Ugh autocorrect will be the death of my sanity.
That should be wager, not water… lol
My daughter applied to only LACs, some public and some private (mainly private). None of them asked for financial information on the Common App. Certainly not about mortgage payments, assets or even number of kids in college, a business.
Look, if you are willing to pay full price, colleges don’t ask questions about your income, mortgage payments, assets, etc… If you want money from them, either in grants or scholarships, then there are a few avenues: namely need and some type of merit. If you’re going the need-based aid route, of course, the college gets to decide the amount of your need by asking for financial information. If you’re going the merit-based route, the college gets to ask for more information about academics. If you are going for music, they ask for auditions, If you are asking for art scholarships, they ask for portfolios.
And sometimes they don’t ask for anything and merit money is simply a discount that they give to whomever they chose. Bottom line is if you don’t want federal loans and you don’t a college or university asking personal financial information then you either go to your bank or use your own money.
That’s what appraisers are for—and really, they’re working more for the mortgage lender than the one taking out the mortgage. The banks may not directly set the price of the house, but they certainly do set a limit on what they’re willing to allow the price of the house to be.
I have a related question for everyone.
Does anyone know how common the following scenario is - a student gets into a college but doesn’t apply for financial aid. Maybe they get a small merit award, maybe they don’t; in any case, they are close to full pay and have good but not extraordinary stats relative to the college’s incoming class. They call the college and say something like “I’d love to come, and if you give me an additional $x thousand dollar scholarship then I’ll commit right now.” The college gives the student the scholarship to attend since the student is still paying a large fraction of full tuition and fees, but the scholarship has nothing really to do with need or merit.
In other words, does plain old (polite) haggling on price successfully take place very often?
Added (in response to blossom’s very valid points below) - I’m mostly thinking of private colleges that aren’t in the “very selective” category and whose financial aid policies aren’t strictly based on need.
Haggling- not very successful high on the food chain in terms of selectivity, easier to do as you move down.
Are you convincing Stanford to give you money “just because”? No. Can you convince XYZ college which admits 65% of its applicants, has a Freshman retention rate of 55%, and is overwhelmingly white females to give a Hispanic male candidate money “just because”? More likely.
And in both of those cases, having a higher income/assets will most often result in a lower price, as the interest rate is likely to be more favorable for those people.
It worked for my S’12 when his first choice offered less than his second choice.
Okay. As I noted in previous post, state schools do not consider ability to pay (I don’t think they can) and so if you throw them in the analysis I agree that the % of schools that use ability to pay goes way down. I would also guess the population of students in public colleges likely dwarfs that in private schools. If you mean to say that my sample, since it consisted exclusively of liberal arts schools, is not representative of all colleges, I agree. All granted.
However, just in case you thought my sample of LAC was not representative of all LACs, I decided to re-check a larger population. I chose the 50 private LACs that are ranked highest by USN&WR (& report their policies) to see if my earlier 55% was off. That sample indicates 54% of LACs consider ability to pay when deciding who to admit. Therefore, I’d say it is fair to assume that - unless you are focused on the top 10 private LACs (where only one school considers ability to pay) - then you should assume roughly half of the LAC AdComs consider your financial situation when reviewing your application.
Thanks for the push back. I didn’t state my case well in earlier post.
No. that is a TERRIBLE assumption. The ONLY conclusion you can draw from that is that roughly half of TOP LACs consider need.
The top schools are almost universally the most generous schools. THEY consider need because many of them MEET need.
Your sample is as skewed as it can possibly get with regards to aid and financial considerations.
Good grief. By this logic, the average admit rate for all college would be something like less than 20%.
@Moonshot99,
Many of the schools you’re talking about (top LACs) only consider need for a small proportion of applicants, e.g., they admit 80% of the class need blind and only consider need as they compose the last 20% of the class to avoid running over the FA budget.
There is no such thing as “need blind”, it is an illusion. Full pay subsidizes the no or little pay, period. When I say full pay it includes those taking loans. Your zip code is on your application.
People with higher income/assets will pay less only if their credit rating is higher. Generally wealthy people do have better credit ratings though. They are smarter with their money, which is how they became wealthy in the first place.
I don’t get how these two statements are related, @kollegeguy .
“Need blind” and who subsidizes financial aid have no direct relationship. “Need blind” is a policy with regard to admissions.
Ahh the zip code argument again.
0 EFC student here who lives in a 6figure + average income zip code.
“With no other product or service do you go in and fill out a form saying how much money you make, how much debt you have, whether you have a mortgage on your house, how many other children you have going to college,” said Richard Vedder, an economist and the director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. “If an auto dealer tried to get that information, they’d probably be hauled to court and accused of trying to engage in some sort of fraudulent practice or invasion of privacy.”
The problem with this analogy is that universities have a different mission than car dealers. They’re not in the same business. If they were in the business of “make the most money possible”, then Harvard would raise its tuition to $250k per year and could still easily sell out all of its seats. But if Harvard did that, its goals/mission would not be met – diversity, enrolling the smartest kids, etc. And Harvard would also lose its tax free non-profit status. Colleges use a discriminatory pricing structure so that they can (i) meet the financial budget AND (ii) meet other non-financial objectives. If there’s no margin, then there’s no mission.
The better analogy is airline seat pricing. The airline comes up with a bunch of fare rules that separate passengers into different groups which can then be charged different prices. FYI, the varying prices do tend to correlate strongly with the customer’s willingness and ability to pay, even though the airlines don’t require a FAFSA form.
Colleges divide customers into groups using ability to pay (need-based financial aid). But also by academic smarts (merit aid) since that ties to their mission.
Car dealers also don’t ask for your SAT or IQ scores. Because that is irrelevant to the car selling business. But very important to the college business.
Yeah, even by street that doesn’t work. My street has 3+ million dollar single family homes, modest capes, two-family houses and subsidized public housing. But there are always people out there who want to believe that those greedy admissions people are just out to steal money from the rich.
Steal is such a harsh word. Redistribute is much more palatable to the general public.
The first sentence is demonstrably correct. The second sentence is probably correct, though I don’t know where one would look for evidence of it. The third sentence is almost certainly correct for some (both wealthy and poor), and also almost certainly incorrect for others—I really don’t believe that you can make that sort of broad generalization without really solid evidence, which we don’t have.
People with assets can put them up as collateral, or put more money down, both of which would lower the cost. Or, they, at higher levels, can offer to pay all cash. Or they can take a 15 year mortgage instead of a 30. So no, not only if their credit rating is higher.
etc.
The discussion was about interest rates varying based on income level, so the “all cash” argument is by definition moot.
15 year mortgages have less interest rate risk to lenders, which is why rates are lower. The rate has nothing to do with income levels.
High income earners who borrow more than $417,000 in most of the country have to pay an interest rate premium for a jumbo loan which raises their borrowing costs regardless of their credit.
etc. etc.