<p>Good for generalities, but the "averages" are not so helpful for those seeking particulars, and whose family situations are not average.</p>
<p>Again, a market opportunity waiting to be filled for some knowledgeable enterprising researcher.</p>
<p>A simple algorithm for top colleges is take the amount given out in need-based grants (which you can find in the Common Data Sets), and divide by the total number of matriculants (also reported in the Common Data Sets. What you end up with is an algorithm that combines the generosity of the grants with the number of people actually receiving them.</p>
<p>but again, mini, that would be average per student (which the Kiplinger site also provides). Doesn't account for differences in level of need.</p>
<p>(Nor do merit aid differences account for differences in merit -- let alone for awards which are combinations of both)</p>
<p>Individual institutions, on their websites, sometimes give info such as: "The largest need-based grant in the last admission year was _______, and [3, 30, 300] of those were granted." That's much more helpful than extrapolating general numbers from other general numbers. The problem is that most public sites don't provide such info at all; for those that do, the search effort in general is inefficient, hugely time-consuming. (Hence, the invitation to a job opportunity)</p>
<p>"but again, mini, that would be average per student (which the Kiplinger site also provides). Doesn't account for differences in level of need.</p>
<p>(Nor do merit aid differences account for differences in merit -- let alone for awards which are combinations of both)"</p>
<p>True. Needy students don't attend if a) they don't get in, and b) they can't afford it if they do. So the question then becomes "value for whom" - and value is in the eye of the consumer.</p>
<p>What this algorithm does is show how much money the school has actually budgetted to meet need, and the number of students given the opportunity to take advantage of it.</p>
<p>I have actually done some sample calculations. They don't look very different than they did two years ago. Most, but not all, have grown at about the same rate as full-freight costs have risen - some, Amherst and Princeton in particular - a little more than that, as the impact of institutional decisions is now being felt in all four classes. There continue to be some outlyers on the low side - Brown in particular. Note that I've only looked at about 22 schools, and some of them don't post the CDS for public consumption. None of the schools offered merit aid in amounts greater than 5% of need-based aid except Oberlin (and there it was lower than 10%); usually it was 2-3% or lower. Athletic funds are not included.</p>
<p>Perhaps I'll post the list later. The results - perhaps unsurprisingly - don't look very different from the "entitlement" index I posted three years ago, again with some outlyers (Amherst being the most notable.)</p>
<p>Yep, yep, Kiplinger could not stay away from providing yet another ranking. </p>
<p>Skip the "report" and check the self-sorting tables. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I look forward to Mini's numbers. I'm particularly interested to see if he still clings to the notion that Mt Holyole offers better financial aid than Harvard, and why he finds Brown to be an ... outflyer!</p>
<p>Hey, you could do the numbers yourself (if you can find Harvard's data set. ;))</p>
<p>(Preview - Brown's come in 30% lower than Dartmouth's and Yale's, and almost 40% lower than Princeton's. But this is no change from two years ago.)</p>
<p>One thing left out of such an equation is average debt. This is because (as Carolyn will well tell you), when students from upper income groups take on debt, it is more often than not the PARENTS who take on the loan, whereas among needier students, often the parents won't even qualify. Debt loads at 100% of need schools are often not what they appear to be.</p>