Athletic scholarships

Parents Forum
41

<p>Emeraldkity (the OP) noted that many kids who are athletes ended up at schools where they could have gained entrance without their sports. That does happen often. In my experience, I have seen kids go to schools on scholarship that are clearly safety schools and sometimes not even a school that would have been considered by the student had it not been for the sports scholarship and playing opportunities. I can give numerous examples of this occurring.</p>

<p>More often, the kids we know end up at schools that would be reaches for them (or anyone sometimes when we are talking about the most selective schools) and go on the XYZ (fill in the family name) Scholarship. That is what we did; pay for an athletic scholarship for our son. </p>

<p>There are not that many athletic scholarships available in selective schools. If you want to take the trouble, list the names of the schools you would want to attend, and then get find out how much athletic money is given. NOt a lot. I know if my son had applied to schools where he would have been a top athlete on the team, he might have gotten money, if the colleges were D1,D2 and had money for his sport, but every single one of those colleges were very much safety schools for him, and nothing that would have attracted his attention unless he was using the scholarship possibility parameter as his sole limiting factor. He was a contributing athlete right from the get go at his school (tops in his sport in D-3), but he only got one scholarship offer which was from a catholic school that was his safety. I don't remember if it was truly an athletic scholarship or a merit award or a combo, but he did not get a dime in offers from any of his other choices.</p>

42

<p>I am claiming that Ivy schools DO NOT use the Federal EFC to calculate aid as shown in the Brown webpage and Fafsa. The Fed EFC only applies to Fed aid. Schools also can use grants vs loans and all sorts of combinations to meet the need. Would you prefer a grant or a loan?</p>

<p><a href="http://financialaid.brown.edu/Cmx_Content.aspx?cpId=77%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://financialaid.brown.edu/Cmx_Content.aspx?cpId=77&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.fafsa.com/profile.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.fafsa.com/profile.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I am claiming that Ivy schools DO NOT use the Federal EFC to calculate aid as shown in the Brown webpage and Fafsa.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, what do we have here:</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is important that you understand how we arrive at the EFC, as Brown University awards financial aid to supplement, not to replace, your family's ability to pay. The Expected Family Contribution is calculated using two standard methodologies for needs analysis: Federal Methodology and Institutional Methodology. </p>

<p>However, there are situations where the IM calculation may actually be lower than the FM calculation due to slight differences in the tables and indexes used to calculate the contribution. *Given that Brown awards federal funds, we must use the higher FM calculation in such instances. *

[/quote]
</p>

44

<p>"Here's one reality that the most 'naive' cannot circumvent: schools that ONLY offer need based aid cannot reduce the federal EFC."</p>

<p>Gosh, maybe they can't. And I AM naive. But I have personal, firsthand experience of a need-based-only school doing so. And not for an athlete. But how they managed it is anyone's guess, and I'll have to admit, as naive as I am, I wasn't particularly interested in finding out how they did that trick. It's amazing how folks all of a sudden can become poorer in April than they were in January. ;)</p>

45

<p>The quote indicates that in most cases they use the IM. Only in some cases does the FM come into play where the IM calculates a lower EFC.</p>

46

<p>As to those nasty foreign athletes</p>

<p><a href="http://www.uwbadgers.com/sport_news/mbb/headlines/story.html?sportid=116&storyid=10708%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uwbadgers.com/sport_news/mbb/headlines/story.html?sportid=116&storyid=10708&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

47

<p>Another big-time athlete goofing off waiting for the NFL draft.</p>

<p><a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/17/old.school0423/index.html?eref=si_writers%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/17/old.school0423/index.html?eref=si_writers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

48

<p>Barrons, I feel compelled to add my Brady Quinn plug. He graduated with a finance/political science degree in 3 1/2 years so he'd have this semester to train & do combines, pro-days, and all the showcasing that helps in the draft position. Like Thomas, he's no dope.</p>

49

<p>Barrons, what's your point? </p>

<p>Your opening salvo was an indictment that elite schools needed to 'lower' the bar to admit great athletes. Now, you are posting that athletes can be great students too! Are you arguing against yourself? Others have made the point that athletes can be good scholars!</p>

<p>Do you simply love to contradict yourself, as you did with your 'revelation' on financial aid?</p>

