Are full pay admission rates higher at T25s?

[Anonymous]

And if so how much higher? How much of a difference does it make to be full pay?

[Anonymous]

At the ivies/t15, full pay is the minority, only 40-45% of the undergraduates, and the schools see it as a bragging point to have the least number of full pay. They are anti-elite other than true ultra-rich development or hollywood/politician admits. Full pay became a slight negative at these schools post covid and even moreso as the schools have expanded need based aid to include families well into the 200k HHI range. Full Pay is a boost at the Tulanes or similar level, not at the top.

[Anonymous]

You can find the % receiving aid at IPEDS https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ . It is remarkably consistent from year to year.

T25s are mostly need-blind, in that they do not use an individual applicant's financial aid data in admission decisions. However, they may use factors that may indicate something about ability to pay in their yield algorithm on the back end. In the aggregate, this helps them balance their budget, and they pay enrollment management consultants handsomely for this service. So, while they are need-blind for individual students, ability to pay may have a slight effect at the margin. Not a huge effect, but some sort of effect.

Most are need-aware for the waitlist.

I would consider full pay to be a lack of a disadvantage more than an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the ivies/t15, full pay is the minority, only 40-45% of the undergraduates, and the schools see it as a bragging point to have the least number of full pay. They are anti-elite other than true ultra-rich development or hollywood/politician admits. Full pay became a slight negative at these schools post covid and even moreso as the schools have expanded need based aid to include families well into the 200k HHI range. Full Pay is a boost at the Tulanes or similar level, not at the top.

But I read that the admit rate of those kids getting that aid was very low. Like, sure, FGLI qualifies for full aid but good luck getting in. So, are families who can pay full tuition seeing higher admit rates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the ivies/t15, full pay is the minority, only 40-45% of the undergraduates, and the schools see it as a bragging point to have the least number of full pay. They are anti-elite other than true ultra-rich development or hollywood/politician admits. Full pay became a slight negative at these schools post covid and even moreso as the schools have expanded need based aid to include families well into the 200k HHI range. Full Pay is a boost at the Tulanes or similar level, not at the top.

But I read that the admit rate of those kids getting that aid was very low. Like, sure, FGLI qualifies for full aid but good luck getting in. So, are families who can pay full tuition seeing higher admit rates?

Your understanding is wrong. FGLI has a much better chance than full pay.
The non-FGLI, aid-seeking, middle class kids have the MOST difficult time getting accepted.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

Privates send a large number because the majority they are sending are hooked, including many athletes and FGLI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

Privates send a large number because the majority they are sending are hooked, including many athletes and FGLI.

On a per capita basis this is wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

Privates send a large number because the majority they are sending are hooked, including many athletes and FGLI.

The original question did not break it down to hooked, athletes, legacy, or otherwise. Just a catch-all "are full pay admission rates at t25 higher?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the ivies/t15, full pay is the minority, only 40-45% of the undergraduates, and the schools see it as a bragging point to have the least number of full pay. They are anti-elite other than true ultra-rich development or hollywood/politician admits. Full pay became a slight negative at these schools post covid and even moreso as the schools have expanded need based aid to include families well into the 200k HHI range. Full Pay is a boost at the Tulanes or similar level, not at the top.

But I read that the admit rate of those kids getting that aid was very low. Like, sure, FGLI qualifies for full aid but good luck getting in. So, are families who can pay full tuition seeing higher admit rates?

You read wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

This is too simplistic. Colleges like taking kids that are prescreened for academic ability, magnets do very well with college matriculations for the same reason. The average SAT at our private is several hundred points higher than our local public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the ivies/t15, full pay is the minority, only 40-45% of the undergraduates, and the schools see it as a bragging point to have the least number of full pay. They are anti-elite other than true ultra-rich development or hollywood/politician admits. Full pay became a slight negative at these schools post covid and even moreso as the schools have expanded need based aid to include families well into the 200k HHI range. Full Pay is a boost at the Tulanes or similar level, not at the top.

But I read that the admit rate of those kids getting that aid was very low. Like, sure, FGLI qualifies for full aid but good luck getting in. So, are families who can pay full tuition seeing higher admit rates?

Your understanding is wrong. FGLI has a much better chance than full pay.
The non-FGLI, aid-seeking, middle class kids have the MOST difficult time getting accepted.

Right, I understand that, but I’m asking about NON-aid-seeking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

Privates send a large number because the majority they are sending are hooked, including many athletes and FGLI.

The original question did not break it down to hooked, athletes, legacy, or otherwise. Just a catch-all "are full pay admission rates at t25 higher?"

Yes, what I wonder is: is the admission rate for non-FA-seeking applicants higher than the admission rate of FA-seeking?

It is, right?

Significantly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Unless you want a precise number, the crude math is easy: the number of private school students (a rough proxy for full pay) is a tiny fraction of the number of public school students (a rough proxy for needing financial aid). Yet t25 schools have roughly the same number of freshmen from privates and from publics. Hence yes to your question.

Privates send a large number because the majority they are sending are hooked, including many athletes and FGLI.

The original question did not break it down to hooked, athletes, legacy, or otherwise. Just a catch-all "are full pay admission rates at t25 higher?"

Yes, what I wonder is: is the admission rate for non-FA-seeking applicants higher than the admission rate of FA-seeking?

It is, right?

Significantly?

DP. Not necessarily. Acceptance rate will also depend on the number of applicants from each subgroup and their competitiveness for admission. Need-blind schools don't bifurcate their applicant pools in this way.