Full pay made a difference in admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you or your child were or are full pay, did it make a difference in admissions outcome? How do you know?

Unless you’re a donor, I doubt anyone could know this for sure about an individual student. If you zoom out, however, you can see that the proportion of a high school class committed by the end of the early rounds varies directly with the price of tuition/real estate at that high school. So it seems obvious that being full pay is providing a boost for many students. But it’s not a golden ticket, the way donations are. It’s more like a thumb on the scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It 100% makes a difference. When you leave the box unchecked on the common app that says you don't need financial assistance, you go in a different bucket. Obviously it makes a difference.

+1 I agree with this. We were accepted ED1 to a need blind NESCAC, and I still agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Not even is it a thumb on the scale. DC got in ED to a WASP - no hooks - needing and receiving decent aid (2 feds salaries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not even is it a thumb on the scale. DC got in ED to a WASP - no hooks - needing and receiving decent aid (2 feds salaries).

Gs13 starts at like 130k. X2 is then more than 250k. How did you get aid? Thought most cap at 200k

[Anonymous]

Made no difference. Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even need blind schools that need full need and are blind in choosing applicants.. are NOT need blind in forming the CLASS.

That’s the fine print.

incorrect.

Wrong. Listen to podcasts. Have you heard of class shaping?

Yes, but not in the context of full pay vs. applying for aid vs. potential donor

Can you share more about how this works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not even is it a thumb on the scale. DC got in ED to a WASP - no hooks - needing and receiving decent aid (2 feds salaries).

This is the most idiotic response I’ve seen. One single data point, you conclude with a ridiculously broad assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s literally no way to know this unless an admissions rep explicitly told you it played a part — and I doubt that ever happens.

This. That said, for schools that are need aware I have no trouble believing that it may have tipped the scales. And to be clear, I'm fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you or your child were or are full pay, did it make a difference in admissions outcome? How do you know?

As you can see from all the answers so far, the answer is "No one really knows how it affects the process colleges use to evaluate your child's application."

But, yes, it absolutely makes a difference in admissions outcome because being full pay means that you can identify your top choice school and apply there early decision, assuming the sticker price is in your budget. You don't need to consider the cost of different schools. People who can't full pay need to comparison shop, and that rules out ED. Applying ED provides a big boost to your chances at a lot of schools. SO no matter what happens behind the black box, the ability to apply ED is your difference-maker.

I know that some people will say that schools meet need even for ED and that you can use the NPC to price out your options, which levels the ED playing field. That's not completely true. Discussion boards are strewn with people who have been surprised by the actual cost of a school differing from the NPC after ED admission. Also, even if you know that, e.g. your T20 dream school will cost a mere $25k a year, you still might need to wait and see if the largely random admission and scholarship process at your local state school is a better deal.

[Anonymous]

Full pay helps with waitlist movement. Some need blind schools are need-aware when managing waitlists. (Our school counselor confirmed this).

[Anonymous]

Yes. But it’s a disadvantage for elite colleges (regardless what they say) and a positive for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. But it’s a disadvantage for elite colleges (regardless what they say) and a positive for others.

NP wait, you mean full pay lowers admission chances at elite colleges? That’s a pretty bold take

[Anonymous]

So funny how so many of you go nuts over Trumpsters and their conspiracy theories, yet here you are refusing to believe that when a school says it's need blind it's need blind.

[Anonymous]

My son really only applied to one school (a top 50 liberal arts college) that aid was going to be come into play. He got in with merit and financial aid. We are a donut hole family with a brother in college too. We did fill out the FAFSA and the CSS, toured the school and opened all of the emails, etc. Nice package and because of it we told my son that it is doable (a little less than our state flagship). He isn't a top student either. He is just a nice kid with ok grades. I bet being a boy may have helped.

All of his other schools were public, or we knew that financial aid wasn't happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Full pay helps with waitlist movement. Some need blind schools are need-aware when managing waitlists. (Our school counselor confirmed this).

This is true. Some switch to need aware, some are need blind the entire way through. You can email individual schools about this.