Colleges eliminating loans for needy students?

<p>I know there is a slowly growing trend among some universities to completely eliminate loans for students demonstrating financial need. My understanding is the criteria for demonstrating need varies by school, but is usually under about $75,000/year family income, give or take.</p>

<p>I know that Northwestern University doing this. I've also read (but can't confirm) Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Duke, Amherst, Davidson, Penn, also do the same. </p>

<p>I would love to hear from you if you know of schools that eliminate loans for needy students. So far I've only been able to confirm Northwestern. Also, does anyone know if they base this need on adjusted gross income? </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Check out this site Project</a> on Student Debt: Financial Aid Pledges</p>

<p>lafayette: Lafayette</a> College - Financial Aid</p>

<p>Richmond: Group</a> proposes free education for students whose families make less than $75K</p>

<p>I think these "no loan" financial aid pledges are going to be hugely important to a lot of families in these uncertain economic times. People have seen their investment portfolios and home equity shrink. Some have lost jobs or face uncertain prospects of retaining theirs. College loans may be hard to secure in the current credit crunch The total dollar figure on the financial aid package (grants + loans + work/study) may no longer be enough. A lot of people are going to be looking at "net cost of attending": COA less grants/scholarships. Loans are just a self-help financing mechanism, not a reduction in cost per se. Same with work/study, IMO; it's money you need to work for, and at most schools students can get pretty much the same jobs and same income whether it's counted as part of the FA package or not---it's money you're contributing to your own education.</p>

<p>I think the chart below is pretty revealing, and perhaps surprising:</p>

<p><a href="http://projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/Pledges_Analysis.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/Pledges_Analysis.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>At the $20,000 and $40,000 family income levels, the University of California system (in-state) is actually more expensive on a net COA basis than any of the private colleges listed here. </p>

<p>At the $60,000 income level, the UCs are about as costly (net COA) as many top privates, but still more expensive than any of the Ivies, Stanford, or Caltech. </p>

<p>At the $80,000 income level, there's wide divergence among the privates, ranging from a low net COA of $6,048 at Yale to a high of $26,120 at Northwestern. The UCs are in the middle of the pack at $19,828, about the same as schools like Amherst, Bowdoin, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Davidson, Haverford, Pomona, Williams, and Wellesley.</p>

<p>At the $120,000 income level, Harvard, Yale and Princeton are less than half the cost of other privates. At $25,039, the UCs are costlier than HYP but significantly cheaper than other private schools. </p>

<p>At the $160,000 level, most privates expect the student and family to pay full COA, generally just under $50,000. The UCs are roughly half that, at $25,039. But Harvard at $20,000 and Yale at $22,878 are still the cheapest options, and Princeton is only slightly more than the UCs at $26,171.</p>

<p>At the $200,000 level, all privates except HYP are at full COA, again nearly $50,000. At half that price, the UCs are by far the cheapest option, but Princeton at $31,129 and Yale at $31,810 (and possibly Harvard, data n/a) are much closer to the UCs than to the other privates (including such heavy hitters as MIT and Stanford).</p>

<p>Individual results may vary depending on assets, age, family size, etc. I think these figures call into question a lot of common generalizations about college costs and financial aid. In-state publics are not always "financial safeties," especially at the lower end of the income scale. At the higher end of the income scale, in-state publics certainly ARE financial safeties. But the assumption that private schools are more or less alike in their financial aid policies is also wildly wrong. Harvard, Yale and Princeton are far more generous than other privates in their grant aid (and therefore have the lowest net COA) at every income level, even up to $200,000, and by a surprisingly wide margin. Private schools are cost-competitive with publics (assuming the UCs are representative) up to an income level of about $80,000; above that level, the costs of privates far exceed those of publics, except for HYP which stand as a special category.</p>

