Where "full pay" really helps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a huge advantage that you can put yourself in the ED pool. We need in state or merit aid so can only apply ED in state. Full pay is an advantage at every school that has ED. It won’t help you over the other ED applicants. But it will over the other kids who can’t put themselves in the ED pool for financial reasons.

I don’t fully understand this. My DC applied TO to T15 ED, as we felt that was the best shot for acceptance. She was admitted with no financial aid. She left her app open for UC Berkeley, where she is likely a strong candidate. Not sure which she will choose. My point is concern about finances or affordability shouldn’t prevent you from applying ED to top choice - you can and should also apply to a full slate and evaluate those acceptances against the financial aid from the ED school. This notion that an ED acceptance means pulling all other apps is incorrect - you can decline an ED offer based on better relative affordability of another school. And don’t start bringing up “financial calculators” etc etc - only you and your family know what’s affordable. And the more options for students the better - colleges hate this logic as it shifts the power dynamic. And the wealthy contingent hates it because the “pulling all other apps” completely favors the wealthy where cost is no issue.

It is not appropriate to keep applications open after you get in ED.
That’s the whole point of ED.
Merit aid is not a factor.
If you have a change in financial status from time of application to ED admission then you need to let the ED school know and request to change to non binding status but to keep other applications open without discussing with ED school goes against ED contracts and the students admission may be withdrawn.

we will evaluate after she gets into UC B - sounds like you had the luxury of not having to compare financial implications - congrats to you

NP. Your approach is antithetical to the ED agreement. If you didn't like the ED school's cost (per NPC before applying or per actual package in-hand), the time to withdraw is now, regardless of other options. The ED school doesn't become more affordable when coupled with a UCB rejection. When is your ED school's enrollment deadline?

The ED school is free to sue. If they’re confident the contract will withstand scrutiny, they should sue. I think there is a reason that there is zero case law related to ED enforcement

I am the PP that you responded to. I agree completely that no college is going to sue. ED is not a legally-enforceable contract.

I am not a fan of ED's existence. The name sharing angle might violate the Sherman Act if colleges are still doing that. And more generally, the gist is anticompetitive. But, if people are going to avail themselves of the (perhaps perceived) acceptance rate benefit, they need to follow the rules of the agreement: withdrawing other apps upon acceptance unless the school's offered package is not affordable. Anything less is unethical.

Everyone should know going in that ED does not permit the student to wait for other packages and back out merely because the ED school's package is less than some other school's merit offer.

People know that, but not everyone is impressed or cares about a threat of a non-enforceable contract being enforced. I think rich and UMD people are just upset their last advantage may disappear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

The result would be financial aid and merit collusion being illegal. I’m fine with that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

The result would be financial aid and merit collusion being illegal. I’m fine with that

What are you talking about Exactly? Almost no need blind schools Give out any merit aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

I don’t see why need blind is an inherently better system. Schools provide financial aid to meet diversity goals and to attract the best students. There is a certain amount of aid that they are willing and able to provide. That figure doesn’t change in a need aware system. One beef I have with the whole financial aid paradigm is that families who are just over the arbitrary threshold of qualifying for aid really get screwed and have to pay the same as a billionaire. In many cases this is completely impractical. A more fluid system that rewarded merit would work out better for these “middle class plus” families. If you look at these need blind schools they consist primarily of relatively poor and relatively rich kids - very barbelled system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest. The family that pays $80,000 subsidizes the family that pays half. Colleges want and need a mix.

+1000

[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:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

I don’t see why need blind is an inherently better system. Schools provide financial aid to meet diversity goals and to attract the best students. There is a certain amount of aid that they are willing and able to provide. That figure doesn’t change in a need aware system. One beef I have with the whole financial aid paradigm is that families who are just over the arbitrary threshold of qualifying for aid really get screwed and have to pay the same as a billionaire. In many cases this is completely impractical. A more fluid system that rewarded merit would work out better for these “middle class plus” families. If you look at these need blind schools they consist primarily of relatively poor and relatively rich kids - very barbelled system.

