Mon 31 Oct 2005
This last post on Lindsey Taylor’s ‘05 senior thesis concerns the amazing table on page 46. (Previous posts here, here, here, here and here.) Taylor provides a summary of the number of applicants for financial aid and their average award among admitted students in the classes of 2005 and 2007. Fascinating stuff. Highlights:
1) Although two years isn’t much of a sample, it is quite possible that the College made significant policy changes in this time, due both to Morty’s arrival and the changing landscape of admissions at elite schools. Students today have many more/better choices than they did 20 years ago. If Williams wants to maintain the quality of its student body, it may need to pay up.
2) Note the dramatic increase in the number of applicants (and awards) in the highest income grouping. Among families with greater than $125,000 in income, the number applying/awarded went from 103/51 to 212/90 in just 2 years! What better indication could there be that the College is giving out merit aid in all but name?
This isn’t to say that a family making, say, $150,000, couldn’t use some help, even if they have been making this much for years and years, even if they fully expect to make this much for years to come, even if they have (wisely!) followed EphBlog’s advice and used their savings to pay off the mortgage rather than putting it in the child’s name. Money is always tight, no matter how much you have.
The point is that, as recently as two (much less twenty) years prior, Williams had claimed to be need blind, to take care of the demonstrated financial need of every student. The College was either lying about this policy before or it has expanded the definition of need since. I’ll bet on the latter. Moreover, I predict that we will be seeing much more of this in the future. Excellent students are an input to the production of an elite education. If Williams wants to keep attracting them, it will need to pay for them.
3) The number of applicants/awards in the lowest income category has dropped from 57/55 to 44/42. Part of the decline, perhaps, is due to the tougher economic times of 2001. But that doesn’t make too much sense since, I think, applicants would have been required to submit income tax forms for 2000 versus 2002, and 2000 was a good year for economic growth. Perhaps the decline is too small to matter, but I still find it surprising. Imagine the Record headline: “Admissions of Poor Students Drop by 20% in Two Years”.
I suspect that both years represent a significant overestimate of the number of applicants from low income families. Note the 2 students each year who were denied any aid. One can probably divide the sub-$25,000 families into two categories: Those who are truly low-income year after year and those that just happen to have had low (reported!) income in the year of application. I don’t know how big this second category is, but the two applicants who were denied any aid presumably come from it. Divorce is probably a major part of the second category, but wise/sleazy financial planning might also play a part. Self-employed individuals have a great deal of flexibility in moving income from year to year.
4) It is simply amazing how little in loans Ephs today are required to take out. Or am I clueless about how things worked back in the day? Current students are seemingly required to take out no more than $10,000 in total loans over four years. I think that, 20 years ago, students on financial aid took out at least this much in loans, in an era when total tuition was half as much (and a dollar was worth twice what it is today).
5) As further evidence on the rise of merit aid, note that the average annual loan requirement dropped from $2,800 to $2,000. (I take this as the difference between total total award and average grant. It is not clear to me how campus jobs factor into this.) I predict that this trend will continue, that soon Williams and other elite schools will compete by offering to meet all demonstrated financial need without any loan requirements. You read it here first.
In any event, kudos to Taylor for presenting so much interesting information in one thesis. Kudos also to Morty for advising her and to Williams for making the data available. The entire project reflects well on Williams as a community of scholars.
14 Responses to “ Taylor VI: Financial Aid ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Record Assignment Desk » EphBlog
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm[...] aid is give more money to rich families, rather than to actually let in more poor families. Note my previous comments about this amazing table from Taylor’s thesis with data from the classes of 2005 and 2007. [...]
October 31st, 2005 at 8:01 am
David: I am not taking issue with a lot of what you say, but I think your conclusion that a fair % of 125K and above get aid means the College is going toward merit aid may be flawed. There are a lot of circumstances that could explain this that the chart just doesn’t show us. What about the family with income between 125-150K but with 3 or more kids in college at the same time? I think it would be easy for that family to show need. In fact, I have a friend that has triplets and one child one year older that is looking the have 4 kids in college for three years! A person like that with 125K income has a need, believe me. Also, re the loans, you may remember that about 10 years ago (maybe less) Princeton and other Ivies started forgiving loans and changed their policies to grants in lieu of loans. I think Williams probably did the same in response.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:56 am
Princeton eliminated all loans for the 2001-2002 academic year. Williams decreased its loan component shortly thereafter.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:39 pm
1) Thanks for the comment on Princeton. More info is here. Question: How does Williams do in head-to-head match ups against Princeton, especially among lower income students? If I were a poor student, I might think that a Williams education is better than a Princeton one, but I wouldn’t think that it is $15,000 better.
I would wager that almost any poor student that gets into both Williams and Princeton chooses Princeton. Wouldn’t you?
2) I just discovered, via the Alumni Fund, that the official maximum loan burden is $14,000. I think that this number was much higher 20 years ago.
3) Rich families can have money troubles, especially if they have medical problems or several kids in expensive schools. I am simply pointing out that the College is giving more and more financial aid to families that, in the past, it gave little to. That trend will continue.
4) Divide all Williams students into two categories: those that get financial aid and those that don’t. What is the difference in average SAT scores between these two groups and how has the difference changed over time?
I don’t know the answer, but unless Williams starts competing more seriously by the Princeton’s of the world, it will lose out to them in any competition for poor students. That is, some rich students will have chosen Williams over Princeton, but no poor student would.
