If you kid got into their reach school what do think helped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD at top 3 SLAC. Perfect grades, high test scores, one outstanding recommendation ("best student I ever had..."), interesting ECs, ED2, full pay, not from the DC area.

Again that was not a reach situation

The top 3 LACs (and a bit beyond beyond) are a reach for everyone and reject plenty of kids with stats like that. They are also need blind so full pay has no effect.

It's the OP that references full pay as a "help."

The enrollment managers and admin staff know who is full pay. Don't be naive.

You're a conspiracy theorist? Can you provide some evidence for your entirely unsubstantiated claim?

The FACT is that need blind colleges are ABSOLUTELY NEED BLIND IN ADMISSIONS, and they can be because the vast majority of top applicants are affluent. The don't consider FA and they don't have to. So being full pay is absolutely no benefit over the other candidates.


There has never been one iota of evidence otherwise.

All colleges know who the full pay applicants are. That's why a lot of mediocre rich kids get in.

No, this is false. Need aware schools know who is asking for financial aid. Need Blind colleges do not consider need when accepting applicants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission

https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list

These are facts that no evidence has ever been shown against, and not one adcom has ever said thet they knew when they didn't, despite thousands of current and former.

There are a very small number of development admit - references from large donors - but that number is extremely small compared to the general population, and controlled by the development office and not the admissions office.

I will repeat again: need blind colleges are need blind in admissions, so you do not have to worry that applying for financial aid will hurt you there. It will not.

Look, it's not "need aware" vs. "need blind".

It's "need aware" vs. "stochastic need aware".

If you can apply ED, you're pretty sure you can pay no matter what. You can bail if a school doesn't meet your "demonstrated financial need". But since that "demonstrated financial need" tends to understate your true need, it's still much riskier for someone to apply ED unless they can pay full freight. So the school can be "need-blind" since MOST ED kids can go full-pay.

When you take a look at the "whole" kid, what's the likelihood that an affluent kid can maintain a long-term deep interest in an extracurricular, vs. a kid with demonstrated substantial need?

What's the likelihood that an affluent kid can talk about the life-changing service trip to Costa Rica they took this past summer, vs. the kid who has financial need? It's stochastic because there will be exceptions to the rule who go to Costa Rica on scholarship with their church to do volunteer service. But most of those kids who can go to Costa Rica for however long on a service trip are indeed well-off.

By going "need-blind", you're confident that your Financial Aid office can deal with the small set of kids who fall through your net and demonstrate legitimate financial need. But so long as your Admissions Department rewards characteristics and credentials that correlate strongly with affluence, you can be "need-blind" without over-accepting the poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD at top 3 SLAC. Perfect grades, high test scores, one outstanding recommendation ("best student I ever had..."), interesting ECs, ED2, full pay, not from the DC area.

Again that was not a reach situation

The top 3 LACs (and a bit beyond beyond) are a reach for everyone and reject plenty of kids with stats like that. They are also need blind so full pay has no effect.

It's the OP that references full pay as a "help."

The enrollment managers and admin staff know who is full pay. Don't be naive.

You're a conspiracy theorist? Can you provide some evidence for your entirely unsubstantiated claim?

The FACT is that need blind colleges are ABSOLUTELY NEED BLIND IN ADMISSIONS, and they can be because the vast majority of top applicants are affluent. The don't consider FA and they don't have to. So being full pay is absolutely no benefit over the other candidates.


There has never been one iota of evidence otherwise.

All colleges know who the full pay applicants are. That's why a lot of mediocre rich kids get in.

No, this is false. Need aware schools know who is asking for financial aid. Need Blind colleges do not consider need when accepting applicants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission

https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list

These are facts that no evidence has ever been shown against, and not one adcom has ever said thet they knew when they didn't, despite thousands of current and former.

There are a very small number of development admit - references from large donors - but that number is extremely small compared to the general population, and controlled by the development office and not the admissions office.

I will repeat again: need blind colleges are need blind in admissions, so you do not have to worry that applying for financial aid will hurt you there. It will not.

Look, it's not "need aware" vs. "need blind".

It's "need aware" vs. "stochastic need aware".

If you can apply ED, you're pretty sure you can pay no matter what. You can bail if a school doesn't meet your "demonstrated financial need". But since that "demonstrated financial need" tends to understate your true need, it's still much riskier for someone to apply ED unless they can pay full freight. So the school can be "need-blind" since MOST ED kids can go full-pay.

When you take a look at the "whole" kid, what's the likelihood that an affluent kid can maintain a long-term deep interest in an extracurricular, vs. a kid with demonstrated substantial need?

What's the likelihood that an affluent kid can talk about the life-changing service trip to Costa Rica they took this past summer, vs. the kid who has financial need? It's stochastic because there will be exceptions to the rule who go to Costa Rica on scholarship with their church to do volunteer service. But most of those kids who can go to Costa Rica for however long on a service trip are indeed well-off.

By going "need-blind", you're confident that your Financial Aid office can deal with the small set of kids who fall through your net and demonstrate legitimate financial need. But so long as your Admissions Department rewards characteristics and credentials that correlate strongly with affluence, you can be "need-blind" without over-accepting the poors.

If you read the thread you replied to you will see the text "The FACT is that need blind colleges are ABSOLUTELY NEED BLIND IN ADMISSIONS, and they can be because the vast majority of top applicants are affluent.".

Which is exactly what you are saying.

But we must ensure that families with need are not afraid to check the FA box on the fear it will hurt their kid. It is that simple, and it is "need aware" vs. "need blind".