College revisits need-sensitive admissions

Since 1993, when the General Faculty passed a proposal to end need-blind admissions, there have been hotly contested hypotheses on the impact the change would have on the student body.

Director of Admissions Debra Chermonte has always denied any deleterious effects of the new policy. But opponents of the change may be getting something to truly contest with the new plan to increase financial sensitivity in admissions.

In the Tuesday College Faculty (CF) meeting, President Nancy Dye addressed the faculty about the financial straits the College is heading into under the current financial aid structure. Dye began the discussion, "The financial aid universe is dead. Gone. No longer exists. It is being replaced by two other approaches."

Last year the budget was strained to the breaking point, when the college overspent $1.4 million on financial aid. This year the college spent $600,000 in aid that had not been anticipated. The budgetary constraints are growing too large for the College to absorb with its endowment. In response, Dye has proposed the implementation of a need-sensitive admissions policy that passed five years ago but has been relatively unpracticed.

"We are more and more deeply affected in material sorts of ways," Dye said. "We continue to be need-based, but the way we calculate financial aid is increasingly losing out to these other institutions."

The implications of this policy shift are far-reaching. Where do Oberlin traditions of accessibility apply? How do Oberlin values align with the policy? What are these Oberlin values?

The CF discussed these questions with Dye at this week's meeting. Dye also delivered a lengthy report on the backdrop of this new move to increase revenue for the College that moves beyond simple institutional avarice.

The financial situations facing institutions of higher learning throughout the nation are grave ones. Many colleges and universities have abandoned the universally understood definitions of "financial need" and are awarding more merit-based scholarships and grants. The full effect of this liberalization of the term "financial need" is debatable, but Dye said other schools are becoming far more competitive in their financial recruitment of top students.

One of these approaches is to redefine "financial need" and the other approach involves a greater reliance on merit scholarships as aid. In both cases, Dye believes the motives of the institutions that practice them can be less than noble. These institutions are not concerned with the larger social good.

"I'm sorry to say this. It pains me. Left to my own devices I would insist on a fully need-based financial system," Dye said. "But we cannot continue in the way we are going."

Need-sensitivity is an admission practice that proponents say will increase revenue in the College but not deny those with real financial need access to the school. Chermonte explained that need-sensitivity applies on the boundary lines of admittance. For example, in a ranked pool of 600 applicants with 50 on the borderline of acceptance, ability to pay will become a factor for those 50 students. For those applicants who are clearly desirable or those who are viewed as not acceptable, ability to pay plays no role.

With an increased number of students needing significant financial aid and a surprising increase in the number of returning students who need aid augmentation, the College believes it cannot remain need-blind in admissions.

In 1992, there were 1,434 students paying full-tuition compared to 1,029 today. The difference in revenue is significant enough to create a real pinch in the budget.

The number of students receiving aid that is greater than the price of tuition is much larger today than it was in 1992, with 225 today compared to 70 in 1992.

The College is currently working with the Admissions offices in the College and the Conservatory to find ways that will preserve strength and selectivity, maintain equitability and bring in a class that can contribute significant amounts of revenue.

Although ultimately a presidential decision, Dye opened up the discussion to the faculty and will continue to encourage discussion. "I'm struck by the increasing unwillingness of seeing debt as a perfectly good adjunct of a good education. That value is going by the way-side. I think this is very unfortunate thinking. It is also a reality. But it is something the faculty decides," Dye said.