You call it "a more fluid system".

Others will call it "a system that benefits me exactly where I am and penalizes others".

FYI, the threshold is not "arbitrary" in any way, it is laboriously calculated by folks who care at the colleges. The fact you admit you are "middle class PLUS". Know what that "Plus" means? That you can afford it! How many billionaires do you think there are? There's only 724 in the entire US. That means there likely isn't the kid of a single billionaire at your college. How will making them pay more help, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

The result would be financial aid and merit collusion being illegal. I’m fine with that

What are you talking about Exactly? Almost no need blind schools Give out any merit aid.

The 568 coalition jointly decided on what kind of aid was appropriate so that cost wouldn't be a factor in student's decision. Absent the anti trust exemption, that's as clear cut as collusion gets. When the coalition disappears (and they will rather than give up developmental admits), the the amount of aid that schools offer will start to differ again.

[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:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

I don’t see why need blind is an inherently better system. Schools provide financial aid to meet diversity goals and to attract the best students. There is a certain amount of aid that they are willing and able to provide. That figure doesn’t change in a need aware system. One beef I have with the whole financial aid paradigm is that families who are just over the arbitrary threshold of qualifying for aid really get screwed and have to pay the same as a billionaire. In many cases this is completely impractical. A more fluid system that rewarded merit would work out better for these “middle class plus” families. If you look at these need blind schools they consist primarily of relatively poor and relatively rich kids - very barbelled system.

You call it "a more fluid system".

Others will call it "a system that benefits me exactly where I am and penalizes others".

FYI, the threshold is not "arbitrary" in any way, it is laboriously calculated by folks who care at the colleges. The fact you admit you are "middle class PLUS". Know what that "Plus" means? That you can afford it! How many billionaires do you think there are? There's only 724 in the entire US. That means there likely isn't the kid of a single billionaire at your college. How will making them pay more help, exactly?

Harvard left the coalition specifically because they thought the aid wasn't generous enough. It was laboriously calculated by people with a vested interest in extracting every penny possible. Without collusion, school will have to compete and differences in aid will be one way that schools distinguish themselves

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

I don’t see why need blind is an inherently better system. Schools provide financial aid to meet diversity goals and to attract the best students. There is a certain amount of aid that they are willing and able to provide. That figure doesn’t change in a need aware system. One beef I have with the whole financial aid paradigm is that families who are just over the arbitrary threshold of qualifying for aid really get screwed and have to pay the same as a billionaire. In many cases this is completely impractical. A more fluid system that rewarded merit would work out better for these “middle class plus” families. If you look at these need blind schools they consist primarily of relatively poor and relatively rich kids - very barbelled system.

You call it "a more fluid system".

Others will call it "a system that benefits me exactly where I am and penalizes others".

FYI, the threshold is not "arbitrary" in any way, it is laboriously calculated by folks who care at the colleges. The fact you admit you are "middle class PLUS". Know what that "Plus" means? That you can afford it! How many billionaires do you think there are? There's only 724 in the entire US. That means there likely isn't the kid of a single billionaire at your college. How will making them pay more help, exactly?

Harvard left the coalition specifically because they thought the aid wasn't generous enough. It was laboriously calculated by people with a vested interest in extracting every penny possible. Without collusion, school will have to compete and differences in aid will be one way that schools distinguish themselves

Harvard, with it's $50B endowment, can do things few other colleges can do.

That's 4X what the #10 endowment school has.

That's 8X what the #20 endowment school has.

There are fewer than 100 colleges with more than $1B endowments - 1/50th of Harvard's.

Harvard is not a good yardstick.

