1. alma  

    "And of the 947 students the school accepted last fall in early decision, fewer than 20 applied for financial aid, Blackburn said. About one-quarter of the school's approximately 13,000 students receive financial aid."

    It seems like these numbers indicate that, at least for UVA, the number of low-income students applying ED IS really low and their concerns are legit. Did Harvard or Princeton release similar data? UVA, being public, also has less money to give out, so I still don't buy Harvard or Princeton's reasonings yet.

    • Anonymous  

      I was about to say, "Only one-quarter of their students get financial aid?" but then I realized that if you live in-state, tuition is only $7845. For out-of-staters, it's $25,945 (not including room and board). It would be interesting to know what percentage of students there are from Virginia, and how many of them get financial aid vs. how many out-of-state students rely on it.

  2. um...  

    We are not going to switch. Grants and loans are one thing...ED is another...

  3. i dont buy

    the financial aid arguement, especially since schools give an out for students who cant afford it.

    i personally dislike ED because it creates a double standard of admission.

  4. david

    Anyone who is on financial aid realizes that an "out" option is not enough, because it defines unaffordability based on the FAFSA determination of "financial need," which everyone (not just low-income students) know is not really an accurate estimate of what families can realistically pay.

    If the opt-out option is contingent on nothing but the student's own (not Columbia's, or anyone else who doesn't really understand struggling to pay for school) judgement of his financial situation, then I'm all for reinstating eearly decision.

    Until then, good riddance.

  5. CML  

    While EA/ED don't necessarily have to create a double standard (admissions offices would have enough data to gauge the quality of their regular applicant pool as they were making EA/ED decisions, methinks), this is certainly a good change by UVA - here we see how binding ED can act as a deterrent for the underprivileged. Contrast with Harvard, where none of this is true (how in god's name is non-binding EA supposed to be deleterious at all?)


© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.