50

<p>Actually my opening post dealt with why women's crew had so many scholarships. Midway through the discussion turned to athlete admissions at elite schools.
My revelation about aid was more correct than your reading which pointed only to the Federal amounts which are not even used by the elite schools in most cases as they compute their own using more factors. I brought up the collusion case because many here are probably not even aware of it and it still impacts aid at elites schools.</p>

<p>Obviously my point is to counterpoint your painting of all athletes with a broad brush that does not hold up when you start looking at individuals.</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
My revelation about aid was more correct than your reading which pointed only to the Federal amounts which are not even used by the elite schools in most cases as they compute their own using more factors. I brought up the collusion case because many here are probably not even aware of it and it still impacts aid at elites schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not at all, Barrons. Your understanding of financial aid at institutions that use the IM or Consensus Approach remains vague. I'm afraid that you do not realize that it is impossible to apply for financial aid without filing the FAFSA, and thus obtaining a SAR or Federal EFC. Every school that receives and distributes federal funds is bound by the governmental restrictions. Why do you think Brown wrote that they cannot use the IM's bottom number if the number is lower than the FM's EFC? In so many words, they cannot give more money than the difference beween the COA and the FEDERAL EFC which is called FINANCIAL NEED. As far as NOT using the FAFSA or Federal EFC, it is obvious that the schools would not be able to compare the figures of the two methodologies if they did ... not use it.</p>

<p>It is obvious that the COMPOSITION of the financial package can differ from one school to another (more grants, less loans, smaller work-study or smaller summer earning expectation) but, except for authorized corrections to the original filing of the FAFSA, the Federal EFC remains the minimum family contribution. This is WHY I wrote that they cannot lower the Federal EFC, and accordingly lower the minimum family contribution. </p>

<p>As far as the current presence of overt or covert collusion, is your fear that schools would use the "flexibility" to offer MORE money to some or to LESS aid through the powers of a quasi monopoly. Again, I am not sure of this relates directly to the athlete-scholars at elite schools, and particularly at the Ivies.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Obviously my point is to counterpoint your painting of all athletes with a broad brush that does not hold up when you start looking at individuals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, Barrons, that is simply NOT what I wrote, and I am pretty sure you know it too! Contrary to 'painting' everyone with a broad brush, I wrote, "Elite schools do indeed accept a percentage of athletes who may have 'lesser qualifications' when looking at specific criteria. That is why schools use a holistic approach that balances the elements from 'lesser' to 'world class.' In addition, schools look at candidates and account for their environment to measure them against their peers. Adjustments are made for more than athletes, as similar adjustments are made for SES conditions." </p>

<p>I wrote that in DEFENSE of student-athletes, in an echo to MOWC's post. My issues are with the cynical system that exploits student-athletes, not with the victims of the system.</p>

52

<p>"It is obvious that the COMPOSITION of the financial package can differ from one school to another (more grants, less loans, smaller work-study or smaller summer earning expectation) but, except for authorized corrections to the original filing of the FAFSA, the Federal EFC remains the minimum family contribution. This is WHY I wrote that they cannot lower the Federal EFC, and accordingly lower the minimum family contribution."</p>

<p>I can't tell you HOW they did it; but I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that we received an offer from a need-blind, 100% of need, no merit aid, 568 school where the financial package had us paying less than our Federal EFC. No - the difference was not in the composition, but in the actual amount. As to whether "they" made corrections to the original filing, I wouldn't know (and frankly didn't care.)</p>

53

<p>xiggi:</p>

<p>I also know a recruited tennis player at P'ton that has a great package, but yet their federal efc is ~0! (Dad's a surgeon and mom's a corp attny.)</p>

54

<p>bluebayou,</p>

<p>Exactly what is that "great package?" Please, share the details.</p>

<p>Also, I thought EFC of 0 means they don't expect you to contribute anything. How would surgeon and atty parents achieve that unless they were both un- or under-employed?</p>

55

<p>It's in the $10k range, which, for a top three percenter, is "great", IMO.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
I can't tell you HOW they did it; but I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that we received an offer from a need-blind, 100% of need, no merit aid, 568 school where the financial package had us paying less than our Federal EFC. No - the difference was not in the composition, but in the actual amount. As to whether "they" made corrections to the original filing, I wouldn't know (and frankly didn't care.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Mini, had they made a correction to your FAFSA, you and your daughter would have received an alert and a new copy of your SAR. Further, you can obtain copies of the past SAR at the fafsa.ed.gov site. </p>

