<p>
Obviously you are mistaken in your base assumption, given the fact that the OP in this thread allowed the daughter to apply ED precisely because the school was NOT full-need or need-blind. (They were told by the college staff that they were more likely to get a good award with ED) – and the other school discussed, because of a citation to an op ed from the NY Times – is also a need-aware school that does not promise to meet full need.</p>
<p>
And those of us who earn far LESS than $60K, but are self-employed, divorced & have home equity don’t have real “need”? </p>
<p>My FAFSA EFC was a number I could reasonably afford. The number the CSS Profile schools came up with were (a) wildly inconsistent, and (b) no bearing whatsoever to reality. </p>
<p>If a college decides that they are going to add non-FAFSA factors into the equation, then they are NOT meeting “full need”. They are looking for an out – for a way they can shift more of the financial burden onto some students – but the bottom line is that they have shifted the calculation from an outside, neutral arbiter (the Dept. of Education) to their own internal policies. And those policies are often highly discriminatory against some classes of needy students --see, for example, [url=<a href=“http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/96/5.23.96/divorce.html]Children”>http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/96/5.23.96/divorce.html]Children</a> of Divorce<a href=“%22Children%20who%20do%20not%20consistently%20live%20with%20two%20biological%20parents%20are%20only%20half%20as%20likely%20to%20ever%20attend%20a%20selective%20college,%20even%20after%20researchers%20take%20into%20account%20factors%20such%20as%20income%20and%20parent%20education%22” title=“[O]nly 10 percent of the students in a large class at Cornell were from divorced households. She later discovered this same proportion among the entire undergraduate student body at Cornell, compared with the national average of almost 50 percent. When only students who go to college are considered, 38 to 40 percent are from divorced families, compared with the 10 percent at Cornell.”>/url</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is clearly a situation where applying ED would be a horrid idea. There may be exceptions (e.g. Yeshiva University has an ED program which is only binding if you do not receive one of their full ride (or was it full tuition?) scholarships), but they’re exceptions. This isn’t the same financial situation as a family which is willing to pay their EFC of, say, $20k without recourse to loans. If a student from that family wants to pursue ED with the understanding that 1) an ED acceptance must be turned down if the FA package isn’t enough to keep COA under $20k, and 2) any hypothetical admissions tip from ED comes at the cost of less negotiating leverage for a subpar FA offer, then that’s up to that family. It fits within their budget. It might still mean a disappointed student. It might still mean that the student pays more for the ED school than they would have for their #2 choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:( Here’s why cynicism about ED–and about ANY promises about financial aid–is justified. It’s hard for the students to be cynics about the finances. That’s the parents’ job. Poor kid, sounds like he really thought it was all in the bag. I can’t imagine letting a student apply ED without having them ready to submit other applications in late December.</p>
<p>Because in that particular case, the kid had siblings at other LAC’s who were receiving need-based financial aid – so his parents probably had a preconceived notion of what their “need” was and what it would mean to have that “need” met.</p>
<p>But Lafayette decided their “need” was something else entirely – for example, maybe they decided to value the family home differently. That fact along could account for huge differences in calculation of aid.</p>
<p>calmom: My previous post was responding to yours in discussing the general issue of whether applying ED when needing FA is wise. I think it’s already a foregone conclusion that the OP should not have applied ED.</p>
<p>Lafayette College is, in fact, “full need,” although not need-blind (overall, not sure about ED round–some colleges do distinguish).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Apply</a> for Financial Aid Tuition & Aid Lafayette College](<a href=“http://finaid.lafayette.edu/apply-for-financial-aid/]Apply”>http://finaid.lafayette.edu/apply-for-financial-aid/)</p>
<p>
I never said that. I said that for those families with uncomplicated financial situations–and self-employment, divorce, and significant home equity are all “complicating factors” for any kind of FA–a college that promises to meet “full need” with limited loans is likely to deliver on that promise.</p>
<p>Those who do have complicating factors still have need, but that need may not be properly recognized by financial aid because the system is flawed. Hence, they should be extremely wary of applying ED because in such a situation, comparing packages may become much more important. For some families, the reward may still outweigh the risk–but the risk does increase substantially.</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, you can’t just define “full need” however you like and then declare that no college meets full need. In many legitimate situations, additional non-FAFSA information shows additional ability to pay; in the colleges’ effort to close these loopholes, they’ve also created doughnut holes of inequity. But the screwed-up FA system doesn’t change the definition of “full need,” which is, promising to meet (through grants, loans, and work) the full demonstrated need of a family according to a college’s institutional formula. The italicized part is a non-negotiable aspect of the term’s definition.</p>
<p>
Typo correction for clarity: Yeshiva’s ED program is binding only if you receive a full-tuition scholarship. Otherwise, applicants are deferred to RD. A fascinating approach, and unique as far as I know.
