<p>I dont really get this. Im probably gonna be at UChicago next year and although I dont have to much of a problem paying for the 50,000 or so, I dont understand why the fa at chicago is so bad. I dont consider it a college(like harvard) that people will take huge loans to go to regardless of the price tag. Its yield is never high in any given year, yet it seems to dish out very little to its prospective students. With a 4 billion dollar endowment, shouldnt the fa be a tad bit more reasonable?</p>
<p>My financial aid was pretty decent. Still have to take out some personal loans, but they're given me almost 40k.</p>
<p>I feel like it's really not that bad, but there's just a vocal minority perhaps? I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but I would like to know what data you're using to make your conclusions :)</p>
<p>Colleges only start getting generous when they hit the 30 billion mark (cough Harvard cough) jk. I'm wondering this as well.</p>
<p>There is a facebook group devoted to the "bad" aid.
Facebook</a> | Login</p>
<p>Tragic. I will also admit that I went through a scare last quarter concerning financial aid and personal loans and the outrageous interest rates and whatnot, but contacted the financial aid office and they were pretty helpful in finding somewhat of a solution to the problem.</p>
<p>Let's just hope that the Oddysey</a> Scholarship Program will help alleviate the financial burden on us UChicago students.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, I think the FA at Chicago is excellent compared to most schools. Chicago is one of a small number of schools that are need-blind in admitting students and guaranteeing that 100% of demonstrated need is met. (From my understanding "demonstrated need" and "meeting it" are hazy concepts).</p>
<p>Schools that tend to offer better FA packages include Ivies, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, AWS (superelite liberal arts colleges), in-state state schools, and schools that tend to be generous in non-need-based merit aid. (For an applicant competitive at UChicago and other superelites, these schools could include USC, WashU, Michigan, NYU, Vanderbilt, etc.). </p>
<p>The info about Ivies plus giving better aid is purely anecdotal... my friends who are on financial aid, got into Ivies, and turned them down for Chicago (and feel comfortable sharing this information) all say that the Ivies and other schools gave them better aid.</p>
<p>Here's a list of need-blind schools, courtesy of Wikipedia. As you'll see, it reads like a Who's Who of elite colleges. Chicago is on that list.</p>
<p>Need-blind</a> admission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>
how effective is need-blind admission if at the end of the day those needy students dont get the fa necessary.my critiscim comes only from seeing my fellow '12ers, and it is supported by the previous posters. also, theres a facebook group that hates the chicago fa office; i dont think its nothing more than a tiny minority.</p>
<p>I see your point. The 100% of need met statistic is an extremely misleading one, as the "demonstrated need" is not necessarily your need, and a school can decide to meet that need with loans, which is nice, but not great.</p>
<p>Students are dissatisfied with the FA office, sure, but I tend to think that FA offices at most schools are disappointing places (with the possible exceptions of schools like Yale and Princeton, where it seems like they have more money than they know what to do with).</p>
<p>It's upsetting to me that not everybody with Chicago smarts and Chicago yearnings can come to my school. But I also know that a lot of great people set up shop at schools that are affordable for them and they have an intellectually and socially stimulating experience. (I've kept up with some of my fellow 2010 applicants, who are at schools like UT-Austin and OSU, and they've been doing ridiculously amazing things intellectually and are having a good time).</p>
<p>I hope the Odyssey Scholars (and matching gifts program) will make college more affordable. The University is trying to help as much as it can, but the operating costs of a school like ours are absolutely enormous, and have to be considered too.</p>
<p>For Current/past Students:</p>
<p>did your financial aid packages change much after freshman year?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The University is trying to help as much as it can, but the operating costs of a school like ours are absolutely enormous, and have to be considered too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see why Ivies (many of which have smaller endowments) can be able to afford to give better financial aid than ours, then.</p>
