Are full pay admission rates higher at T25s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A quick Google search shows that the number of private school students in the US is 4.7 million, while public schools have 49 million students. So 1:10 ratio. Even if you take into account of the number of applicants from each subgroup, the ratio is still lopsided.

Need-blindness applies only during scoring of applications. When it comes time to shape the class, the enrollment management software is set up in such a way that roughly equal number of private and public school students are admitted (along with meeting other institutional priorities). This, along with the lopsided ratio mentioned above, suggests that the admission rates from private schools are notably higher than from publics.

[Anonymous]

ED plays a role. ED is disproportionately full pay.

[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.

Yep. Feel like a sucker. $400k full pay each at Ivy for 2. Much richer hid assets spent down in properties and get aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A quick Google search shows that the number of private school students in the US is 4.7 million, while public schools have 49 million students. So 1:10 ratio. Even if you take into account of the number of applicants from each subgroup, the ratio is still lopsided.

Need-blindness applies only during scoring of applications. When it comes time to shape the class, the enrollment management software is set up in such a way that roughly equal number of private and public school students are admitted (along with meeting other institutional priorities). This, along with the lopsided ratio mentioned above, suggests that the admission rates from private schools are notably higher than from publics.

Wealthier kids (regardless of private or public school status) will have higher test scores and more time for extracurriculars. Full pay is not the determinant you think it is.

[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.

Yep. Feel like a sucker. $400k full pay each at Ivy for 2. Much richer hid assets spent down in properties and get aid.

But would your 2 have been admitted if not full-pay? That’s the question.

[Anonymous]

There’s some bad info here.

Listen to admissions beat (Dartmouth podcast) to see how AO scrutinize a parents’ profession and then label an applicant NN - to indicate needs $$$.

Why would they even need to do that? Hmmmmm.
Ask any former AO.

[Anonymous]

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

We were full pay. It makes zero difference at top colleges with high ranking and rich endowments. All the difference for colleges with low ranking and low endowment money.

[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?

If you control for their grades (and probably ECs), the admission rate for FGLI is much higher than that for unhooked kids.

[Anonymous]

At top colleges what makes a difference is enough wealth or power to bring resources to the college or enough poverty to let college brag about their generosity and receive money from government and donors.

[Anonymous]

Top colleges have no shortage of people willing to be full pay, they have huge endowments in billion$, they don't need your $80k/year to rig the system, bring $8million donation and they'll find a way.

[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.

Yep. Feel like a sucker. $400k full pay each at Ivy for 2. Much richer hid assets spent down in properties and get aid.

Same here. We are immigrants who walk straight paths and didn't know the rigged system. Feel ripped off as most in their colleges were claiming aid one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

The simple answer is ‘no’ for the T20.

There is just too much demand, too much money, and too many competing institutional priorities out there to make full pay a major consideration.

Privates beyond the T20, yes sure.

[Anonymous]

The question is not whether there is shortage of full pay at T20. The question is choosing between two applicants otherwise equal. There is no doubt T20 would still choose full pay. You people’s critical thinking sucks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is not whether there is shortage of full pay at T20. The question is choosing between two applicants otherwise equal. There is no doubt T20 would still choose full pay. You people’s critical thinking sucks!

Exactly ! This is the whole point!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is not whether there is shortage of full pay at T20. The question is choosing between two applicants otherwise equal. There is no doubt T20 would still choose full pay. You people’s critical thinking sucks!

Exactly ! This is the whole point!!!

Right? The 1440 SAT kid who is full pay gets in at HYPS+ over the same score who needs aid?