Full pay question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Not in admissions. Not at need blind schools.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of students at top schools are from affluent families because it is very, very difficult for a low income kid to qualify for those schools, right? Please tell me you understand this, and understand what a self selecting sample is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Between that and their disproportionate endowments, top schools don't need those algorithms in the admissions process. So they have no need to do the process you suggest, and certainly no need to keep it a secret, which would be impossible.

Need blind schools are need blind in admissions. End period, until evidence is shown otherwise. There are few exceptions (waitlist at some, international at others, etc).

Hi, this is false. Please look at the litigation in Henry v. Brown University. And need-blind schools just point-blank aren't need-blind much of the time anyway. That also came out in that litigation.

Hi, you are wrong. None of those things found in that decision claimed that admissions considered applicants ability to pay, but rather that certain students (children of donors, etc) were given special privelege. Development office admits have never been a secret, and there are vert few of them. This court decision simply determined that those development office admits were violations of need blind, essentially re-defining the term.

Documents filed with the court appear to show that the defendant universities considered the financial circumstances of applicants when making admissions decisions, violating the antitrust exemption rule of remaining need-blind. Administrators from these universities copped to it in documents and testimony. For decades, Notre Dame “admitted students based on factors which included the applicant family’s donation history and/or capacity for future donations,” affording “massive allowances to the power of the family connections and funding history.” Penn assigned special designations to applicants from wealthy families, offering them admission “almost 100% of the time,” a former admissions dean testified. Some were accepted with “statistically significant lower … [SAT/ACT] scores.” And Georgetown, the purported “ringleader” of the 568 group, maintained a “Special Interest Policy” allowing the university to “consider special circumstances in the admission of some qualified candidates who might not be admitted competitively.”

These are some of the "few exceptions" I referred to above.

So for the vast majority of students, admissions decisions were still overwhelmingly need blind.

The problem with the generalizations here, or the tinfoil hat stuff, is that it sometimes encourages applicants to make the decision to NOT apply for financial aid trying to help their admissions decision, when these need blind colleges have the most generous financial aid of all.

This is why you should stop saying that need blind colleges aren't - or, at a minimum, be specific about the exceptions you are referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is referred to as the "shaping of the class." See, e.g., Jeff Selingo's Who Gets In and Why.

I have also been told by other parents on the advancement committee at my alma matter that, while it is a need-blind institution, it is need blind on the "first pass," that is, during the reading of the app, but perhaps not at later stages. This seems to fit with the back end "shaping" of the class discussed by Selingo.

I've got the Selingo book right here. Can you tell me the page where he says need blind colleges aren't need blind?

There’s some bad and naive guidance here that may have been true 5 years ago but isn’t how things are working now.

Every former AO will tell you full pay matters a lot now. Even for T20.

The world is different.

No they won't, no it isn't, and if it did you would show evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is referred to as the "shaping of the class." See, e.g., Jeff Selingo's Who Gets In and Why.

I have also been told by other parents on the advancement committee at my alma matter that, while it is a need-blind institution, it is need blind on the "first pass," that is, during the reading of the app, but perhaps not at later stages. This seems to fit with the back end "shaping" of the class discussed by Selingo.

I've got the Selingo book right here. Can you tell me the page where he says need blind colleges aren't need blind?

There’s some bad and naive guidance here that may have been true 5 years ago but isn’t how things are working now.

Every former AO will tell you full pay matters a lot now. Even for T20.

The world is different.

No they won't, no it isn't, and if it did you would show evidence.

Every podcaster and college counselor influencer has said being full pay is an advantage THIS cycle.
Including Mark. And Sam. And Thomas.

Take the blinders off old lady.

[Anonymous]

Can you post your recent experience (what year), if you applied for aid and the outcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is referred to as the "shaping of the class." See, e.g., Jeff Selingo's Who Gets In and Why.

I have also been told by other parents on the advancement committee at my alma matter that, while it is a need-blind institution, it is need blind on the "first pass," that is, during the reading of the app, but perhaps not at later stages. This seems to fit with the back end "shaping" of the class discussed by Selingo.