<p>A while ago, I got into a fight with some idiot from another thread (I don't use that term lightly) who claimed that Chicago had the best aid out of all of the Ivies except Harvard. According to him (and his "evidence" from CollegeBoard), Chicago had the best total financial aid, as CollegeBoard explicitly states with its statistics. And it does!</p>
<p>Unfortunately, he didn't look at the fact that Chicago gives out a hell of a lot of loans which are treated as financial aid, and we give out more loans than any other school in the top 30 (CollegeBoard has this documented as well). When all the data was taken, I concluded that Chicago gave about $2k less than rival schools, and we have a higher tuition than nearly all other such schools. Chicago really does have an awful financial aid department, and we could definitely afford to give students a bit more money. (Hell, we've received over 2 billion in donations in the past 2 years... to say that we don't have enough money to better our financial aid is a bunch of ********.)</p>
<p>This may be a very naive observation, but I dont see how loans even count as financial aid, or how they help the student at all. I mean, couldnt we all just get loans outside of UChicago's FA offers? How does something you have to pay off later on help anyway? It's like saying "heres alot of money so that you can afford college, but oh yea dont forget to pay it later on". I just dont see how that is "aid".</p>
<p>My guess (this is just a guess) is that Chicago spends more money on research than other schools and is at the top of spending money of professor salaries. There might be other issues, too, like relatively low alumni giving rates. But those are all just guesses-- I don't know enough to say anything for sure.</p>
<p>Unless your family is extremely well-to-do, a private college is going to be relatively expensive, and be a drain on your resources for a goodly number of years.</p>
<p>For better or worse, colleges do consider loans as aid. Many of our kids quality for subsidized loans - and if you are familiar with the effects of compound interest, that is very helpful indeed. </p>
<p>From what I have seen, the students that have the most difficulty with finaid are those whose folks have a pretty good combined income and assets (including home equity), and have not saved a great deal for college (with reasons ranging from the Lexi in the drive to medical expenses). Families in this situation may be expected to pay full freight, or close to it. If the students work and borrow, and the parents can (and are willing to) borrow and cut back on vacations, home remodels and so on, the kids can go to a pricey school - or choose a less expensive option and save the money. </p>
<p>Our experience is that the Chicago aid is good - but our EFC is NOT easy for us pay. I suppose that I don't see this as a contradiction because I have some idea as to the overhead involved in running a research institution and because I recognize that if we lived more modestly the tuition would be easier to manage.</p>
<p>If you come out of school with a great education and a ton of loans I don't see how you could give any money back to the school any time soon. It'll take you years to get on your feet. No wonder it doesn't rank high in alumni giving.</p>
<p>i agree.my basic points are
1)Why not better aid to attract cross admits?
2)Loans are aid?
3)COMEON UCHICAGO!</p>
<p>unalove, I'm not sure how much of their own money institutions put into research. You would think most money came from the government or industry. That would be an interesting subject for a thread.</p>
<p>actually, i read somewhere ( I am having trouble finding the link) that most of the donations that they receive are marked for research spending and fellowships. the 2 billion dollar iniative that they met, about 1.2 billion was marked for research and about 490 million for financial aid.....(I forgot about the rest).....</p>
<p>490 million for financial aid...i mean comeon, spend 5 million and help out your students for gods sakes</p>
<p>For those of you that are familiar w/Chicago aid, could you tell me if this is typical?</p>
<p>I got my finaid estimate, and it leaves about 37k unpaid (to be paid by my parents and I). My parents make ~100k, so this would be almost half of their post-tax income. (In other words, unless this changes, I cannot go to Chicago.)</p>
<p>I know that Chicago "meets 100% of need," so I'm scared that my EFC is 37k, and thus I'll have to go to an in-state school. So what I'm thinking is that either a)this is typical of UChicago aid, b)this is typical of top private schools' aid, c)the finaid office messed up (this is the unlikely one lol), or d)I messed up when I filled out the CSS Profile (if this is the case, is there a way to fix it?)</p>
<p>I want to go to UChicago more than just about anything else, so I am quite upset with the Finaid people right now. Any comments/advice/whatever else would be appreciated (sorry this post is so long).</p>