[Yeshiva</a> University: Admissions](<a href=“http://www.yu.edu/admissions/page.aspx?id=23060]Yeshiva”>http://www.yu.edu/admissions/page.aspx?id=23060)</p>
<p>
This would be a case of, again, parental ignorance. (Which is largely the fault of institutionalized obstacles against transparency, but that can’t be helped.) The only case in which I would dare to tentatively make assumptions about FA is if my second child was matriculating to the same school, after the first had graduated, the school had not changed its FA policies, and my own financial situation had not changed at all. The parents’ preconceived notion of “need” was wrong. In a perfect world, maybe there ought to be a required FA knowledge test for everyone who applies ED and checks the financial aid box.</p>
<p>Keil, thanks for the typo correction. Someone is scratching their head reading my original version and thinking “who on earth would go for that?” :)</p>
<p>*If a college decides that they are going to add non-FAFSA factors into the equation, then they are NOT meeting “full need”. *</p>
<p>As is often pointed out, the Fafsa is not the gold standard for calculating need. Colleges are not being unfair or unscrupulous when they devise their own schemes. After all, they are playing with their own monies.</p>
<p>shifted the calculation from an outside, neutral arbiter (the Dept. of Education) to their own internal policies </p>
<p>Arbiter? My understanding is DOE has it’s own formula to determine who qualifies for the funds it underwrites. That’s all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Common Data set says otherwise:
[College</a> Search - Lafayette College - Cost & Financial Aid](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You tell me – if the college promises to meet full need of all its students – why did they fail to fill that promise for 134 of the 260 students who were judged to have need in the year for which the stats are reported?</p>
<p>I’m not trying to give you a bad time, but the point is that the HYPE on college web sites is not always truthful. There is a reason that more than 50% of Lafayette students are not getting full need met, and we don’t know what that reason is. But most students and most parent don’t know that they have to double check statements on web sites or in brochures, or where to go to do the checking. </p>
<p>Unless Lafayette has changed its aid policies within the past 2 years, the reported statistics belie the claim of meeting 100% need. Now, maybe the issue is that Lafayette strictly enforces the January 15th FAFSA deadline – and half of its entering students get caught because of the early deadline (most colleges have a February 1st deadline, so it is an easy trap for the unwary to set up an earlier deadline, and then put the blame on the students when aid doesn’t meet expectations). </p>
<p>But that’s my point. There is a lot of HYPE in college marketing, especially when it comes to financial aid. That’s why savvy applicants will want to compare awards, rather than taking everything the college says at face value.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you think its perfectly acceptable for the college to unilaterally determine “need” by its own internal, formula? “Need” is whatever the college says it is, using whatever policies they choose to adopt? </p>
<p>That’s not “need”. I am saying that the ONLY possible fair interpretation of “need” is either a bilateral process in which both parties have input and all factors are considered; or a determination by a neutral third party, by consistent and transparent standards. The only process that exists for the second determination is FAFSA EFC – the FAFSA formula is published, it is clear, anyone can use a calculator and figure out what the FAFSA EFC is. Therefore, FAFSA EFC is determinable.</p>
<p>If the colleges adopted some other TRANSPARENT, PUBLISHED standard – then perhaps they could claim to meet “need”. Or if they disclosed their determination of “need” prior to asking for an ED commitment, maybe that would be fair – such as providing the parents with an online calculator to use that properly accounts for all of the various factors at play.</p>
<p>Calling the result of the college’s secret, self-created formula “demonstrated need” doesn’t make it so. </p>
<p>And it is overtly misleading because most newcomers to the financial aid system think that their FAFSA EFC is the governing figure. All you have to do is read the financial aid thread to see that. They are told the FAFSA is the document they need to file – the FAFSA is the ONLY document that kicks back a number for EFC – so that is what unsophisticated applicants think they are being promised when a college claims to meet “100% of need”.</p>
<p>
