Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
April 17, 2026
The Dartmouth

Opinion Asks

Most College policies generate some mixed opinions among the student body, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one with such a unanimous opposition such as this. It’s also disastrous for our international appeal — Dartmouth’s name brand isn’t huge outside of the United States in the same way a big research university like Harvard University, Columbia University or even Duke University’s brand is.

A need-blind admissions policy for international students is a crucial way for us to compete against these schools in attracting applicants from, well, most of the world, since most of the world can’t afford the sticker price of a Dartmouth education. The College’s excuse that “most other schools don’t do this, so it’s okay” looks rather paltry.

Will Alston ’16

The two principal arguments for doing away with need-blind admission for international students are both somewhat backward. Claiming that the decision to revert to a need-aware policy will bring greater stability to the admissions process — by allowing the admissions office to be “more strategic throughout the entire cycle,” as claimed by interim dean of admissions and financial aid Paul Sunde — makes little sense. Similarly, describing this move as part of a larger effort to encourage more international students to apply to Dartmouth is bizarre.

The College has been need-blind toward international students for eight years and maintained such a policy for American students for more than a quarter-century. As a result, there are more than enough data to accurately predict the financial aid budget. In fact, this is exactly how Dartmouth has been able to continue to offer a need-blind policy for as long as it has — by being able to anticipate these numbers based on previous admission statistics.

In other words, need-blind admission for domestic and international has proved “stable” enough over the past 25 years and eight years, respectively — and the process for predicting the budget has arguably become more accurate during every year of this period — so why should this suddenly prove to be a problem now?

More importantly, it seems cutting need-blind admissions would have the exact opposite effect of the stated goal of bolstering the number of international applicants. Why the College would claim otherwise, I don’t know. Beyond this, to cite the fact that only five other schools are need-blind toward international students to support this latest shift is odd. Shouldn’t this make it that much more important for Dartmouth to remain need-blind? Sending the message that the College no longer considers international students to be a high priority would certainly defeat any goals that it has of expanding its global appeal.

Paul Harary ’18

I am one of the many international students who would never have applied to Dartmouth had it not been for its need-blind policy. College spokesperson Diana Lawrence’s flimsy justification that the change constitutes an attempt to “increase and stabilize” the international population on campus is an affront to a community that already faces enormous hurdles in applying to U.S. colleges and, once they arrive, in adjusting to life in a foreign culture. With the new policy potentially barring international students of lower socioeconomic status from gaining admission to this college — and certainly making them think twice about applying — ceteris paribus, Dartmouth ceases to be in the privileged company of the few colleges courageous enough to extend equal opportunities of education to non-U.S. citizens.

Min Kyung Jeon ’16