unable to meet need.
So, basically, it’s a meaningless term.
I don’t think it’s meaningless - especially the part where a school says they’ll meet 100% of demonstrated need.
But for most - blind/aware isn’t meaningful in regards to applying and meeting need isn’t.
Some just “assume” - they don’t know better - like the kid from CA with the $25K budget thinking they’re going to Colorado - that’s just - not knowing.
But I don’t think the terms are meaningless - but their meaning may only matter at some schools.
Both do have meaning - need blind, we don’t care about your finances. Need aware - they do. I remember reading an article about Lafayette - they turned down a kid they said they’d love to have - all because his need was so high.
At the same time, if you don’t say you meet 100% of demonstrated need, if someone gets in but can’t afford - well, they should have known.
They may not have because most aren’t necessarily engaged in the subject like folks here but…the info is out there.
It’s old - but interesting.
I note this is also why it is very tough to be an International who cannot afford whatever they want to charge Internationals.
To be very blunt, a lot of colleges are manifestly using International students to help cross-subsidize other students. Like, public colleges may not only charge them OOS rates, they may add an additional charge on top. And then privates, even some very selective privates, have so little aid for Internationals that almost all of them are full pay. Of course some domestics are also full pay, but usually not as many–like it could be more like 50%, give or take. Even if it is higher than that, it is rarely as high as the International full pay percentage.
All this may sound unfair to some Internationals, but it is expensive to offer a competitive residential college experience on the US model! On a deep level, this is related to why the US model is so attractive to some Internationals, but it isn’t cheap, and someone has to pay.
I think the issue is that when most people think of “need blind” colleges, they are only thinking of schools that promise to meet need. And in that universe, there are very, very few schools that are need blind. They have to meet their budget!!! (as @NiceUnparticularMan noted earlier). There is no way a school can know it has kept within its budget unless it knows how much each student will cost. The only schools that are need blind in this scenario are the ones with HUGE financial aid budgets (and therefore, HUGE endowments).
This point about internationals, @NiceUnparticularMan, about internationals is so important in today’s climate. We could be seeing a drastic cut in the number of internationals coming to US colleges. In fact, this is highly likely. This will have 2 effects:
- Domestic full pay students will be at a premium and will probably be able to gain access to colleges which were beyond their reach in the past.
- Colleges which are heavily tuition dependent to meet costs may develop financial crises - typically undergraduate colleges with small endowments and little or no graduate programs. The immediate effect for students and families will be that costs will rise unexpectedly.
No it’s not. “Need blind” simply means that the level of an applicant’s need is not a factor in the admissions decision.
Those conflating this with a school’s ability or commitment to meet that need are mixing up two distinct concepts.
I think even in the cases where a college has a huge endowment, that money is not like a checking account. Every single dime of it is devoted to something the college deems existential whether it be debt service, named faculty positions - you name it. Financial aid (or the discount rate that is applied to tuition) is probably the biggest bucket of all and the last thing they want are wild swings from one year to the next in what they’ve obviously budgeted for FA.
Why is this unfair? I’d love to have gotten the maternity leave and subsidized infant care and fully covered IVF women get in Sweden. But I didn’t. I worked in the US. The taxes working people pay in Sweden subsidize these things. I don’t pay Swedish taxes- ergo, I don’t get Swedish benefits.
It’s aggravating to read these “it’s so unfair” posts from kids. I get that it’s tough to be 17 and to realize that the world is NOT your oyster-- that you likely won’t get sponsored for a Green Card in the US even if you graduate from a US university with top grades. You likely won’t get a free ride, you definitely won’t get free health care if you come here to study. So at that macro/philosophical level- sure, unfair.
But Ebola is unfair. Being born with a cleft palate is unfair if you are unlucky enough to live in a country with a shortage of medical professionals who can correct it quickly and early. I don’t see “unfair” if a kid from the Emirates who wants to study here pays more than the kid from rural Oklahoma-- for the same education at the same institution.
In other words, it’s the difference between what an expert knows (and might parse endlessly on an internet discussion board) and what an ordinary person actually cares about.
Sorry, I don’t follow the analogy. That would make sense if schools continued admitting students beyond their enrollment capacity, but that’s not the case.
To me, need-blind admissions are more like a restaurant that offers free or subsidized meals to those in need. Everyone is welcome to dine, but the restaurant doesn’t waive or reduce the check for everyone. Most diners are expected to pay, and they can decide whether the cost fits their budget.
Or to something the donor wants. College development staffs try to keep endowment funds unrestricted, but the truth is that a lot of donors want their money to be used for a purpose that they designate.
Just to be clear, I was suggesting it may sound unfair to some Internationals. It actually being unfair is a different matter.
I do think part of what is going on is in the vast majority of countries, most if not all of the prominent universities are what we would classify as a form of public university in the US.
On top of that, they are mostly on much less expensive models–very little if any general education component, very little if any flexibility about exploring different degrees before choosing, no or very rudimentary university-provided housing and dining options, no or very rudimentary university-funded student activities, very little in the way of other student services, and so on.
So the “top” university programs may have very selective admissions, but it is academic in nature, and if you are admitted, it is normally free or not very expensive at least.
In the US, though, we have this large category of private colleges. And then our publics are divided up by state, so we also have this concept of OOS programs. And in order to compete with each other, these privates and OOS public programs do a lot of things to try to be more attractive (to students, faculty, donors, and so on). And all that costs a lot of money.
Personally, I agree if you want in on that action for yourself, it makes sense it might cost you a lot of money. So it is not really unfair, or no more unfair than market-based capitalism (where people with more money can typically buy nicer versions of things) is unfair.
But if you are starting with the idea that the best colleges should want the best students regardless of ability to pay–well, you are in for some rude culture shocks when you see how the US higher education system actually works, at least when it comes to privates or OOS programs.