And they have every right to do so. But it is a LIE to CALL that meeting 100% of “need”. “Need” is not the output of a secret, unilateral formula,that the college can change as it wants to meet it’s own institutional priorities. (Colleges announce the liberalization of policies with great fanfare, but I’m sure they have ways of tightening their belts without disclosure --and I’m sure there are all sorts of ways their internal formulas can be adjusted to save money.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the college was deceitful to use the word “need”. Yes, the parents were also too unsophisticated to understand that the word “need” as used by private colleges is a big lie – but it is crazy to suggest that colleges know better than parents what their true “need” is. </p>
<p>And consumers really should become sophisticated enough that they don’t fall for that sort of framing-- but the reality is that kids and their parents are being put under a lot of pressure and most do not have previous experience to draw upon. College admissions is a big marketing game and from what I can tell, the private colleges are pretty much selling to a very gullible market.</p>
<p>“But you think its perfectly acceptable for the college to unilaterally determine “need” by its own internal, formula? “Need” is whatever the college says it is, using whatever policies they choose to adopt?”</p>
<p>Some schools use FAFSA and some use PROFILE, which has options. Maybe some use their own method. Yes, it’s perfectly acceptable for a school to use whatever method it wants; none are right or wrong. Such policies are self-correcting; if too many FA offers are turned down, the school will change the policy. This applies to ED and RD as well.</p>
<p>
I’m sure that some students do get caught by the deadline, but half seems a bit much. Incidentally, Lafayette is one of very few top LACs that does not post its CDS online. (College Board’s statistics != CDS; for these purposes, they are just unreliable enough that Lafayette can’t be held accountable.)</p>
<p>
I agree, there’s a lot of hype. Which is why, upon discovering such a discrepancy, I would email (and only call as follow-up, to get it in writing) Lafayette’s FA office about this mismatch of numbers. Or their Institutional Research office to ask for a copy of the CDS.</p>
<p>SOME savvy applicants would do best to compare awards. Others would do best to apply ED, else they might never have the chance to compare an award from their top-choice college. Both reasonable choices. If a college says something in writing and you’re interpreting it correctly, then they must answer for it.</p>
<p>
Yep, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The college determines need. They’re the ones giving you money, after all.</p>
<p>
A bilateral process is impossible, being far too easily manipulated by parents who could pay more but want to pay less. (I am NOT saying that this is true for everyone; I am saying that college FA policies cater to the lowest moral denominator.)</p>
<p>Several colleges do provide an online calculator, although the calculator doesn’t account for certain complicating factors (home equity, yes; complex self-employment deductions, no). But regardless, their individual formula IS what “demonstrated need” means.</p>
<p>
I agree, the system is misleading and unfair. That doesn’t make it magically not exist, though. For SOME applicants, these colleges’ formulas will make a fair calculation and meet all of their significant financial need. For others, the formulas will make an unfair calculation and still meet all of their need. The issue is not the “need,” but the loopholes in the formula.</p>
<p>Most newcomers believe that FAFSA EFC is what they will pay; most newcomers are, to put it bluntly, wrong. Parental ignorance is no excuse for redefining basic terms. Meeting full need is no lie BECAUSE need is defined by the college. And there are lots of colleges that, despite manipulating their own formula, still can’t promise to meet full need. It’s important to make such a distinction.</p>
<p>Most colleges are deceitful, yes; however, most colleges (there are some exceptions) do not lie outright. There, too, is an important distinction.</p>
<p>
Not crazy at all. If I were to ask a random sampling of 20 parents of my acquaintance what they thought their “true financial need” was in the context of college admission, probably half of them would–without lying–name a number between 50% and 66% of their FAFSA EFC. That’s not even accounting for the people who would knowingly underestimate for their own benefit; who doesn’t want to save money?</p>
<p>The issue is that “newcomer” parents believe their “need” is the difference between the COA and what they can easily afford out-of-pocket without lifestyle sacrifices. Colleges expect otherwise, even the most generous formulas; in a situation where neither party is neutral, the college is nonetheless more neutral than the parent, because after all, they are choosing to give away a significant amount of money.</p>
