Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a question asking whether you are seeking financial aid. You just say no. I think that is it. We filled out Fafsa because DD applied to some merit scholarships, but she said no to financial aid.

Did some schools indicate you should do fafsa for merit? We didn’t do fafsa and DS still got merit at a few schools last year but wondering if we should do some thing differently for DD next year. Our income is high and we don’t need aid but getting merit is still nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re responding to me.

We could easily afford tuition, but for first kid (stronger stats/profile) thought , hey a scholarship would be nice (kid was not competitive for HYPSM) applied to all those scholarships in RD. Rejected Vandy/WashU. WL Emory. Rejected Northwestern.

2nd kid, weaker stats and now test optional, more in-school leadership, but no scholarship apps. Maybe more evidence of “wealth “ or proxies in app.
Admitted Emory and Vandy RD (and Northwestern).
WL Duke and WashU.

Same private HS.
Try it for yourselves. And see.

Your kid is judged against his/her classmates who also applied that year. THAT is what dictates admissions, not whether you applied for a scholarship.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re responding to me.

We could easily afford tuition, but for first kid (stronger stats/profile) thought , hey a scholarship would be nice (kid was not competitive for HYPSM) applied to all those scholarships in RD. Rejected Vandy/WashU. WL Emory. Rejected Northwestern.

2nd kid, weaker stats and now test optional, more in-school leadership, but no scholarship apps. Maybe more evidence of “wealth “ or proxies in app.
Admitted Emory and Vandy RD (and Northwestern).
WL Duke and WashU.

Same private HS.
Try it for yourselves. And see.

Accordingly, for the 568 Exemption to apply, every institution in the agreement must admit all students on a need-blind basis. Because it is undisputed that some of the 568 Group members did not do so, none of the universities may benefit from the 568 Exemption's protections in this case.

The students have produced sufficient evidence for a jury reasonably to find that each of the universities claiming the exemption favored wealthier applicants and therefore did not admit all students "on a need-blind basis." The universities resist this conclusion by arguing that a school is still need-blind even if it engages in wealth favoritism.

Northwestern and Notre Dame stipulated that for each year from 2003 through 2022, the school 'in some instances admitted students based on factors which included the applicant's family's donation history and/or capacity for future donations.'

Vanderbilt stipulated that [for 2003 through 2022], in some instances it admitted students based on the 'financial circumstances' of the student or the student's family as the Court has interpreted that terms.

Penn's applicants with special-interest tags were admitted at a much higher rate than waitlisted applicants without such tags.

Defendants such as [redacted] admitted waitlist applicants with regard to whether those applicants had applied for financial aid."

Defendants also considered the financial circumstances of low-income applicants.

Anonymous wrote:What is the best way to signal that you are full pay on college application? Friend’s DD applied this cycle - got into UPenn ED - they did not fill out any financial forms to show they are full pay (for this year anyway, not sure if they can or will fill out in the future or if that is even allowed). Is that the best way to do it? Or if you have assets should you fill out all the forms to show them ‘we have the savings / assets to cover all 4 years at full pay’? What is the best strategy here? Thanks for all advice !

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:

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.

Are you a lawyer? Neither am I, but my understanding is that is NOT the bar for summary judgement.

Summary judgment is a legal threshold

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court may grant summary judgment only if no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party based on the available evidence.

In this case, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had not presented enough material facts to make out key elements of their claims.

The judge denied that motion, meaning:
✔️ The evidence plaintiffs have produced so far is sufficient to let a reasonable jury find for them on key issues.
✖️ The judge did not determine that the plaintiffs proved their allegations as a matter of law.

So denial of summary judgment means the evidence is strong enough to send the case to a jury — not that the judge ruled the plaintiffs have proved misconduct. A jury (or settlement) will determine that.

Why Summary Judgment Was Denied

The court found that reasonable jurors could disagree about:

whether there was an antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman Act,

whether the schools had enough market power,

whether the antitrust exemption applied, and

whether the plaintiffs’ claims are timely.

🧠 Key Takeaways

✔️ Plaintiffs have produced documented evidence — letters, internal group standards, expert reports, and historical practice records — showing coordinated activity on financial aid and shared methodologies that could reduce competition.

✔️ The complaint and discovery materials allege specific practices (including use of admissions data and donor signals) that plaintiffs characterize as need-aware or preferential to wealthy applicants.

✔️ Summary judgment was denied not because the judge “decided the schools are guilty,” but because the factual disputes — on how admissions and aid practices really operated — must be resolved by a jury.

✔️ Many defendants have settled without admitting wrongdoing, meaning settlements don’t legally establish liability but suggest the plaintiffs’ evidence was strong enough to extract considerable settlements.

But I look forward to your contradictory legal analysis once you are back at your computer. Enjoy your day until then.

I’m a lawyer, and an antitrust lawyer at that. ChatGPT is terrible for law. Stop using it.

I have correctly summarized the standard for SJ, as has ChatGPT. The bolded is what I said. And one of the key legal issues in this case is whether the schools were actually need-blind because they couldn’t get immunity from the antitrust exemption unless they were need-blind.

First, thanks for stating your bona fides, I respect them.

The point is for people to understand that these legal proceedings and the information therein - including the decision referenced - does not mean that admissions offices consider an applicant's ability to pay when making an admissions decision. This is the only fact that is relevant to this forum and thread, and gish-galloping into the weeds of a court case that does not contradict that fact in any way is not necessary.

People cited this case as evidence that ability to pay did matter in admissions decisions, as in "there is no such thing as need blind". Those people are wrong.

Happy to let you educate me on the legal stuff (it's interesting), and to tell me all the things chat's summary got wrong (which I presupposed in my initial use of it above), but don't want to lose that one important fact.

DP. I was trying, apparently in vain, to distinguish between applying for aid (which is not considered) and ability to pay (which might impact the final admission decision, at some need-blind schools, generally via algorithm). I was never trying to say that need-blind isn't need blind, but to recognize some nuance.