Imagine a student who has always had his heart et on attending a certain college. He has all the necessary credentials: a stellar resume, a terrific grade-point average, a strong application, and some very laudatory letters of recommendation.

He sends in the application and waits until the day when he will hear back from his chosen school. When the letter arrives, the news is bad. He has been turned down.

What went wrong? One word: money. Because the student did not have enough money to cover the costs -- room, board, tuition, and books -- of attending college, he was rejected.

A few years ago, this situation was rare. Colleges and universities prided themselves on having "need-blind" admissions policies, where the financial status of an applicant is not a factor in the student's acceptance or denial.

But now faced with rising tuition and financial aid costs, some colleges and universities have had to abandon this dearly-held principle of college admissions. In its place, a new trend has emerged called "need-sensitive" -- a policy that contradicts a longstanding ethos among colleges to admit and provide education for all qualified students regardless of their economic status.

There are those who say that colleges have been forced into need-sensitive policies because of decreased government aid and other factors. But some find the trend alarming because many parents are not aware that their college-aged children have limited access to a prestigious university -- or even an average college.

"We're not sure that a lot of parents -- African-American parents, particularly -- are in the loop," said Joyce E, Smith, Associate Executive Director of the National Association of College Admission Counselors (NACAC). "Parents come to me and say, `I know we'll get a scholarship!' That's just not the case anymore."

According to a 1994 study of admissions practices conducted by the organization, between 8 and 9 percent of the 584 colleges and universities responding said they have need-sensitive admissions policies. Of those with need-sensitive policies, 43 were private institutions and four were public, four-year institutions. Three need-sensitive respondents did not describe themselves.