Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

Clearly, the wealthy families aren’t applying for financial aid. So how would Brown (or any school) no what their incomes are?

Ever heard of the internet?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

Wealthy families create stronger applicants. I don't think a single person would dispute that.

So, then it effectively it works the other way around? They know that the very strongest applicants will be rich, and to keep from being 100% rich kids, they give a certain percentage of poorer kids a “hook” for being first generation college, etc. when they do this, they have capped their exposure to scholarship kids at that level. So, for these schools, it’s not really “need blind,” it could be more accurately described as “need aware,” but only if you’re in the top % of poor kids that they’ve given a hook.

Forgive me, but that sounds like some serious nuclear-grade equivocation. And a classic "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

It's a self-selecting sample, yes, which permits them to be need blind for all applicants.

For it not to be, all criteria would have to be out the window, and they'd have to pick at random. They have to pick the best on some criteria, and no matter what it is, the wealthy will be better prepared to meet it.

But the wealthy are not, statistically, better prepared to meet the criteria of being first-generation college students, URM, or from relatively poor areas. Colleges are not “need blind” for these students. They identify these students and judge them by a different standard when it comes to the part of the admissions criteria that rich kids are better at. When they know what % of those students they will admit, they know what % of the rest of the student body will be relatively affluent. (I’m not implying that all first-gen college students or URM are poor, but I will bet a significant sum that colleges have very good data on what percentage of those categories are not, just like they have data on what % of high-scoring students are not wealthy.)

Just saying — some seem to have this idea that “need blind” means that colleges just randomly select the most qualified kids and just let themselves be surprised by the financial result in the fall. There’s no way this is true — just as they have data that projects what their overall yield rate will be, they have data on what they can expect with regard to demand for aid, based on what criteria they use to qualify students for what people on this board refer to as “hooks” (whether legacies on one hand or, e.g., first gen colleges students on another) and how many of those there are. The results vary quite a bit by school, even in the Ivy League, but are remarkably consistent from year to year for each school, except where the school has made admitting more financially needy students a specific goal. It’s not just a coincidence.

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

Clearly, the wealthy families aren’t applying for financial aid. So how would Brown (or any school) no what their incomes are?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

Wealthy families create stronger applicants. I don't think a single person would dispute that.

So, then it effectively it works the other way around? They know that the very strongest applicants will be rich, and to keep from being 100% rich kids, they give a certain percentage of poorer kids a “hook” for being first generation college, etc. when they do this, they have capped their exposure to scholarship kids at that level. So, for these schools, it’s not really “need blind,” it could be more accurately described as “need aware,” but only if you’re in the top % of poor kids that they’ve given a hook.

Forgive me, but that sounds like some serious nuclear-grade equivocation. And a classic "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

It's a self-selecting sample, yes, which permits them to be need blind for all applicants.

For it not to be, all criteria would have to be out the window, and they'd have to pick at random. They have to pick the best on some criteria, and no matter what it is, the wealthy will be better prepared to meet it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it does, especially OOS public universities. Anyone who says it doesn't is a fool or in denial.

Not relevant. Most publics don't give need-based aid to OOS students. (yes, there are a few exceptions.)

DP. That's the point. OOS students (like foreign students) are guaranteed revenue. Which is why some states limit the number of OOS students by law (otherwise it's too tempting for the school Administration). UT Austin is limited to 10%, but 47% of the student body at the University of Michigan is from OOS or international (higher % if you include graduate school).

https://collegelearners.com/umich-acceptance-rate-out-of-state/

Anonymous wrote:Of course it does, especially OOS public universities. Anyone who says it doesn't is a fool or in denial.

Not relevant. Most publics don't give need-based aid to OOS students. (yes, there are a few exceptions.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

Wealthy families create stronger applicants. I don't think a single person would dispute that.

So, then it effectively it works the other way around? They know that the very strongest applicants will be rich, and to keep from being 100% rich kids, they give a certain percentage of poorer kids a “hook” for being first generation college, etc. when they do this, they have capped their exposure to scholarship kids at that level. So, for these schools, it’s not really “need blind,” it could be more accurately described as “need aware,” but only if you’re in the top % of poor kids that they’ve given a hook.

Of course it does, especially OOS public universities. Anyone who says it doesn't is a fool or in denial.

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

How do they know this? If you don't apply for financial aid, how does the school know family income?

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

Wealthy families create stronger applicants. I don't think a single person would dispute that.

This is an interesting study that the NYT did regarding the income of student families at competitive universities.

This is Brown, but you can click in any of the schools and see their detailed stats.

The median parent income at Brown for the class of 2013 was $204,000. 19% were from families making over $630,000. 70% were from families making over $110,000. And these stats have changed very little since 1980.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/brown-university

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this why so many schools are dominated by foreign students, because they are full pay?

Also, "dominated" is a bit of a stretch. Most selective US colleges have a percentage undergrads who are internationals in the teens or lower. Not many colleges have more than that - a couple are in the 20s (U Roch comes to mind).

That’s true of you only look at undergrads, but if you include graduate students, there are a lot that are above 20%, and more than you’d think in the 30’s. Carnegie Mellon is at 40%.

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this why so many schools are dominated by foreign students, because they are full pay?

Also, "dominated" is a bit of a stretch. Most selective US colleges have a percentage undergrads who are internationals in the teens or lower. Not many colleges have more than that - a couple are in the 20s (U Roch comes to mind).

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this why so many schools are dominated by foreign students, because they are full pay?

I don't think it's that simple. There are plenty of full pay domestic students. The international ones who are accepted may be some combination of better students academically and more interesting. It is more difficult to be accepted at selective US colleges as an international than as a domestic student.

Isn’t this why so many schools are dominated by foreign students, because they are full pay?