Lessons learned so far: 2024-2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Good luck to your kid! ED can be the right path if he has a clear first choice and finances aren’t an issue. However, he shouldn’t let the unpredictability of RD make him him feel pressured to commit to an ED choice if he’s unsure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- your school’s data or history is probably more important than you think.

THIS. Going through the process first time with older dc. Applied to school which Naviance showed had high rejection rate, but applied anyway bc we considered it a target and had program DC wanted. DC has high GPA and SAT scores. Got rejected. Many of dc's classmates also got rejected. FWIW Applying from Catholic hs to Catholic college. DC said for younger DC we might want to avoid schools like that which reject many of their school's applicants.

💯
If the college hasn’t admitted your HS kids in the past, they are not admitting yours unless HOOKED

This is my number one piece of advice, too. Review your school’s Naviance data carefully. See how many apply and how many get in typically. My kid’s magnet school has 40-70 kids applying to each Ivy+ school every year, most with similarly high stats. Think hard about entering that scrum and the risk that involves. Fortunately my kid liked SLACs better anyway, but it was also good strategy, since they are a much less popular application at her school. She happened to like the most popular WASP so decided to apply ED to maximize her chances. The school usually only admits one-two per year, and it worked out for her. She had the stats but who knows whether she would have been in the one or two selected vs. the twelve other kids applying this year. If the school had no admit history, would not have applied at all. Per Naviance she would have had an excellent shot at Cornell or Georgetown too (26 admits last year) but she really did prefer the SLAC options. Naviance gives unhooked kids a realistic sense of what’s possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

The donor kids that I knew of at my public flagship were obvious based on last name alone as the child of a regent and a child of a big donor to programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

You mean consultants that could guide us on how to donate and shift assets so we pop up through the college’s algorithm as a potential donor? Interesting…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

Impossible because each school is looking for a different pool of kids. They're filling rosters, majors, institutional priorities-- and all of these vary by college. Plus of course 25% of their student body turns over each and every year. So an institution's needs/wants this year may be vastly different from their needs next year. They never reach steady state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

Impossible because each school is looking for a different pool of kids. They're filling rosters, majors, institutional priorities-- and all of these vary by college. Plus of course 25% of their student body turns over each and every year. So an institution's needs/wants this year may be vastly different from their needs next year. They never reach steady state.

Yes, this sounds about right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

You mean consultants that could guide us on how to donate and shift assets so we pop up through the college’s algorithm as a potential donor? Interesting…

Maybe, but I'd like to know if we already show up in a database like DonorSearch or iWave Kindsight due to past giving. Obviously there are specific criteria used when they run a search, but I don't have a sense for what those look like specifically. I saw on that other thread that the college admissions platform Slate can push data into DonorSearch and push results back into Slate profiles, though this may not happen at every, or even most, colleges at the admission stage. Sounds more likely for after enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

Impossible because each school is looking for a different pool of kids. They're filling rosters, majors, institutional priorities-- and all of these vary by college. Plus of course 25% of their student body turns over each and every year. So an institution's needs/wants this year may be vastly different from their needs next year. They never reach steady state.

This is a great point. It will always be somewhat fluid beyond stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

Impossible because each school is looking for a different pool of kids. They're filling rosters, majors, institutional priorities-- and all of these vary by college. Plus of course 25% of their student body turns over each and every year. So an institution's needs/wants this year may be vastly different from their needs next year. They never reach steady state.

Large schools are the closest to a steady state. Mid-sized schools are unpredictable, and LACs are downright volatile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

Impossible because each school is looking for a different pool of kids. They're filling rosters, majors, institutional priorities-- and all of these vary by college. Plus of course 25% of their student body turns over each and every year. So an institution's needs/wants this year may be vastly different from their needs next year. They never reach steady state.

Yes, this sounds about right.

Correct.

The rest is too "inside baseball." No one really cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

You’ve asked this a bunch recently. Ivywise has a whole division that helps people with this. It’s different at every top school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is very helpful!

My kid is a rising Senior with borderline stats (4.2 W GPA, 1510 SAT)

So Looks like ED is his best chance to get into decently competitive schools? We will be full pay - and I guess ED is a signal to the college that they could count on us to pay full price and hence make it easier to get admit?

Almost all top50 schools are need blind, which means they don't taken into account your ability to pay into their admissions decisions. I have a relative who is a financial aid director at a top20 school and he/she has clarified that when the institution says it is "need blind" it is 100% need blind. He/she is
truly given a list of the students to whom offers are extended and he/she calculates the packages (or lack thereof) on them. As such, his/her aid budget will vary by many millions each year.

So full pay does not matter at the need blind schools (which is almost all the top30 schools). Being a potential "donor" is another class. If the school thinks that you may end up coming with a large check--well then your kid may land in a separate category. Closely intertwined with being a donor is being a VIP or noteworthy parent. Schools of course also like this. They want the influential and powerful within their fold.

For the rest of us, colleges like ED because yield (the percentage of admits that end up matriculating) is very important to them. ED kids almost all matriculate.

Was speculating about the bolded in another thread. Absent a connection to a person at the university, how many schools have their development office run the applicant list through a donor search website to see if any come from potential big donor families?

An AO might, or might not, know if this is the practice at their school. An admissions director would know. But, not a lot of talk about this, except in that thread about the lawsuit, perhaps because it affects only a small number of applicants.

Feels like there are missing pieces to the admission process, beyond the subjectivity of evaluating factors like ECs and essays, that elude the general public. These hidden pieces lead to the uncertainty that ultimately drives the entire admissions consulting industry, so no one in the industry really wants them revealed. Missing pieces that systematically impact decisions. This is just one example. Feels like there is a market for algorithm-based consulting to provide more certainty in helping to make the list. However, my guess is that enrollment management consultants probably sign some sort of contract preventing them from using proprietary info, an anti-compete clause or similar. Sorry, too much coffee this morning.

You mean consultants that could guide us on how to donate and shift assets so we pop up through the college’s algorithm as a potential donor? Interesting…

Maybe, but I'd like to know if we already show up in a database like DonorSearch or iWave Kindsight due to past giving. Obviously there are specific criteria used when they run a search, but I don't have a sense for what those look like specifically. I saw on that other thread that the college admissions platform Slate can push data into DonorSearch and push results back into Slate profiles, though this may not happen at every, or even most, colleges at the admission stage. Sounds more likely for after enrollment.

You won’t show up if you haven’t already been flagged. They need to know who you are before you go through the process. Unless you have a recognizable family or parents are just famous.

Check your LinkedIn.