Reply to is boarding school HS a hook for college?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "is boarding school HS a hook for college?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yes of course, it signals full pay.[/quote]

Why would it need to "signal" anything?

Need aware schools get all the finance info and the small number of need blind/meet full need schools don't consider.[/quote]

Yes but full pay is more complicated than that. They are looking for other signals.
Schools are looking for potential donors/ speakers/ networkers or ppl who will employ graduates. We are seeing how hard it is for grads to get jobs…

Our college counselor said it was important for both parents to have updated LinkedIn with clear senior leadership/executive titles conveyed in job titles in common app.

The signaling is very important for AO (many of who do look at LinkedIn after 1st pass). The $$$ privilege may not hurt at all at certain private colleges and can actually help.
[/quote]

Please name which schools look at these factors. Or is this the rumor mill?[/quote]

It’s pretty easy to figure out if you parse through data….

Vanderbilt; Rice; Cornell; Dartmouth; WashU[/quote]

Look at the % of admitted students in the top 1% of HHI (or better top 0.5% of HHI if they break it down that far).  Vanderbilt; Dartmouth & WashU make sense.

But isn’t this thread about advantages for boarding school students? Some boarding schools are feeders. Not shocking news.[/quote]

Again you are saying "look at these numbers" without any direct evidence or even a logic chain.

At best this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

There is no evidence need blind schools make admissions decisions based on economics.[/quote]

Wow. That Reddit link makes a crazy case for his income/wealth [i]subtly[/i] impact admissions decisions.

“I also think that if there was any doubt beforehand, this further magnifies the questionable priorities that many of these institutions have. I was just at Yales admitted students days and I was surprised how it felt like one in every three or four people I met went to one of the big NE boarding schools...”[/quote]

Sigh... no one doubts the stats show wealthy students are over-represented at elite schools.  It's because they have every advantage and make better candidates independent of their ability to pay tuition.  They are a self-selecting sample.

The question is will an admissions officer at a need blind college admit one student over another because of the "signal" that they will be full pay.

The answer remains "No".[/quote]

There's someone who was involved in college admissions at some point who comes on this forum to defend the honor of admissions officers everywhere and they always demand proof and then reject any that is offered. But just in case the individual here really is arguing in good faith and want proof, here you go:

PP said colleges are looking for donors, and it's absolutely true. It's always been known that virtually all colleges have some version of the "Dean's Interest List" and there was plenty of evidence introduced in the Harvard litigation:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/18/day-three-harvard-admissions-trial/

Hughes referenced the emails as he quizzed Fitzsimmons on the “Dean’s Interest List,” a special and confidential list of applicants Harvard compiles every admissions cycle. Though the University closely guards the details, applicants on that list are often related to or of interest to top donors — and court filings show list members benefit from a significantly inflated acceptance rate.

In one 2013 email headlined “My Hero,” former Dean of the Harvard Kennedy School David T. Ellwood ’75 thanked Fitzsimmons for his help admitting a set of students with very particular qualifications.

“Once again you have done wonders. I am simply thrilled about the folks you were able to admit,” Ellwood wrote in the email. “[Redacted] and [redacted] are all big wins. [Redacted] has already committed to a building.”

In a separate email Hughes presented, Associate Vice President for Alumni Affairs and Development Roger P. Cheever ’67 reflected on the pros and cons of another Harvard hopeful. This student’s family at one point donated $8.7 million to the University — but more recent years had proven “challenging,” Cheever wrote.

“[Redacted] was a devoted [redacted] Chair and generous donor,” Cheever's email reads. “Going forward, I don’t see a significant opportunity for further major gifts. [Redacted] had an art collection which conceivably could come our way.”

Cheever closed the email by noting he would “call it a 2” — an apparent attempt to score the applicant-and-donation package. After Hughes asked Fitzsimmons to explain the number, the dean said the “2” ranking meant the candidate would receive a boost in the admissions process.

I am simply thrilled about the folks you were able to admit... [Redacted] and [redacted] are all big wins. [Redacted] has already committed to a building.
Fitzsimmons described the boost given to a “2” applicant as “reasonably serious,” though not as significant as the preference given to a “1” candidate. The dean previously admitted in pre-trial testimony that greater “financial contribution[s]” can lead to higher ratings for individual applicants.

There are other mechanisms that are used to ensure that the admissions class isn't overfilled with kids that need financial aid (GW got caught, but as the article points out, they aren't alone in this). Note that "gapping" described below works especially well because nearly all schools that are "need blind" are not "need blind" for the wait list. I'd also like to point out that, when the information about GW admissions came out, lower level workers in the admissions office were shocked, because the "second review" happened at the top level.  Just like the "Dean's Interest List," the review of the general population of applications was done, and then the top officers of the university would have a conversation about how to make it work out from a $$ perspective.  The very richest colleges, like Harvard, can afford to have the "thumb on the scale" only for the mega donors, while less rich colleges have to reach further down.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2013/10/22/when-students-are-rejected-for-being-poor-the-george-washington-university-and-the-roots-of-a-troubled-system/

While the school claimed to be "need-blind" in its admissions – that it would not factor a student's ability to pay into its admissions decision – it turns out that this policy was only half-true at best. The first reading of applications was "need-blind," while the second was not. Or, in the words of the university's damage control statement, "Consideration of need occurs at the very end of the admissions process." The GW Hatchet, the student newspaper that broke the story, noted that this policy affected up to 10 percent of the student population. Students could be shifted from admitted to not admitted if they required too much financial aid.

********

Schools tend to deal with this type of financial aid shortfall in two ways. First, they can do what GWU admitted to doing: Realizing that its business model requires enrolling more wealthy students and fewer low-income students, GWU chooses not to accept as many low-income students. Then it publicly states that higher education is the great equalizer and that the school is actively committed to enrolling more low-income students.

Second, [b]they can do what is called "gapping" or "admit-deny." Under these practices, schools admit students and then deliberately offer them financial aid packages that they know will be too small for the student to afford. Then the schools publicly state that higher education is the great equalizer and that the school is actively committed to enrolling more low-income students[/b].

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that GWU does both. GWU is not alone, however. Many schools, including public schools, face these incentives and have likely engaged in similarly questionable tactics. Although GWU is easy to scapegoat because they have been at the forefront of these changes, the problem extends to similar schools throughout the country.[/quote]

This is interesting….way more common I bet than we think.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics