Tue 16 Feb 2010
Williams Ends Need-Blind Admissions for Internationals
Posted by David Dudley Field '25 under Financial Aid, Letters at 7:29 pm
To the Williams Community,
Financial aid has been much on the minds of members of the Williams community as we have thought about ways to control the growth in its cost that would align with the great value we place on having a diverse community.
The process of setting the College’s price is complicated and at odds with how the world generally works. Since we live with this system every day, we tend to forget that outside of Williams and a small number of similar colleges, there may be no business or organization that charges for its goods or services only what an individual can afford to pay. That is amazing. (More so when you consider that even the top price that is charged covers only about half of what the College spends per student.)
The system has worked remarkably well. We have been able to make the benefits of a Williams education accessible to strong students from all economic backgrounds. And, while parents do make sacrifices to send their children here, when we ask them if it was worth it, 98% say yes.
As astonishing as this system already was, it became more so when a few years ago we dropped loans from all aid packages and began to admit all international students without regard to their ability to pay.
We could take those steps because our endowment had been growing at quite an amazing rate. Since that is no longer the case and apparently will not be the case again anytime soon, the College has needed to cut expenses virtually everywhere. Given the value we place on affordability, the only exception has been financial aid, which grew again this year (by about 12%) and will grow next year.
What we have explored are ways to control the growth in overall spending on financial aid that would be consonant with our commitment to broad financial accessibility. One way was to reintroduce modest loans in the aid packages of some students. Families with low incomes will still not be expected to borrow. When, beginning with the Class of 2015, we go back to something that resembles the loan program that was in place until fall of 2008, Williams will continue to be attractive to students of all incomes and we will have a wonderfully strong and diverse student body.
This will also be true as we begin to admit international students somewhat differently than we have in recent years, beginning with the class entering this fall.
Until the Class of 2006, Williams each year maintained two pools of international applicants: those who had applied for aid and those who had not. We admitted only a few who had applied for aid. All other admitted international applicants were among those who could pay the full fee. For the last several years we admitted international applicants without regard to their ability to pay. We also let the percentage of international students in the class drift up to a range of 5% to 8% (though one year it topped out at 9%); any higher would have been financially unsustainable. This enabled us to matriculate a cohort of international students with significantly more presence and diversity, to the great advantage of us all.
But as a result, the cost of international aid in the last decade rose by more than 200% (more than $4 million). In the College’s changed financial situation, that rate of growth is unsustainable. One way to reduce it would be to have fewer international students. But no one wants that and no one wants it to be the case that all of our international students are able to pay the full fee.
The way to avoid either of those outcomes is to use intelligently some form of need-awareness for international applicants. This does not mean going back to the two-pool system in place before the Class of 2006. It also does not mean that the Financial Aid Office will compute the need of each international aid applicant and the Admission Office will then admit the most desirable international applicants until the aid runs out.
The Admission Office will know which applicants have applied for aid, as it does now, but will not know the level of each applicant’s need. The office will then look at the international pool as a whole and aim to build an entering cohort that is not only academically strong but that is geographically and economically diverse and that in terms of aid approximates a rough dollar target that will begin where it is now and grow over the years at a rate slower than it has been. This new system should result in entering cohorts of international students that roughly resemble the one that we are blessed with now and at a rate of cost increase that is sustainable. When four classes have been admitted this way the increase in our international aid budget should be about $1.2 million less than it would have been. We do not expect this change to affect dramatically the pool of international applicants, which is extremely strong.
I understand how unsettling it is for many members of our community to have to contemplate altering our aid practices somewhat. Even with the changes we have adopted, however, the system by which Williams determines how much to charge aided families will still be among the most generous in the history of higher education, as it should be, and among the most amazing anywhere in the broad economy. And we will continue to serve and to benefit from a wonderful and diverse community of students.
With regards,
Bill Wagner
Interim President
My comments later.
In other news, Williams is bringing back the quota for Jewish students.
• Email| « Hail, Hail, Ephdonia … | More Maintenance! » |
15 Responses to “Williams Ends Need-Blind Admissions for Internationals”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
Ronit says:
Disappointing.
