Better odds for full pay applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen to today’s YCBK. Full blown attack on Northeastern and the “shady” way they handle their satellite campuses and obvious consideration of need vs full pay.


They also talked about the massive gender gap in quality of applicants this year between male and female:

“ “You know, I see, I see, see usually boys have more selective options than somebody who's female with the same sort of stats. They're obviously not the same person ever, but I was really...

Now, I had a VP of Enrollment who's been in the profession for maybe 25 years, multiple schools. Tell me, we've never seen a gender gap like this. Like, I don't know what's going on out there.

And we were just grappling with each other, like, what was causing that? Was it COVID? How COVID impacted?

You know, we were just speculating together. But he was telling me that they've never seen this disparity in the strength of the girl pool versus the boy pool like to have this year. I don't know if you heard, you might not have heard because I just did it, this episode last Monday, where I went through like 15 different changes that I'm expecting because of all the financial pressure colleges are under.”

From Your College Bound Kid | Admission Tips, Admission Trends & Admission Interviews: An interview with Jim Bock, Dean and VP at Swarthmore College-3 of 3, Apr 23, 2025

Girl pool is stronger, but less impressive boys are being admitted to more and more selective schools.
I think the algo is working? This is precisely what they want - more boys admitted for that gender balance. It's just the girl "pool" is stronger.

Depends on what constitutes "stronger."

[Anonymous]

If you look at the data from colleges over the last few years, girl applicants outpaced boys nearly everywhere, in some cases by significant margins. As a result, acceptance rates for girls became far more competitive than ones for boys. I would bet that the most significantly impacted groups were white girls from highly competitive states (Northeast corridor and California) whose families fell into the infamous 200K-300K earnings pit - making just enough to be considered upper middle class but not enough to afford full tuition. We know several who had high performing girls (my own family included) who fell into those categories, and the results were in line with what we were seeing from others in similar situations. Those who were full pay did have better odds, and even if their son had lower scores overall, their results tended to be much better. Our sample pool wasn't extensive, but it matched with what was being reported at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that need blind schools are need blind in that they don’t look at the applicant’s financial situation individually but they have software that uses statistical analysis to make sure there will be a sufficient percentage of full pay students. The software sets the parameters- pct from private school, pct from this county or that county, etc

Bingo. And ED helps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Wow, looks like possibly no schools are truly need blind – only question is whether the blinders come off on the waitlist, or earlier through an algorithm that keeps the AO’s in the blind but uses census tract info to “shape” the class and exclude kids who might need aid. Do we know if these algorithms include applicant specific info such as the colleges the parents attended, their occupation or level of education? Could it include whether the kid applied for financial aid? That would be predictive of full pay and yield and the process could still be blind up to that point – the AO’s wouldn’t have to see this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

Again, you have no data to support your argument. Anecdotes are not data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

Again, you have no data to support your argument. Anecdotes are not data.

NP. The question that asks if a student needs Financial Aid is probably what PP is referring to. That’s how AO’s know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

Again, you have no data to support your argument. Anecdotes are not data.

NP: Universities are businesses. It's not altruism.
The entire process is about ensuring they have enough full pay to offset the kids who need $$$.
Get clued into the process, old lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, looks like possibly no schools are truly need blind – only question is whether the blinders come off on the waitlist, or earlier through an algorithm that keeps the AO’s in the blind but uses census tract info to “shape” the class and exclude kids who might need aid. Do we know if these algorithms include applicant specific info such as the colleges the parents attended, their occupation or level of education? Could it include whether the kid applied for financial aid? That would be predictive of full pay and yield and the process could still be blind up to that point – the AO’s wouldn’t have to see this.

Remember, everyone reviewing the application can see that. For some schools (looking at you, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, and more), they ask where siblings go to college. They aren't being nosy. They use this in the EM algorithm.

And yes, parents' places of education are now more important than ever. For two equally qualified candidates to Vanderbilt, if one set of parents went to Stanford (together) and one set went to Michigan State, let me know if you think the algorithm will believe that they are "equal".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

Again, you have no data to support your argument. Anecdotes are not data.

NP. The question that asks if a student needs Financial Aid is probably what PP is referring to. That’s how AO’s know.

Jesus, neither of the two of you understand how to support an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

Again, you have no data to support your argument. Anecdotes are not data.

NP: Universities are businesses. It's not altruism.
The entire process is about ensuring they have enough full pay to offset the kids who need $$$.
Get clued into the process, old lady.

Are you a Hugh school kid? Perhaps that is why nothing you say is support by facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

Again, you have no data to support your argument. Anecdotes are not data.

Every single year they have the same % of full pay students. Seems like data to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without aid, grants, DEI and affirmative action, is it going to be the year of wealthy Caucasian applicants?

Full pay has always made a difference no matter what anyone claims. ED is essentially affirmative action for kids who can pay full price (and yes, I know some kids ED and get tons of aid, but they are a small %).

Oh
You really have no clue what percent of ED kids are full pay v. Financial aid.

Omfg you are in denial. I am friends with AO. They need to make their financial targets, and they know damned well that many Ed applicants are full pay, and yes there are plenty of tells to help guide them. Don’t be naive.

Again, you have no data to support your argument. Anecdotes are not data.

Every single year they have the same % of full pay students. Seems like data to me.

First of all, that’s incorrect. Second, that isn’t data.