<p>How does one find non need based grants?</p>
<p>nedad, I love the idea, and am willing to do the work to hunt them down. It is too bad for my son that most of them specify US schools, but I intend to keep looking right after I drop him off.</p>
<p>I am also pursuing dual citizenship to an EU country - if successful, I would be able to pay UK-level tuition for the 2nd and 3rd year of the degree, a savings of about $23K per year. Wish me luck!</p>
<p>Mini,
Do you know of any information about the percentage of full-pay students admitted ED vs. RD? From what you are saying, it would seem plausible that some of the apparent "ED advantage" in admissions would really be a "full-pay" advantage. This would have implications for how egalitarian that process is. Thanks.</p>
<p>I have no direct source for such information. It might vary school to school. It is said that at many schools the legacy advantage is especially strong ED. And legacy admit rates tend to be very high (it is 39% at Princeton, compared with 10-11% overall, and if you took out the legacies and development admits, that much lower.) If you assume that legacies tend toward the wealthier end of the spectrum, that, in itself, might skew the data. </p>
<p>It is logical, but unproven, that by accepting larger numbers of full-freight customers ED (as well as needed athletes whether or not they require financial aid), it frees up the RD round to look for the "best" candidates without having to worry about overspending the financial aid budget. In addition, it would be logical (but unproven) that candidates who wish to compare financial aid offers would be less likely to apply ED.</p>
<p>"Regarding Rice University - I believe they offer approx. 25% of their students merit scholarships (on top of having a lower cost of attendance than most top schools.) This may be why they have more students who don't need F.A. The merit scholarships are awarded w/o regards to financial need - presumably some go to "middle-income" people like us."</p>
<p>This is one strategy (like the "no-loan" policy at Princeton) that some schools use to attract upper middle class candidates ($100-$150k income), or more especially, to attract them away from schools like Princeton. It has the dual effect of raising selectivity and avg SAT scores (good for USNWR, etc.), and is generally cheaper than spending money on a middle income ($40-$100k) or low-income ($0-$40k) applicant. One would assume that such a strategy would result in fewer low-income (Pell Grant) students attending, and, in the cases of both Rice and Princeton, that turns out to be so. But it sure is wonderful to be one of the recipients!</p>
<p>I don't get hung up on "egalitarian" - it never was intended to be so, and I would be slow to ascribe ethical characteristics to a process that has always enshrined historical preferences.</p>
<p>I don't agree that kids in the $40-100K layer are frozen out of good private universities. My reasons are as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It doesn't square with my personal experience. I'm thinking of my older son's Cornell classmates and housemates and a significant number of them are the kids of teachers, other civil servants, shopkeepers, middle-managers, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>The numbers don't bear it out. The ~50% who get no aid are the "wealthy" kids. The ~15% with Pell grants/full rides are the "poor" kids. (I put these terms in quotes because the FAFSA and other financial tests don't really tell you who's wealthy and poor.) The other ~35% are the middle class kids. The statistical evidence to the contrary seems to be based on some statements by private colleges that of those who receive partial aid, many are from affluent families. That says nothing about where most gross aid dollars are going, and I'd like to see it documented in any event.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Having said all that, I would agree that the 40-100K kids are underrepresented in light of their sheer numbers in the population. But so what? Four years of fun and learning at a quality university, culminating in a prestigious degree, is something most kids would want. It's a commodity with value. So why is it surprising that the wealthy are beating out the middle class in the market to buy it? That's laissez-faire capitalism. You can't expect the colleges to live under one economic system while the society as a whole lives under another.</p>
<p>And keep in mind, the colleges DO live by a more humane economic code than the society as a whole. Nothing says they have to seek out and subsidize poor kids, but they do. Nothing says they have to give ANY need aid, but they do. Nothing says they have to charge tuition and fees that are actually less than their operating costs (thus subsidizing ALL students), but they do. And of course they've come a long way from a couple of generations ago, when good private colleges were solely for wealthy kids and a tiny handful of "scholarship boys."</p>
<p>Cornell is a huge anomaly because of its very large public component.</p>
<p>Actually, the data I have suggests that, at least at my alma mater, there is a lower percentage of students receiving needbased aid than 30 years ago. I don't know if that is generalizable. But certainly more than three generations ago, although then it wasn't a question of costs (costs were extremely low), but purely of the admissions department.</p>
<p>And I don't fault the colleges for their economic behavior. In the total scheme of things, these elite private schools make up about 3% of the total college population, and the number of middle class students attending them is tiny. (Keep in mind that characterizing the "middle" as $40k-$100k is extremely generous, when the median income for a family of four is in the 50s, and in the 40s would still put one in the "middle income" bracket.) It isn't surprising that wealthy folks beat out middle class folks in their capacity to purchase the product - the same would be true of Lexi or large sapphires. The data are meant to be descriptive, and one can ascribe any ethical characteristics to it one chooses.</p>
<p>No, my son is in the private part of Cornell and so are 90% of his friends, because he made them in classes.</p>
<p>Disagree that college costs were low three generations ago. In absolute dollars yes, but as a practical matter, the cost of private college was out of reach for all but a small upper crust.</p>
<p>But you're right, ultimately it's an ethical, maybe even a political, issue.</p>
<p>A few posters have described themselves as being in the situation we are - basically "middle class" but probably full-freight, thanks to the generosity of the grandparents. I realize that that gift from the older generation makes us technically above "middle class," except that we live a very middle class lifestyle (we drive older cars, live in a modest home, don't take fancy vacations, don't have a vacation home, etc.) I look at it as financial aid of sorts. My kids' backgrounds will be most similar to students who are on a lot of financial aid.</p>
<p>What I'm concerned about is how these kids, as well as the ones who are getting ordinary financial aid, will fit in with the wealthy full-freight kids in college. When we toured Princeton, our tour guide, who was on full scholarship, said she did not join an eating club, because it was too expensive. It seems that the socio-economic divide is more pronounced at certain schools, and that the comfort level of those kids who are on financial aid (or who would be without grandparental generosity) may vary quite a bit from school to school. I would be very interested in hearing whether this is perceived as a problem at schools we're look at, such as Brown, Stanford, Swarthmore, Williams, Carleton, Yale or MIT. (Princeton dropped off our list after the tour.) My guess is that it would be less of an issue at Swarthmore and MIT, but I don't know about the others.</p>
<p>nceph, At Williams I think the isolation is a great equalizer. Sure there are some fabulously wealthy kids there and quite a few who are upper, upper middle class; however, it is definitely not on to brag or flaunt wealth and it's difficult to judge family income when there is very little opportunity to spend money on a daily basis, e.g., no chi-chi stores, no elite clubs, no fancy restaurants. </p>
<p>When my son has taken trips with his group the policy has been to calibrate the expense to the lowest denominator so that everyone can join. He has rich friends, middleclass friends and some on very tight budgets, but the basis of friendship was formed through the entries and special interests, not through income group. Growing up overseas, he may miss social clues that would be apparent to someone looking for family income indication, but as a general statement it's been a non-issue.</p>
<p>Thanks, Momrath. That was generally my sense of Williams 30 years ago. I always thought that the setting was an equalizer and that it probably attracts students who aren't into conspicuous consumption. I have heard tales of students at other schools who have faced situations in which a wealthy roommate purchases some expensive items for the dorm room and then asks the roommate to pay half the cost. I'm just trying to get a sense of which schools on our list would be most comfortable for a regular middle class or lower income student.</p>