February 16th, 2010 at 7:48 pmJoe Foster '94 says:
Yep. Applications from Daewon may well be down next year.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:23 pmRonit says:
Unlikely to stay that way for long. Need-blind admissions was the strongest card Williams had to play in attracting top international students.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:25 pmParent '12 says:
I agree with Ronit that it is disappointing. I know that my Eph would not have met and become close friends with many students from all over the globe if not for the current policy. Unfortunately, I can see how aid to internationals has become a luxury.
Dave- How did you get this “to the community” letter? Usually, this type of letter is emailed to parents. What was your source?
@Joe Foster ’94:
It sounds to me that Daewon students shouldn’t be dissuaded from applying. At this point, the specifics are very vague. And, I question whether they will be clearer later.
I would guess that the ultimate result is “just” that Williams will be need-aware, but not as open or clear cut about the procedure as they were before the class of 2006. Whom will be treated as if it were the current policy appears very hazy.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:53 pmkthomas says:
@Ronit:
Of course, I believe in building an international, “global” Williams, and my target for international students would be somewhere between 25 and 33 percent.
That said, if being need-blind is our strongest card– we’re somewhat lost in the woods.
I know the hopes– somewhat well. When I ran the boarding house at Deep Springs, it was one of the places where the remote phone relay rang– as well as in the main office and the post room.
Many a morning at four-thirty, I’d be preparing breakfast when we got a call from someone, somewhere in the world, — collect– who had learned of Deep Springs and that it was free.
I wish I had a log of their names! Because they were all, interesting human beings, with hopes and dreams and aspirations, often remarkable.
And even with a hungry college to feed– one could take a little time to explain and guide, as I could. (A few, here and there, made it to Deep Springs).
Now I’m not a Fortress Europe or Great American Lifeboat sort of person– I’m sitting in a nation that is not of my birth, as guest, continually amazed by what it has to offer (as well confronted with its problems).
But– as here in Mexico– there are economics. And the world is changing– actually it has already changed.
The figures David has presented are clear– and there’s no reason that Williams, like many other places, shouldn’t be receiving a premium over domestic admissions, for international ones.
Nor why that cannot pay for increased admissions of international students with need.
But first– you have to attract the students, who have the money to spend. Williams has to be known, outside of places like Daewon (no offense meant)– it has to be a recognizable thing, where it matters, from the Sorbonne and Humboldt, to the universities and high schools of the far east and elsewhere.
Did David say something about first mover advantages?
February 16th, 2010 at 9:03 pmRonit says:
@kthomas:
Then there’s also no reason why Williams shouldn’t be receiving a premium from out of state students over in state students, or white students over black students, or female students over male students, or Jewish students over Christian students, either.
After all, your citizenship is as much an accident of birth as your race or gender.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:10 pmkthomas says:
@Ronit:
I may have touched a nerve there, I didn’t mean to touch. But don’t get me wrong.
There is a reason– differential pricing– for charging particular groups, to fund a vision like this.
The New Europe– and other pockets around the world– is now rich. This is likely to accelerate. We’d really have to deal with this in terms of scenarios– to maintain its position, Europe must have a surge of growth of new business entrepreneurship, which it has planned on, in the next two years– but the New Europe is full of wealth– and willing to spend that wealth, on education, to put it bluntly.
By New Europe– I mean the Schengen Area, the Confederation, which stretches to the borders of the Russian Federation and may soon enough include it.
Regardless– well, I’m simply putting pricing inside the US on hold– if you’re a family living in Tokyo or Buenos Aires, and your income is twice that of a US family, and you have similar expenses– I think you should pay more. This nothing to do with nationality or citizenship.
What if your family income/resources are ten times that of a family in the US, though? What if your income is two million dollars per year, roughly?
If you have those resources– and your child is qualified– I want your child– and I think it’s worth it– but I want you to pay. Up to the actual cost, and perhaps beyond. And I want you to understand why it is worth it– what you are paying for.
Why not?
February 16th, 2010 at 9:26 pmRonit says:
@kthomas: I have no problem with making wealthier families pay more, regardless of citizenship. Children of billionaires shouldn’t be limited to paying the measly amount that Williams charges them.
Why not just put 10 seats up for auction every year and use the proceeds to fund more financial aid?