I've got the Selingo book right here. Can you tell me the page where he says need blind colleges aren't need blind?

There’s some bad and naive guidance here that may have been true 5 years ago but isn’t how things are working now.

Every former AO will tell you full pay matters a lot now. Even for T20.

The world is different.

No they won't, no it isn't, and if it did you would show evidence.

DP. The problem with asking for evidence (setting aside the urge to respond with a silly retort like "ma'am, this is a Wendy's"), is that the back end of the process is closely guarded. Enrollment management algorithms are proprietary trade secrets. Top schools are not interested in publicizing how the sausage is made. They are under pressure to maintain "need blind" claims.

See also The Price of Admission by Golden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t most/all T20 privates need blind?

Yes, but they still have financial aid budgets to meet. They do this by algorithm, on the back end of the process, through their enrollment management consultant and the admission director. The lower level AOs are not involved in this part.

Parent education level, field of employment, census tract, and high school would be some of the factors that would go into the algorithm.

As a separate matter, some schools may run parents through DonorSearch types of databases, to see if any of the families are potential big donors with a prior track record of giving, but that is more typical after enrollment than before. A few schools might do it before. The people flagged in this process would be at a level of wealth beyond mere full pay.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? This is contrary to what every need blind college claims. I have never seen direct evidence by any of the current and former thousands of need blind AOs, including he ones that have written tell-all books. And the ones I have spoken to personally.

My strong belief is that need blind means exactly that and the vast majority of colleges, at a minimum.

PP. Need blind means the individual's financial need is not considered in admissions, that admissions does not have access to financial aid forms.

Without considering proxies for finances in the aggregate, via algorithm, there would be no way to make budget.

Again I ask what is your evidence for that second paragraph? I do know what need blind means quite well.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary” — or in this case, his conviction of his own children’s superiority — “depends upon his not understanding it.”

“It is difficult to get a person to answer a question when they have no evidence to support their claim “.

Bonus: full on ad hominem.

The evidence is the existence of the entire industry of enrollment management, plus the fact that “need blind” schools routinely meet budget rather than going bankrupt. If you cared, you could watch some of the webinars that enrollment management companies use to sell their wares. Or, you could settle back into your warm bubble of stubborn incuriosity.

Less than 5% of the 4000+ US colleges claim to be need-blind. So of course there is a large industry of enrollment management services for the other 3950 colleges out there. And the multi-billion dollar endowments of the few need-blind schools makes the idea of their going "bankrupt" over a few extra financial aid admitees is laughable.

DP. Need blind schools use enrollment management consultants and yield algorithms.

Budgets are a thing, even at need blind schools. Amazingly, they hit about the same % full-day year after year.

Not in admissions. Not at need blind schools.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of students at top schools are from affluent families because it is very, very difficult for a low income kid to qualify for those schools, right? Please tell me you understand this, and understand what a self selecting sample is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Between that and their disproportionate endowments, top schools don't need those algorithms in the admissions process. So they have no need to do the process you suggest, and certainly no need to keep it a secret, which would be impossible.

Need blind schools are need blind in admissions. End period, until evidence is shown otherwise. There are few exceptions (waitlist at some, international at others, etc).

Why would the Dartmouth AO Lee Coffin talk about designations on the app in review (NN = needs need)….
Why?

DP. I vaguely recall that Dartmouth may also do its mathematical modeling in house, as discussed in that same Dartmouth admissions podcast, but I can't pinpoint when that was.

That episode stood out to me honestly. I was shocked at how openly they referred to needing aid and scrutinizing parent professions.

[Anonymous]

Zip code sends them down the right path.

[Anonymous]

So does this mean if you check the financial aid box but don't qualify for any or much FA, you are still at a disadvantage even at a need blind school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zip code sends them down the right path.

