<p>PS sorry if that post came off as combative, i'm actually from chicago too :p</p>
<p>chi town represent 8)</p>
<p>elsijfdl,</p>
<p>
[quote]
ok, at the same time i'll prove that the SAT scores posted are true, that NMS numbers listed on their website are true, that the acceptance rate they posted is accurate. You don't operate from a position where you have to "prove" the information reported by a university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hard, numerical data is difficult to dispute. However, how does one meet such a vague guideline such as "100% of demonstrated need"? Regardless, the general perception seems to be that Chicago is extremely stingy when it comes to financial aid, even more so than the Ivies, which are oftentimes aggressive when it comes to aid packages. It seems to me that "100%" is a flexible term to go by, and I think that was phuriku's point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, maybe you are an international student and your judicial perspective is different, but here in the United States of America we operate from the assumed standard of "innocent until proven guilty," and it's a pretty strong standard because it's the same one used by the United Nations ICJ and the ICC for all international disputes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>phuriku is actually a domestic student who will be matriculating to Chicago next year. Forgive him, he's a mathematician. By simple logic, it is much easier to demonstrate Chicago's finaid loopholes than to clear it of all accusations. All phuriku has to do is find one counterexample to the "Chicago meets 100% of demonstrated need" statement, and I think it's easy to see that there are many cases out there where Chicago is very stingy.</p>
<p>Oh wait, isn't this scenario conveniently similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" adage?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago says it meets 100% of financial need, that's the same policy statement adopted by every top school. your argument is that they're lying, and after providing documentation as to their policy statement, your rebuttal is: "they're still lying." Ok.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's be honest here. Chicago probably isn't "lying", but its job, just like with many other colleges, is to promote Chicago. I think the correct thing to say would be that Chicago tells the truth, but puts a spin on things. Certainly the finaid of every matriculated student is "met" however, what about those that don't matriculate, or choose to go elsewhere? Furthermore, what does it mean to have your aid package "met"? Does that mean you'll have enough to just squeeze by barely, or live at least a comfortable lifestyle? So many questions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the amount of merit aid handed out was just an exacerbating factor in this argument, as hardly any of the schools it competes with even offer merit aid (only duke and washu in the top 15).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, the invocation of merit aid was a trivial mention. The real argument lies with Chicago's financial aid packages, which according to a lot of people, is very stingy, and "scares" away a lot of accepted students. Contrast this to the Ivies and MIT, who are very aggressive when it comes to financial aid, and you will see that a primary reason for Chicago losing out on a lot of these cross-admits is because of the money. Ask yourself, would you rather be a 20k/year income household and go to an Ivy League for free, or have to dish out 15k+/year to attend Chicago? I think phuriku knows very, very well the answer to this.</p>
<p>I think Big Brother's post clarifies my positions rather well.</p>
<p>Financial Aid Statistics</p>
<p>University of Chicago:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 1,262
Number who applied for need-based aid: 854
Number who were judged to have need: 609
Number who were offered aid: 609
Number who had full need met: 609
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $31,141 </p>
<p>UPenn:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 2,373
Number who applied for need-based aid: 1,296
Number who were judged to have need: 1,035
Number who were offered aid: 1,035
Number who had full need met: 1,035
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $27,948 </p>
<p>Northwestern University:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 2,062
Number who applied for need-based aid: 1,112
Number who were judged to have need: 874
Number who were offered aid: 874
Number who had full need met: 874
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $26,676</p>
<p>Columbia University:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 1,022
Number who applied for need-based aid: 598
Number who were judged to have need: 486
Number who were offered aid: 486
Number who had full need met: 486
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $31,935</p>
<p>Dartmouth:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 1,075
Number who applied for need-based aid: 650
Number who were judged to have need: 522
Number who were offered aid: 522
Number who had full need met: Not reported
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $30,712</p>
<p>WashU:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 1,461
Number who applied for need-based aid: 994
Number who were judged to have need: 592
Number who were offered aid: 581
Number who had full need met: 581
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $27,621</p>
<p>Yale:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 1,321
Number who applied for need-based aid: 803
Number who were judged to have need: 595
Number who were offered aid: 595
Number who had full need met: 595
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $30,125</p>
<p>Princeton:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 1,228
Number who applied for need-based aid: 784
Number who were judged to have need: 675
Number who were offered aid: 675
Number who had full need met: 675
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $29,443</p>
<p>Stanford:
Full-time freshman enrollment: 1,648
Number who applied for need-based aid: 963
Number who were judged to have need: 702
Number who were offered aid: 694
Number who had full need met: 534
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $30,088</p>
<p>Duke University:
