Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:all of them
it's much easier to get into ANY college if you are full pay
This is not true.
Yes it is. Full pay is a hook.
Money talks.
NO, there is a difference between being full pay (doesn't matter at need blind schools) and a Big donor.
Being a big donor talks. Being full pay does not.
DP - and you are just wrong about that at need aware schools. I am not sure how you could even argue it. Schools don't deny it. It may not rise to the level of a "hook" by a specific definition, but it absolutely matters and helps with need aware college admissions, especially in ED.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:all of them
it's much easier to get into ANY college if you are full pay
This is not true.
Yes it is. Full pay is a hook.
Money talks.
NO, there is a difference between being full pay (doesn't matter at need blind schools) and a Big donor.
Being a big donor talks. Being full pay does not.
DP - and you are just wrong about that at need aware schools. I am not sure how you could even argue it. Schools don't deny it. It may not rise to the level of a "hook" by a specific definition, but it absolutely matters and helps with need aware college admissions, especially in ED.
DP. The issue isn't need-aware schools - by definition, it helps not to have need at need-aware schools.. The issue is that virtually all Top 50 privates are need-blind. Case Western and Wake Forest are the only need-aware schools in the Top 50.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:all of them
it's much easier to get into ANY college if you are full pay
This is not true.
Yes it is. Full pay is a hook.
Money talks.
NO, there is a difference between being full pay (doesn't matter at need blind schools) and a Big donor.
Being a big donor talks. Being full pay does not.
DP - and you are just wrong about that at need aware schools. I am not sure how you could even argue it. Schools don't deny it. It may not rise to the level of a "hook" by a specific definition, but it absolutely matters and helps with need aware college admissions, especially in ED.
Anonymous wrote:I am hoping it does for NYU!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:all of them
it's much easier to get into ANY college if you are full pay
This is not true.
Yes it is. Full pay is a hook.
Money talks.
NO, there is a difference between being full pay (doesn't matter at need blind schools) and a Big donor.
Being a big donor talks. Being full pay does not.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:all of them
it's much easier to get into ANY college if you are full pay
This is not true.
Yes it is. Full pay is a hook.
Money talks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are some top 50ish schools where being full pay makes a difference?
There's like a dozen schools that do NOT consider ability to pay.
115, actually
https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list
A smaller number that are need blind and meet full need, but still significantly larger than a dozen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission
Eh. In the real world, Princeton and MIT are always going to be cheaper than Colby or Wake Forest and so on. The high endowment, very selective private universities will make it happen for anyone they accept. No one is saying no to Stanford because they can't afford it. It really is about 20 private schools that want the talent regardless of family circumstances.
False.
I know a student accepted to Stanford. They turned Stanford down for a full scholarship at UMD.
UMD is happy to pay for HYSP-caliber students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are some top 50ish schools where being full pay makes a difference?
There's like a dozen schools that do NOT consider ability to pay.
115, actually
https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list
A smaller number that are need blind and meet full need, but still significantly larger than a dozen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission
Eh. In the real world, Princeton and MIT are always going to be cheaper than Colby or Wake Forest and so on. The high endowment, very selective private universities will make it happen for anyone they accept. No one is saying no to Stanford because they can't afford it. It really is about 20 private schools that want the talent regardless of family circumstances.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:all of them
it's much easier to get into ANY college if you are full pay
This is not true.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What are some top 50ish schools where being full pay makes a difference?
There's like a dozen schools that do NOT consider ability to pay.
115, actually
https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list
A smaller number that are need blind and meet full need, but still significantly larger than a dozen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission
Eh. In the real world, Princeton and MIT are always going to be cheaper than Colby or Wake Forest and so on. The high endowment, very selective private universities will make it happen for anyone they accept. No one is saying no to Stanford because they can't afford it. It really is about 20 private schools that want the talent regardless of family circumstances.
Anonymous wrote:Full pay and big donor see really different outcomes at T20.