<p>I went to Northwestern back in the 80s and they had fantastic financial aid then! I've always felt that it was cheaper to go to a great private school (especially those known to be financially generous) than it was to go to a state university. It is surprising more people don't know this. I'm glad the elimination of loans is a growing trend.</p>

<p>^ But your comment suggests it's ALWAYS cheaper to go to a private school with good financial aid. The data flatly refute this (see link in post #5). It's true that Northwestern has pretty good financial aid. But compare the net cost (COA less grants/scholarships) of Northwestern versus the University of California system (in-state) at different income levels:</p>

<p>$20,000 annual family income
Northwestern $4,500
UC system $9,160</p>

<p>$40,000
Northwestern $6,311
UC $10,306</p>

<p>$60,000
Northwestern $12,570
UC $13,815</p>

<p>$80,000
Northwestern $26,120
UC $19,828</p>

<p>$120,000
Northwestern $44,146
UC $25,039</p>

<p>$160,000
Northwestern $49,779
UC $25,039</p>

<p>$200,000
Northwestern $49,779
UC $25,039</p>

<p>Bottom line, if your family makes $40,000 or less, Northwestern is clearly cheaper, about $4,000/year cheaper--a significant sum at those income levels. If your family makes $60,000, it's nearly even, only about $1,200 or so cheaper at Northwestern. Above that income level, it becomes a lot more expensive to go to the private school---about $7,000/year more if your family income is $80,000, almost $20,000/year more if your family income is $120,000, roughly twice as much if your family income is $160,000 or higher. You may still decide it's worth it, but you can expect to pay more for the private school if your family income is above $70,000 or so. Ironically, then, it's the relatively more affluent, those with family incomes above $70,000, who will find the public schools the biggest bargain.</p>

<p>^ Also note that these figures vary widely for the public schools. The referenced website doesn't have complete data for the University of Michigan, but it might very well be the case that it's ALWAYS cheaper for a Michigan resident to attend Michigan than Northwestern, at any income level. The in-state COA at Michigan is listed at $21,657. Net COA at the $20,000 income level is calculated at $2,520 for Michigan---about $2,000/year cheaper than Northwestern at that income level. </p>

<p>The University of Florida is even cheaper:</p>

<p>$20,000 income
net COA = $20 (approximately $4,500 cheaper than Northwestern)</p>

<p>$40,000 income
net COA = $1,510 (approximately $4,800 cheaper than Northwestern)</p>

<p>TOTAL COA = $14,437 at U Florida
TOTAL COA = $49,779 at Northwestern
which means that those with higher incomes will pay roughly $35,000/yr more to attend Northwestern</p>

<p>bclintonk -- Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy in my remarks. I was speaking from personal experience and not from fact, so I'm glad you corrected me. </p>

<p>My experience was clearly individual. My father had passed away a couple years prior and my mother had limited income and savings. Also, I was unaware until recently that some state schools (such as CA) have such high in-state tuition. Your post is very easy to understand and helpful.</p>

<p>It's important accurate info is posted here, so thanks again for correcting me. I would hate to think I misled any students or parents.</p>

<p>A generality is not necessarily going to go for everyone. There are some schools that are notoriously stingy with aid, but there are people who have done well with them. Because a school does not guarantee to meet 100% of aid or is not need blind does not mean that there are not some kids who may get more that 100% of need from either of them. I've seen all of these scenarios play out along with kids getting their measliest package from the schools with the most generous reputations.</p>

<p>for the record, brown has actually eliminated all loans for incomes at or below 100k</p>

<p>If the students' parents are each paying their EFC, why do some students get their student loans eliminated and not all students? It is unfair to eliminate student loans for some and not for others.</p>

<p>Dartmouth has eliminated loans as part of their need based FA for all students. Families with incomes under 75k pay no tuition.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that just because a school has eliminated loans (these are just loans that they would have given you as part of meeting your demonstrated need) does not mean that you may not have to take out a loan (to help meet your EFC, for room and board, or other misc. items.</p>