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $28,532</p>
<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com%5B/url%5D">www.collegeboard.com</a></p>
<p>so much for that argument, chicago has the best financial aid of every school in the top 15 that provides data besides harvard.</p>
<p>Please tell me you copied && pasted that^^
&& didn't type it by yourself</p>
<p>I think Big brother owns Elsijfdl.</p>
<p>What does Financial Aid Package mean though? It's $31000 plus, but is that loans, all grants, work-study, etc. What is the composition of that?</p>
<p>That information can be found on College Board. For Chicago:</p>
<p>Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $31,141
Average need-based loan: $4,690
Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $26,356
Average non-need based aid: $9,171 </p>
<p>This excludes the loans students typically take out to make up the difference - EFC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please tell me you copied && pasted that^^
&& didn't type it by yourself
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i'll let that remain a mystery ;)</p>
<p>and yes, the breakdown can be found on collegeboard.com knightshield</p>
<p>If you get a chance, look at collegeboard.com and compare the average loans (which are included in the financial aid package). Chicago's approaches $5,000, and no other college comes close.</p>
<p>Let's take Columbia vs. Chicago for an instant, especially appropriate since Columbia is probably a healthy rival in the admissions process (you used Columbia as an example yourself, elsijfdl).</p>
<p>Chicago:</p>
<p>Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $31,141
Average need-based loan: $4,690
Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $26,356
Average non-need based aid: $9,171 </p>
<p>Columbia:</p>
<p>Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $31,935
Average need-based loan: $3,187
Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $29,771
Average indebtedness at graduation: $7,903</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>Whoops, Columbia's ACTUAL (non-loan) award is more than $3,000/year more than Chicago.</p>
<p>But why don't we look a bit deeper?</p>
<p>Chicago's tuition: <a href="http://collegeaid.uchicago.edu/cost.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://collegeaid.uchicago.edu/cost.shtml</a>
Columbia's tuition: <a href="http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/feesandexpenses.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/feesandexpenses.php</a></p>
<p>(Let's be generous and give $1,000 to each Columbia student for transportation expenses.) So... Chicago's tuition is more than $2,000 higher than Columbia's. That makes the total difference between universities an average of $5,000. That's quite a lot.</p>
<p>Some LACs</p>
<p>Pomona: 15.8%
Claremont McKenna: 16.2%
Swarthmore: 17%
Williams: 17.4%
Amherst: 17.5%
Bowdoin: 18.7%
Davidson: 22.1%
Middlebury: 23%
Barnard: 28%
Kenyon: 29%</p>
<p>
[quote]
so much for that argument, chicago has the best financial aid of every school in the top 15 that provides data besides harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>elsijfdl, if you're going to quote the data, then you have to list the ENTIRE data set.</p>
<p>I only invoked the Ivies and MIT as examples, so here we go:</p>
<p>University of Chicago:</p>
<h1>Average need-based loan: $4,690</h1>
<h1>Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $26,356</h1>
<h1>Average non-need based aid: $9,171</h1>
<h1>Average indebtedness at graduation: Not reported</h1>
<p>MIT:</p>
<h1>Average need-based loan: $3,556</h1>
<h1>Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $27,516</h1>
<h1>Average non-need based aid: Not reported</h1>
<h1>Average indebtedness at graduation: $17,956</h1>
<p>University of Pennsylvania:</p>
<h1>Average need-based loan: $2,785</h1>
<h1>Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $24,291</h1>
<h1>Average non-need based aid: Not reported</h1>
<h1>Average indebtedness at graduation: $20,927</h1>
<p>Columbia College:</p>
<h1>Average need-based loan: $3,187</h1>
<h1>Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $29,771</h1>
<h1>Average non-need based aid: Not reported</h1>
<h1>Average indebtedness at graduation: $7,903</h1>
<p>Dartmouth:</p>
<h1>Average need-based loan: $3,481</h1>
<h1>Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $27,089</h1>
<h1>Average non-need based aid: $450</h1>
<h1>Average indebtedness at graduation: $21,561</h1>
<p>Yale:
* Average need-based loan: $1,530
* Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $27,902
* Average non-need based aid: Not reported
* Average indebtedness at graduation: $14,306</p>
<p>Princeton:
* Average need-based loan: Not reported
* Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $28,209
* Average non-need based aid: Not reported
* Average indebtedness at graduation: $4,965</p>
<p>Harvard:</p>
<h1>Average need-based loan: $3,425</h1>
<h1>Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $33,015</h1>
<h1>Average non-need based aid: Not reported</h1>
<h1>Average indebtedness at graduation: $9,717</h1>
<p>This means UChicago has on average, a smaller, "actual" financial aid package than all of the other Ivies with data except UPenn. I've never considered loans and work study, the other components of the financial aid package, to be "real" financial aid since students can only get the work study money IF AND ONLY IF they work - which is basically just like having a part-time job anyways, and loans are expected to be paid from your future paycheck - and are oftentimes a nuisance to handle with. Anyone looking at financial aid will undoubtedly find the average scholarship figures much more relevant.</p>
<p>But regardless, look what you've done. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but you've distorted the data from your previous post, only listing the top portion of the Financial Aid data from each of the colleges. This is precisely my point about the colleges, that they spin the truth just to boast their strongest points to prospective students. As I've stated before, it's Chicago's job to promote Chicago. All I'm saying is that you have to be careful about what colleges and advertisers in general, put in front of you, and interpret that data to get the real answer - not what they want you to believe. Besides, what does it mean to "meet 100% of need"? You have to think about these things.</p>