The people that run Williams would not like this outcome, so they will do whatever it takes to compete against Princeton.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:20 pm
I am an 04 with at least the “maximum” burden…and yet some friends certainly told me they owed even more. Maybe the cap is a new thing, and I support the effort. I just hope it is true.
I wonder what the maximum cap for 04 was. Anyone of my classmates well over 14k? Maybe this is something people are shy about. I’m not.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Just to be clear: When colleges refer to debt, they are referring to student loans that make up part of the financial aid package above and beyond the family’s contribution. There is often plenty more debt that goes into the family contribution.
For Williams’ graduating class of 2004, 42% graduated with debt. The average debt was $10,753.
For enrolled students in the fall of 2004, 42% qualified for need-based aid.
The average financial aid package for those 42% was $27,840. That figure consisted of $23,809 in grants $2860 in loans, and $984 in work study funds.
These numbers are pretty consistent across most of the top big-endowment LACs, except that Williams has a lower percentage of students who qualify for financial aid:
Williams: 42%
Amherst: 46%
Swarthmore: 48%
Pomona: 53%
Wellesley: 59%
Harvard: 50%
Princeton: 50%
Yale: 42%
More full-fare students are good for the bottom line, but tend to produce a preppier, whiter student body. There’s a fine line to walk because diversity is a valued “feature” among consumers of high-end college products — which explains the institutional push for more diversity at Williams.
All of the schools listed above, with the possible exception of Wellesley, could enroll 100% full-fare customers if they wanted to, although they might have to live with a lily-white campus and a drop in their SAT scores to do so.
———
source: This data is all from the school’s Common Data Set filings, as published by USNEWS online edition.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:46 pm
HWC claims that:
I don’t believe this, in two ways. First, although 18 year olds, in general, care about diversity (?), I don’t see any evidence that, at the margin where Williams currently is, the percentage matters. That is, if Williams went from 35% non-white to 30%, would many student really find it less desirable because it wasn’t diverse enough? I doubt it. Similarly, I don’t believe that an increase to 40% would make it more desirable. Williams will always have more trouble than a city school in attracting minorities, but its current 35% non-white percentage does not matter much one way or the other.
Second, it is true that the people who run Williams want more minorities (or at least more URMs). But they do not want this because they think that this makes the school more attractive. They are smart enough to know it doesn’t. They just value diversity a great deal. In other words, even if they were certain that moving the percentage from 35% to 45% had no effect on Williams’ desirability (among all categories of students), they would still like to see it happen (all else equal).
October 31st, 2005 at 10:51 pm
People affiliated with an institution arrogantly tend to want to fashion that institution into the image that they believe is desirable, not into the image that some hypothetical typical (or average) person believes to be desirable! May we call it the “father knows best” syndrome?
November 1st, 2005 at 12:09 am
We could also call it the, “this is my school and I’ll do what I want” syndrome. Either way you get yoru point across.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:02 am
David:
Obviously, there is a shared motivation here. Both Morty and his customers understand that Williams needs to be preparing students for life in the 2005 to 2050 and beyond time frame. That life is, obviously, going to be far more multicultural and global than the last half century.
Williams has been playing catch-up. They’ve been at the 30% non-white range, while Amherst has been far more diverse for quite some time. I believe that Morty is correct in his assessment that it has been a competitive disadvantage for Williams.
Like it or not, Harvard sets the bar for East Coast schools. For the 2004-05 school year, they were at 43% non-white or non-US. Swarthmore was at 38%. Amherst was at 35%.
Williams was at 33%, up from 31% the prior year, up from 30% the year before that, up from 28% in the 2001-02 year. I don’t have Amherst’s historical data (they have very little institutional research data on their website), but Swarthmore was at 39% that year and Amherst has typically been pretty close to those numbers with a very aggressive diversity recruitment effort.
I believe that the numbers a few years ago were costing Williams — obviously not in short-term applicants, but in the perception or “brand image” of the school as being a bit white, wealthy, and homogenized.
In my opinion, and supported by comments from Williams administrators, this has been a concerted push. I think we can see it from the willingness to pay Questbridge $15k per year and a $4,000 per head commission. Diversity does not happen without a major institutional priority. It is very expensive in terms of lost net tuition revenues. Schools with smaller endowments are almost always whiter out of necessity.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:24 am
Are these plans about responding to globalism and their justification democratically communicated in detail to Williams’ current and prospective, legal and equitable “owners” for approval as a condition precedent to implementation? To the current and prospective consumers of Williams’ services?
November 1st, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Frank. Usually, yes. The typical process involves the development of a “strategic plan” at regular intervals. The plan is approved by the board of directors.
Another place to look for statements of institutional priorities would be the self-study documents prepared for the regular accreditaton reviews.
Of course, the goal for increased diversity is so ubiquitous that it might as well be boilerplate in these documents.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Has “diversity” been defined for these purposes?
November 1st, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Diversity, as used in higher education, refers to the percentages of self-reported ethnicity that appear on filings such as the government IPEDS reporting system or the Common Data Set.
An inextricably related measure is the percentage of students from each family income quintile. A reason this one is getting so much “play” lately is that the recent Michigan Supreme Court cases have required at least a thin veneer of something other than race/ethnicity for affirmative action programs to pass muster. Thus, po’ whites are included.
We aren’t talking abstractions or philosophical arguments here. It’s hard, cold numbers on the page that count. Quotas if you will, although using that term is a hangin’ offense.