[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:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

I don’t see why need blind is an inherently better system. Schools provide financial aid to meet diversity goals and to attract the best students. There is a certain amount of aid that they are willing and able to provide. That figure doesn’t change in a need aware system. One beef I have with the whole financial aid paradigm is that families who are just over the arbitrary threshold of qualifying for aid really get screwed and have to pay the same as a billionaire. In many cases this is completely impractical. A more fluid system that rewarded merit would work out better for these “middle class plus” families. If you look at these need blind schools they consist primarily of relatively poor and relatively rich kids - very barbelled system.

You call it "a more fluid system".

Others will call it "a system that benefits me exactly where I am and penalizes others".

FYI, the threshold is not "arbitrary" in any way, it is laboriously calculated by folks who care at the colleges. The fact you admit you are "middle class PLUS". Know what that "Plus" means? That you can afford it! How many billionaires do you think there are? There's only 724 in the entire US. That means there likely isn't the kid of a single billionaire at your college. How will making them pay more help, exactly?

No, I'm a full pay parent. Not a billionaire but nowhere near qualifying for financial aid. When I was in college though, my parents needed some aid and they sacrificed a lot to send me to a top school. They were what I referred to as middle class plus. The system we have now is great for families below 100k in income and minimal assets. They basically get full rides. But obviously there is a cut off point where you have too much income/assets and you get nothing or next to nothing. That cut off point, as I understand it, is not that high. So let's say it's 200k/yr... there is a big difference in the financial position of a 200k a year family versus 500k versus a million. But they all pay the same price for college. At least with merit aid, kids who want a small liberal arts experience or a private college experience in general have an opportunity to get that. I think many 200k ish parents are not going to be keen to blow 80k a year on a LAC. Nor should they, because while the schools claim they can afford it, they really can't or rather it's not practical. Merit aid opens the door for that kid, just over the cusp of qualifying for aid, to attend the type of college he or she wants to attend if his or her academic stats are at the high end of the school's expectations. Merit aid is wonderful in that sense and schools should be very proud to provide it, along with need based aid. Our best students should have a full range of educational opportunities available to them--not just if they are low income and not just if they are very affluent.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

I don’t see why need blind is an inherently better system. Schools provide financial aid to meet diversity goals and to attract the best students. There is a certain amount of aid that they are willing and able to provide. That figure doesn’t change in a need aware system. One beef I have with the whole financial aid paradigm is that families who are just over the arbitrary threshold of qualifying for aid really get screwed and have to pay the same as a billionaire. In many cases this is completely impractical. A more fluid system that rewarded merit would work out better for these “middle class plus” families. If you look at these need blind schools they consist primarily of relatively poor and relatively rich kids - very barbelled system.

You call it "a more fluid system".

Others will call it "a system that benefits me exactly where I am and penalizes others".

FYI, the threshold is not "arbitrary" in any way, it is laboriously calculated by folks who care at the colleges. The fact you admit you are "middle class PLUS". Know what that "Plus" means? That you can afford it! How many billionaires do you think there are? There's only 724 in the entire US. That means there likely isn't the kid of a single billionaire at your college. How will making them pay more help, exactly?

Harvard left the coalition specifically because they thought the aid wasn't generous enough. It was laboriously calculated by people with a vested interest in extracting every penny possible. Without collusion, school will have to compete and differences in aid will be one way that schools distinguish themselves

Harvard, with it's $50B endowment, can do things few other colleges can do.

That's 4X what the #10 endowment school has.

That's 8X what the #20 endowment school has.

There are fewer than 100 colleges with more than $1B endowments - 1/50th of Harvard's.

Harvard is not a good yardstick.

There are other schools in the coalition with enormous endowments. Without jointly set aid, each school will have to determine how generous it wants to be

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at the top 20, or maybe even top 30 anymore. So many are able and willing to pay full price, and with test optional, it still won't matter

What do you mean nope? There are many many schools where it does help even if they are not up to your standards.