It goes beyond zip code. College Board's Landscape tool - which ALL the colleges, including need-blind top schools, were using - included census tract data, which is much more precise. College Board no longer offers this product. However, it can't have been a very difficult lift for enrollment management consultants to get census tract data via some other data method to use in their algorithms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean if you check the financial aid box but don't qualify for any or much FA, you are still at a disadvantage even at a need blind school?

No, the box check is not relevant. The box check is not part of application review in Slate for need-blind schools. The determinations are via proxy data and are made in the aggregate, which averages out enough for them to stay on budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s some bad and naive guidance here that may have been true 5 years ago but isn’t how things are working now.

Every former AO will tell you full pay matters a lot now. Even for T20.

The world is different.

Full pay does not move the needle at UPenn though.

Even quite a lot of double legacy (and with a history of giving to the school) get rejected.

[Anonymous]

Out of curiosity, I looked up a bunch of schools that define “need blind” on their web sites. They seem to agree that “need blind” is particular to the student: “a candidate’s financial need” (Dartmouth), “how much your family can afford to pay” (Grinnell), language like that. They aren’t disclaiming the use of proxies for ability to pay that might be inaccurate for individuals but work at the level of shaping a class to ensure the school makes budget. There are scholarship students at every boarding school, but if you enroll 100 boarding school students, you can bank on at least 92 of them being full pay. The use of proxies like that, or zip code, parents’ professions, aren’t directly about “how much your family can afford to pay” and therefore seem to be consistent with the stated need-blind policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is referred to as the "shaping of the class." See, e.g., Jeff Selingo's Who Gets In and Why.

I have also been told by other parents on the advancement committee at my alma matter that, while it is a need-blind institution, it is need blind on the "first pass," that is, during the reading of the app, but perhaps not at later stages. This seems to fit with the back end "shaping" of the class discussed by Selingo.

I've got the Selingo book right here. Can you tell me the page where he says need blind colleges aren't need blind?

There’s some bad and naive guidance here that may have been true 5 years ago but isn’t how things are working now.

Every former AO will tell you full pay matters a lot now. Even for T20.

The world is different.

No they won't, no it isn't, and if it did you would show evidence.

Every podcaster and college counselor influencer has said being full pay is an advantage THIS cycle.
Including Mark. And Sam. And Thomas.

Take the blinders off old lady.

We calling names now? That's grownup, that certainly helps your cause.

But thanks for confirming and listing all those podcaster and college counselors you refer to /s. I guess your tinfoil theory is more important than the concern some poor parent will believe your BS and not apply for financial aid. Hope that makes you proud!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zip code sends them down the right path.

Again, no it doesn't and it doesn't need to. Certainly not beyond the school system itself, and colleges have HS they prefer for sure.

Wanna know what "sends them down the right path"?

Good grades and high test scores. Because overwhelmingly it takes an affluent family to achieve that. It's a self selecting sample. No conspiracy is necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is referred to as the "shaping of the class." See, e.g., Jeff Selingo's Who Gets In and Why.

I have also been told by other parents on the advancement committee at my alma matter that, while it is a need-blind institution, it is need blind on the "first pass," that is, during the reading of the app, but perhaps not at later stages. This seems to fit with the back end "shaping" of the class discussed by Selingo.

I've got the Selingo book right here. Can you tell me the page where he says need blind colleges aren't need blind?

There’s some bad and naive guidance here that may have been true 5 years ago but isn’t how things are working now.

Every former AO will tell you full pay matters a lot now. Even for T20.

The world is different.

No they won't, no it isn't, and if it did you would show evidence.

Every podcaster and college counselor influencer has said being full pay is an advantage THIS cycle.
Including Mark. And Sam. And Thomas.

Take the blinders off old lady.

We calling names now? That's grownup, that certainly helps your cause.

But thanks for confirming and listing all those podcaster and college counselors you refer to /s. I guess your tinfoil theory is more important than the concern some poor parent will believe your BS and not apply for financial aid. Hope that makes you proud!

DP. Not applying for aid would miss the point of this discussion entirely. Need-blind schools do not consider the financial aid application, so there is no reason not to apply for aid. The financial factors are determined by proxy.