<p>Increasing aid beyond the sum of financial aid and EFC would mean the COA is also exceeded; this represents a violation of federal guidelines. On a side note, this is an issue that (often) complicates the disbursement of outside scholarships, and has resulted in the development of alternatives practices such as the direct purchasing and donation of computers by the scholarship organizations. Don't take my word for it: google "federal guidelines of college financial aid." If I am wrong, I'd be in the good company of about every college I checked, with the probable exception of Hillsdale College in Michigan. However, I doubt that it was on the list of the 'SAT bubble queen!' Of course, it may simpler to follow the guidelines of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Higher Education Amendments of 1992 provide a single
methodology for determining the Expected Family Contribution
(EFC) and cost of attendance (COA) for all SFA programs,
beginning with the 1993-94 award year. Need-analysis and COA are
discussed in Chapter Two, Section Two. If the student's COA
exceeds his or her EFC, the student has "need."</p>

<p>Before awarding aid from campus-based programs, the aid
administrator must take into account aid the student will receive
from other SFA programs, and other resources that the
administrator knows about or can reasonably anticipate at the time
aid is awarded to the student. A financial aid administrator may not
award or disburse aid from a campus-based program if that aid,
when combined with all other resources, would exceed the student's
need.</p>

<p>Maximum aid from Financial Aid from other SFA
Campus-Based programs = Need - programs & resources</p>

<p>If the student receives additional resources AT ANY TIME
DURING THE AWARD PERIOD that were not considered
in calculating the student's eligibility for aid, and these resources
combined with the expected financial aid will exceed the student's
need, the amount in excess of the student's need is considered an
overaward.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Changes to the FAFSA are done under the authority of a school's financial aid administrator to make adjustments to the data elements on the FAFSA. This means that you have a new verifiable and verified EFC. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) does not provide families with a place to explain special circumstances affecting their ability to pay for the student's education. The Federal Need Analysis Methodology (FM) is likewise a rigid formula, with no provisions for exceptions. </p>

<p>To remedy this, Congress has delegated to the school's financial aid administrator the authority to compensate for special circumstances on case-by-case basis with adequate documentation. As the man or woman in the field, the financial aid administrator is best able to evaluate the family's situation and to make appropriate adjustments. </p>

<p>Professional Judgment refers to the authority of a school's financial aid administrator to make adjustments to the data elements on the FAFSA and to override a student's dependency status. The school does not have the authority to change the need analysis formula itself or to make direct adjustments to the Expected Family Contribution (EFC). Instead, the school may make adjustments to the inputs to the formula. The changes to the inputs are dictated by the impact of the special circumstances on the family's income and assets. The standard formula is then applied to the new data elements, yielding a new EFC figure. </p>

<p>The decision of the financial aid administrator is final. There is no appeal. By law, neither the school's president nor the US Department of Education can override the financial aid administrator's decision.

[/quote]
</p>

57

<p>Oh naive Xiggi. For every regulation there are 50 lawyers and accountants finding ways around them. Just give it up. No school is pure as the driven snow. Most of us can accept that and move on.</p>

58

<p>Exactly what I expected from you, Barrons!</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
the whole "athletic" preference/scholarship complaint is overblown.
... Not even a discernible ripple in the pool of D1 school admittees.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Harvard has more than 40 Division I NCAA sports teams. This means that something between 15 and 25 percent of the enrolled students are either recruited athletes or students who don't reach the recruitment threshold but don't reach the academic median either, and are admissible only because strong athletics make them prospects for varsity sports. </p>

<p>Those students are not the ones taking the most advanced and difficult courses as undergraduates; they overpopulate the large intro and survey courses where they might number 25 to 40 percent. This has a definite downward gravity on the level of instruction in those courses; you cannot teach a class at a level that you know in advance will be over the head of every third student.</p>

<p>Speaking of Harvard, it now claims to reduce EFC to <em>zero</em> for families below $60K, which is certainly below the Federal FAFSA calculation.</p>

60

<p>"This means that something between 15 and 25 percent of the enrolled students are either recruited athletes or students who don't reach the recruitment threshold but don't reach the academic median either, and are admissible only because strong athletics make them prospects for varsity sports."</p>

<p>For purposes of the admissions process, there are only two categories of athletes--those who are recruited and those who aren't. Athletes who are not recruited (and thus do not have the support of the relevant coach) are not given special consideration in the admissions process.</p>