My standards? I said it didn't matter for top 20 or 30 (said nothing about my standards). My point is at top schools, full pay isn’t the hook you think it is

+1. Full pay is not at all a hook at the top universities. Full pay and extremely wealthy? Now that's a hook. My friend is a billionaire. Her DC is a good student at a good school, definitely not the valedictorian though. She still got into HYP, because the family is probably subsidizing a ton of scholarships for underprivileged students with their generous donations.

The list of blind schools where full pay does not help is easily googled, and yes they are mostly top schools.

PP's example is a development admit, which comes though an entirely different office than admissions office first, similar to an athletic recruit.

In the 568 litigation it is suggested that development admits are themselves a violation of need blind policies, which makes sense.

No, it does not. That persons ability to pay tuition is not considered. Suppose it is a nephew of a donor with a very different economic situation? I know it seems like the same thing but it isn’t. It’s not even done in the same office.

I appreciate the nuance but you can appreciate the overall point. The 568 complaint doesn’t really argue that the schools directly violate the need blind policy (except maybe with waitlists) but that many of their other practices violate it, such as favoring development kids.

I’m not sure if you read the post you were replying to. The development admin isn’t always a progeny of the donor. When the development admit is admitted at a need blind school, they do not look at that person‘s ability to pay. Yes, I know it seems like splitting hairs but there’s really no other way to do it and still take development admits, which benefit the poorer students immensely.

Would you prefer there being no need blind schools? That’s really the likely result of this lawsuit being successful.

It is splitting hairs. I think schools should have more or less whatever policies they want. My understanding is need blind allows them a special exemption from antitrust laws as they share certain financial data. But so long as they are in compliance with the law, then they should be able to do what they want. They should not be able to claim they are need blind when they actually aren’t - I will leave it to the justice system.

That being said I don’t think need blind is necessarily that great. Need aware schools balance things. Perhaps a high need student should be judged based on merit to some extent. The so called need blind schools use analytics anyway to structure a class that is roughly half full pay kids. I also think merit aid should be more broadly deployed

And how are top schools where every admitted student would qualify for merit aid elsewhere, supposed to equitably hand out merit aid?

They can’t. And if they are not need blind, is that fair to all applicants? Is it need blind the most fair thing?

I don’t see why need blind is an inherently better system. Schools provide financial aid to meet diversity goals and to attract the best students. There is a certain amount of aid that they are willing and able to provide. That figure doesn’t change in a need aware system. One beef I have with the whole financial aid paradigm is that families who are just over the arbitrary threshold of qualifying for aid really get screwed and have to pay the same as a billionaire. In many cases this is completely impractical. A more fluid system that rewarded merit would work out better for these “middle class plus” families. If you look at these need blind schools they consist primarily of relatively poor and relatively rich kids - very barbelled system.

You call it "a more fluid system".

Others will call it "a system that benefits me exactly where I am and penalizes others".

FYI, the threshold is not "arbitrary" in any way, it is laboriously calculated by folks who care at the colleges. The fact you admit you are "middle class PLUS". Know what that "Plus" means? That you can afford it! How many billionaires do you think there are? There's only 724 in the entire US. That means there likely isn't the kid of a single billionaire at your college. How will making them pay more help, exactly?

Harvard left the coalition specifically because they thought the aid wasn't generous enough. It was laboriously calculated by people with a vested interest in extracting every penny possible. Without collusion, school will have to compete and differences in aid will be one way that schools distinguish themselves

Harvard, with it's $50B endowment, can do things few other colleges can do.

That's 4X what the #10 endowment school has.

That's 8X what the #20 endowment school has.

There are fewer than 100 colleges with more than $1B endowments - 1/50th of Harvard's.

Harvard is not a good yardstick.

There are other schools in the coalition with enormous endowments. Without jointly set aid, each school will have to determine how generous it wants to be

In other words, they will have to compete with one another on price. Instead of having a fixed price, like a cartel, and jacking up prices at 2-3x the inflation rate every year.