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:

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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

Oh, and it’s the dollar figure that’s relevant here, not the fact of settlement. This is just a practical judgment, but you don’t get 9-figure settlements for frivolous cases.

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:

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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

I’ll respond more thoroughly when I’m at my computer and can quote from the opinion or briefings.

You’re right, the judge didn’t grant summary judgment for plaintiffs because they didn’t move for it. But he denied summary judgment for defendants because there was enough evidence for a jury to find that each defendant was liable. It means that the plaintiffs put forth enough evidence that a jury could find each defendant was need-aware in its admissions process. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. There is a legitimate evidentiary basis.

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:

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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

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:

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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

First, it is not legal advice. It is a summary of the case. If it is wrong, just show where! Should be simple. Please do this, and don't "not reply".

Also, the bar for summary judgement is high; it doesn't mean the judge found evidence supporting the claim, it means he didn't see any reason against and that a jury might find either way.

And people settle lawsuits all the time, even when they are not guilty, because of risk management. Especially wealthy companies and organizations with much to lose. I am certain you know this. You do, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

.

Some conspiracies are true. This conspiracy about colleges being secretly need-aware is headed to trial after 12 of 17 colleges settled for a combined total of over $300 million. But I’m sure the plaintiffs and the judge are just crazy.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you! - Joseph Heller

That's not what the judge said. Read a summary of the finding, or ask an AI to do it for you.

Did you read the SJ opinion that came out like last week or the week before? Because I did.

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: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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Don’t rely on ChatGPT for legal advice! The defendants who haven’t settled moved for summary judgment. A court grants summary judgment when there is no evidence that could support a verdict for the other side. When the judge denied summary judgment, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that all defendants failed to be needed-blind. In other words, the judge agreed there is plenty of evidence.

ChatGPT won’t tell you this either, but a bunch of elite colleges don’t settle for $300 million when there isn’t really solid evidence of liability.

Trial should be fun if any defendant holds out instead of paying up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

.

Some conspiracies are true. This conspiracy about colleges being secretly need-aware is headed to trial after 12 of 17 colleges settled for a combined total of over $300 million. But I’m sure the plaintiffs and the judge are just crazy.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you! - Joseph Heller

That's not what the judge said. Read a summary of the finding, or ask an AI to do it for you.

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: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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

Please show the data to support that claim. The data which contradicts it has already been posted.

Not that ChatGPT is always right - it isn't - but here is what it says about your claim:

No — the Henry v. Brown University case (sometimes called the “568 Cartel” antitrust lawsuit) alleged that many elite colleges did not truly follow need-blind admissions and, through coordinated practices, ended up giving wealthy applicants an advantage and limiting financial aid. But the lawsuit has not produced a judicial finding that entire colleges secretly tagged applications or definitively proved that Columbia, Emory, Brown, or others systematically used full-pay markers to steer admissions decisions. It remains a contested lawsuit with settlements and claims, not final legal findings on all these specific practices.

and then

Bottom line

The lawsuit alleges colleges collectively and individually shaped admissions and financial aid in ways that favored full-pay students and limited aid. It has not been legally decided (through trial or judicial ruling) that they “secretly tagged” applicants or definitively engaged in widespread need-aware admissions across full institutions. Settlements exist, but they are not legal findings of misconduct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

.

Some conspiracies are true. This conspiracy about colleges being secretly need-aware is headed to trial after 12 of 17 colleges settled for a combined total of over $300 million. But I’m sure the plaintiffs and the judge are just crazy.

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.

You realize that every business in america makes a budget without knowing how many widgets they sell. And most of them don't have billion dollar endowments.
They make up the difference with fundraising. USC is sending out the bat signal to all its alumni asking for money, they are not limiting admissions to rich kids.[b]

The algorithms are 10% yield management and 90% bullshit.

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: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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

The evidence in the lawsuit shows the defendant schools are not need-blind far beyond just favoring development candidates. Entire colleges were secretly need-aware (Columbia, Emory) and applications were tagged when applicants’ data indicated they were likely full-pay. And colleges use ED to ensure adequate number of full-pay. And numerous schools are secretly need-aware for WL. There is no such thing as need-blind.

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:

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.

Of course budgets are a "thing" at every organization. But that has nothing to do with whether the few need blind schools are lying about being need blind across their admissions as you suggest.

Then I apologize for not making myself clear. They are not lying about being need-blind - that is not my contention. Apps are read without regard for financial need and with no consideration of the financial aid application. Financial need comes into play later, at the back end of the process, in the aggregate, at the margins, and by proxy, during the shaping of the class between the admissions director and the enrollment management consultant.

The issue comes down to how "need-blind" is defined, as was a key point in the lawsuit mentioned by a PP upthread.

For the purposes of this forum, and for the benefit of 99% of the participants therein who are not development applicants, I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

Ok, but that's not how colleges use the term.

Yes, it exactly is. It's not how the judge used the term.

Same as before: Answer this question, yes or no please:

For a standard applicant, will applying for financial aid affect their admissions decision in ED or RD at a need blind college?

Applying for aid? No, because admissions officers do not see the financial aid docs or know that the applicant applied for aid.

Ability to pay as indicated by proxy variables? Maybe, during the shaping of the class on the back end via yield algorithm score.

Forgive me, I must have been unclear:

Answer this question, yes or no please:

For a standard applicant, will applying for financial aid affect their admissions decision in ED or RD at a need blind college?

That was your second question, to which the answer is no.

However, you first said:

Anonymous wrote: "I suggest the definition of "need blind" mean "ability to pay will not affect your admissions decision".

In contrast to "applying for financial aid," which will not affect your admission decision, "ability to pay" can, sometimes, affect your admission decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

.

Some conspiracies are true. This conspiracy about colleges being secretly need-aware is headed to trial after 12 of 17 colleges settled for a combined total of over $300 million. But I’m sure the plaintiffs and the judge are just crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, this is a pretty stupid discussion by people that:

Want to believe their kid actually has a chance at some T50 school so they convince themselves that their money will make the difference;
Want to believe that their kid was excluded because they don't have that kind of money;
Want to think that private school kids get into good schools because they are full pay; or
Is inclined to believe in conspiracy theory as a way to deal with the uncertainty of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

If you are poor you should apply for financial aid. No one disputes that. Don’t apply for aid if you know you aren’t getting any.

Our private counselor also suggested not to apply for scholarships where DC is not likely to get them. Including at places like Vanderbilt, WashU or Emory. If you’re not competitive for HYPSM, you were never going to get those scholarships anyway and applying for them can weaken your RD candidacy (by making it look like you were looking for the best financial offer before accepting). Remember in RD it’s all about optimizing yield /enrollment management. They are trying to determine if you will come if given an offer. If it seems like you would only come if the math works, you’re less likely to get the offer.

Do some 1-on-1 meetings with former T20 AO on this topic.

There are well intended but clueless parents commenting here.

Dumbest advice I've ever heard. If the scholarship matters financially to your family at all, then apply for it.