February 16th, 2010 at 9:30 pmkthomas says:
@Ronit:
Well– once we get to billionaires–
But there are more moderate measures. Let’s say we’re talking about those whose assets are only in the tens or hundreds of millions–
I don’t think you lower the bar. But I think you can say– look, you have all this money– we’re not willing, in that situation, to subsidize your child’s education. We don’t think that’s fair– we think you should be paying up-front for the cost of the seat. (We can negotiate; it’s your money– it can be a donation– you can direct it to specific things, or be involved in this way or that…).
Yes, you can go somewhere else, but… but you’re not going to get, what you can get here. Because…
It’s the “buts” and the “becauses” that really matter there. You have to be able to convince people that– it’s worth it. That there’s some greater value.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:40 pmJr. Mom says:
Thanks for the chuckle, P’12.
As for the letter, what a whole lot of words to deliver what comes down to very disappointing news.
February 16th, 2010 at 10:37 pm'10 says:
Ken, Ronit: I’ve always assumed that someone in the administration has run the numbers and concluded that the parents of billionaires (or multimillionaires, etc.) tend to voluntarily donate enough money to Williams that to actually charge them the extra $30k/yr or whatever would be a sort of counterproductive insult.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:06 pmkthomas says:
@’10:
Thanks for the comment.
That may be (is) the case in regards to the US and the current target market. In the future… well, it’s worth thinking about again.
In this case, what I want to think about, is a radically more international Williams and how to fund it.
And so presume you’re talking to someone who can afford a $4M apartment in Venice, as a vacation home… and who has little experience of this US-American world of colleges, and how its funding and financing goes– but who does have a little business experience.
I think you can say to that person– we hope you will give, as other parents have given, but we have no experience of that. But our cost is $90K/year. We think you should pay that, or a good portion– or more.
We’re not going to waste that money– it’s not going to go to more of the same– it’s going to go, to building a truly international Williams, where your child learns and works with young students from around the world, connected to the rest of the world.
And there is no other place in the world, where your child can get that education. The advantages are obvious– and we want you to be a part of building it. This is a lifetime relationship we’re creating.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:13 pmEphman98 says:
’10 @11 — easy to find out the answer to your assumption — just find out how many Williams families contribute to the parents/annual fund, and what is the average gift? That is, 50% or so of families do not receive aid, but get that $30k “scholarship” created by the endowment and annual giving. Are you assuming those 50% of families contribute annual at the level of $30k? Doubt it, and those who do contribute, some/many put restrictions on their gifts so they don’t go to subsidizing the total cost.
Someone know the parents’ participation rate in the annual/parents fund? Would wager it is less than 50% and the average gift is less than $30,000…by far.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:45 amNellyS says:
Need-blind admissions for international students has led to a big increase in applications that may now disappear. However, I have personally seen a lot of abuse of the financial aid process abroad, and Williams and other colleges don’t have the resources to do their due diligence. Someone who reports a $60,000 income in Jamaica or Honduras might have guards, drivers, maids, a beach house, and even a Mercedes SUV in the garage, while I with student loan debt up to my eyeballs am asked to donate to the fund the diversity effort.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:19 am'10 says:
ephman: I’m sure you’d win that wager, but I don’t know if it would prove anything. Of the 50% of families with EFCs above ~$55k (i.e. those not receiving aid), only some much smaller fraction would have EFCs above ~$85k; the rest would not be paying the full $30k, so it’s not as simple as (1000 students * $30k = lots of $$$). And of course you can’t just compare the lost tuition income against gifts to the parents’ fund during the time the student was at Williams, since there are many other ways of giving – you’d also have to have some idea of whether the increase in tuition would reduce future giving by the student, etc. – it’s probably not an easy thing to forecast.
I’d think the bigger issue with raising tuition would be that it could drive the richest families away from Williams altogether, since even if Williams is better than Amherst, it might not be $30k better than Amherst even to a rich family. If the number of full-fare students applying were to drop significantly as a result of a tuition hike, then the average EFC of the applicant pool (and thus of the admitted class, assuming need-blind admission) might even decline overall, meaning that the tuition hike would actually lose Williams money since revenue would decrease. Add in possible effects on voluntary giving, and I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to think that Williams would not benefit financially from raising its sticker price. I’m not saying that this is actually the case, since obviously we don’t know any of the actual numbers, and a lot of these effects are hard to predict. I’m just saying that I can imagine that things might work out this way.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pm