At Brown, the dream of diversity has in many ways been realized. The University’s student body boasts an incredible range of cultures, nationalities and socioeconomic backgrounds. Its need-blind policy for domestic students has ensured that financial constraints do not prevent talented individuals from attending the University. Last year, Brown extended this vision beyond the United States, and the incoming class of 2029 is the first to reap its benefits. Though there is reason to celebrate the University’s well-intentioned policy, for many international students coming from Asia, this strategy might not solve the problem. To truly open the doors to low-income students in Asia, Brown must consider applicants’ financial background
Prior to the policy-change, an international applicant’s ability to pay tuition was a factor in admissions decisions, leading to disparities in financial aid between domestic and international students. Unsurprisingly, those who could afford Brown’s $90,000 annual tuition often came from the wealthiest segments of their countries. In fact, 60% of international students in Brown’s class of 2027 did not receive financial aid.
Most students come from Asia, namely China, India and Korea, which are all countries that have lower national incomes than the U.S. In India, for instance, the net national income per year is $1,907. For a family to afford even partial tuition, along with the many additional costs of studying abroad, wealth is a prerequisite. As a result, international students from these regions represent their country’s elite, creating a lack of socioeconomic diversity.
The goal of Brown’s universal need-blind policy is to open doors for low-income international students. Significant structural barriers dictating educational access in Asia, however, are preventing the policy from achieving its vision. Financial aid alone is ill-equipped to solve the problem.
There is a father in India, living more than 600 miles from his family, foregoing meals to afford a tutor for his children. There is a mother in China who sacrificed a third of her income to enroll her child in an educational enrichment program so he wouldn’t fall behind. These stories reflect a troubling reality across Asian countries: Access to quality education in much of Asia is segregated by socioeconomic status. Whether or not Brown considers income in admissions, the advantages bought by Asia’s rich make competition inherently uneven.
Public education in many parts of Asia is underdeveloped, leaving gaps that parents fill with private, expensive supplementary education. In China, parents fear that their children won’t be able to compete with the opportunities hoarded by rich families. In South Korea, students’ academic achievement has been linked to socioeconomic status, with top schools clustered in affluent neighborhoods. This forces many South Korean families to invest in expensive private tutoring, despite its cost.
But even private tutoring is stratified. One parent in China paid about $90,000 to a single agent who specializes in college admission. South Koreans spent about $20 billion on private tutoring in 2023 alone. Even the middle class in India, who can afford private schools, opt to pay for additional private tutors. While some low-income families in these countries manage to scrape together money for tutoring, keeping pace with the expenditures of wealthier peers is nearly impossible.
The gap is solidified when it comes time to apply to universities like Brown. A student with access to tens of thousands of dollars of private coaching, English lessons and admissions counseling can put together a far stronger application than a more disadvantaged peer. With the immense wealth gap in Asian countries like India, true meritocracy cannot be measured in college admissions. Ultimately, it will be the wealthy of Asia who are able to afford a competitive application.
Ironically, the solution to this problem may be to move away from need-blind admissions. If Brown seeks economic diversity among its international students, it must actively consider applicants’ financial background. Beyond tuition, the University should also acknowledge the hidden costs of being a foreigner: travel, visas and other immigration expenses that further disadvantage low-income applicants.
The universal need-blind policy is by no means a bad idea. The approach might have the intended impact in other regions of the world like South America or Europe, where economic structures more closely resemble those of the U.S. But in Asia, where a majority of our international students come from, wealth determines access to quality education long before college applications begin. If Brown ignores financial status, it will only perpetuate the systemic walls keeping economically underprivileged Asian students out of our campus.
Shayyan Ahmed ’27 can be reached at shayyan_ahmed@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