<p>^^^ you have to also look at what percentage of the student body is receiving that aid.</p>
<p>Chicago: 48%
UPenn: 43%
Northwestern: 43%
Columbia: 47%
Dartmouth: 48%
WashU: 39%
Yale: 45%
Stanford: 42%</p>
<p>Chicago likely has slightly lower average aid because it is providing aid in more cases to affluent students, or at least to a higher percentage of the student body.</p>
<p>More importantly, notice the number next to all of those schools for "average percent of need met" ... the answer is 100%. financial aid imbalances do not play a role in cross-admit battles like you imply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
financial aid imbalances do not play a role in cross-admit battles like you imply.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? Financial need and EFC are determined in different ways by different schools. That is why people can get into two peer top schools that meet 100% of need and end up picking one based on a better FA package.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^^ you have to also look at what percentage of the student body is receiving that aid.</p>
<p>Chicago: 48%
UPenn: 43%
Northwestern: 43%
Columbia: 47%
Dartmouth: 48%
WashU: 39%
Yale: 45%
Stanford: 42%</p>
<p>Chicago likely has slightly lower average aid because it is providing aid in more cases to affluent students, or at least to a higher percentage of the student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your conclusion is silly. Dartmouth, Columbia, and Chicago all have about the same percentage, and we see that Dartmouth and Columbia have much better financial aid than Chicago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
More importantly, notice the number next to all of those schools for "average percent of need met" ... the answer is 100%. financial aid imbalances do not play a role in cross-admit battles like you imply.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We've already discussed this. I'm not going to reiterate myself (again).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh? Financial need and EFC are determined in different ways by different schools. That is why people can get into two peer top schools that meet 100% of need and end up picking one based on a better FA package.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i was speaking on a macro level. because as the data unequivocably shows, financial aid is comparable across all top 15 institutions, there is no clear winner besides harvard.</p>
<p>AND, schools with indisputably worst financial aid programs (northwestern, stanford) regardless maintain higher yields than uchicago, further supporting my argument that uchicago's low yield is not a result of inadequate financial aid packages, but rather a result of simply losing cross-admit battles based on appeal.</p>
<p>which goes back to my ORIGINAL claim that uchicago does not have a "self-selecting" applicant pool, the argument that is commonly made re: its high acceptance rate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago likely has slightly lower average aid because it is providing aid in more cases to affluent students, or at least to a higher percentage of the student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh that's just great, and then leave people like phuriku in a 17k/year household to pay 18k/year (I believe he told me it was 21k without the Pell) for an education. That's really great. But then again, I don't see how providing more aid to affluent students should actually lower the financial aid average, unless this is at the expense of providing aid for poorer students. This is certainly going to raise the average more than providing little or no aid to these wealthy students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
More importantly, notice the number next to all of those schools for "average percent of need met" ... the answer is 100%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that was precisely my point. Why do these schools put that? Is it because "100% of the need" was met? Really?</p>
<p>
[quote]
financial aid imbalances do not play a role in cross-admit battles like you imply.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You better believe it does. Chicago, as shown, is not as aggressive as it could be when it comes to financial aid. Chicago also has a lesser brand name than say, one of the Ivies, so ceteris paribus, students will choose to attend an Ivy. BUT should the school choose to be much more aggressive with financial aid, then it could possibly win over more of the cross-admits. This is the path Caltech has chosen because it knows it loses a large percentage of its cross-admit battles, and that's why you see Caltech being extremely aggressive these days with both merit, and financial aid packages. The data speaks for itself:</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology (<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com%5B/url%5D">www.collegeboard.com</a>)
* Full-time freshman enrollment: 233
* Number who applied for need-based aid: 179
* Number who were judged to have need: 124
* Number who were offered aid: 124
* Number who had full need met: 124</p>
<pre><code>* Average percent of need met: 100%
* Average financial aid package: $27,702
* Average need-based loan: $1,503
* Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $26,303
* Average non-need based aid: $29,399
* Average indebtedness at graduation: $5,365
</code></pre>
<p>Look at the average indebtedness figure, which is probably second to Princeton's. Also look at the merit scholarship averages - quite impressive. Just a little bit of money (relative to the university's total endowment) can go a long way to getting more and better students. I know Caltech got some better students this year because of their proactive initiative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see how providing more aid to affluent students should actually lower the financial aid average
[/quote]
</p>
<p>not more aid, more cases of providing aid to affluent students, ie: students with less need, thus lower aid packages, thus bringing down the average aid grant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You better believe it does. Chicago, as shown
[/quote]
</p>
<p>as shown by what? surely not the specific data just posted.. you mean by your own anecdotes and supposition?</p>