<p>I also dispute DOE as a neutral arbiter, because every year, people who are NOT low-income nevertheless receive Pell grants–by manipulating the even-larger loopholes in FAFSA.</p>
<p>If my kid got a FA award that out of sync with the awards his currently enrolled sibs are receiving from their colleges, I’d call the FA office to ask what’s the deal.</p>
<p>OP, I certainly hope you feel MUCH better about this bind you find yourself in. These posts are packed with information, misinformation,special situations and a whole lot of disagreement. One thing we can all agree on is FA IS very confusing, especially for first timers. The whole “maximize your students” application is confusing for first timers, and most CC have posted at one time or another the errors of their thinking with the first born off to college. Paying an amount not sustainable for 4 yrs or just filling out the application, not knowing all of the variables that affect a students chance to be accepted, and first born does not get into a school as highly ranked as they might of, had the parent been more “strategic” with the application and the process. Second child, they KNOW, for better or worse. So, let yourself off the hook. D1 being smart, should read this thread to understand why you both find yourself in this pickle. </p>
<p>AS for ED rejection, and the fall out of it, in Calif. very few students apply ED to High ranked schools. Only tippy top ( and I mean the TOP students in the school, the district, and probably the state.) Or athletes which I am not addressing here. So it’s ED or EA to Top 10-15 schools, with the shining light on Stanford. Ed/EA rejections come in, the other seniors have just finished their UC and regular decision top 30 “shoot the moon” applications. Dec 15 rolls around and a bomb goes off in the 2000+ High ranked public school. Not just that school, but the rival HS which half of their middle school friends have attended but they are in close contact with thanks to Facebook. The results go viral- the kids KNOW who is top, who is naturally gifted- especially the kids on the AP track. Students who get the good Boy/Girl A’s are discounted. They know who is tops in the herd. And they get rejected? Not even wait listed? One or two who have a musical hook, or something truly special, get accepted, but a number of near perfect SAT’s and Perfect ACT scores w/ 4.5+ GPA’s and NMF; the whole shabang, get REJECTED. The whole senior class is affected, and goes into a mini death spiral. Fear sets in, and stays until March when RD AND UC’s announce- and it is really hard on these kids. In March, the slaughter continues, but there are triumphs too, and it is over in about a two week span. Lots of company, lots of tears and lots of support from their peers. March turns out ok because of this. Dec. just kills the senior year out here because few kids apply to mid range privates for merit aid because they can’t be sold on the mid west, the south, or upper NE, small town, small LAC. The top students have the UC’s to fall back on, and most want to stay in CA. As for financial aid, most assume they don’t qualify, which is true in most cases. It costs a lot to be a family in a top rated school district and do the EC’s. However, very often they have not one cent extra- witness our 600,000+ foreclosure rates in CA.</p>
<p>Final factoid on FA. The UC’s are a wonderful laboratory for FA analysis. These are the facts, known personally to me from a family member I helped with FA and college apps. COA at UC is AVG 28,000- family EFC-O per FAFSA. UC results come in. Now, most top kids check almost all of the boxes 1)Cal and UCLA are the prize out here and who knows right? 2) Acceptances throughout the system are crazy and unpredictable these past 4-5 years because of competition and the ECONOMY. So must not assume anything, even if you are the AVERAGE 4.0 (phrase coined by my husband- hilarious!) 3) Last year the UC started waiting lists. 4) By checking a box, the kid might get multiple acceptances which feels good.</p>
<p>Results- UC is one institution. Uses only FAFSA EFC, does not count home equity, and single or divorced parents do not have to get the non-custodial parent to play ball. The FA packages for 6 of the accepted campus varied by a huge amount. Some with grants from 5,000 (Cal grants vary and are not know until Aug when budget signed, or not) up to Grants which included- Federal, State, and Blue and Gold (UC grant) of $21,000. On top of that, some Pell grants awarded, some not, some all subsidized Staffords;some only 1500, the rest unsubsidized and parent plus. Some work study, some not. Same system, same student, 6 different results that varied wildly. I was stunned. </p>
<p>That is FA stripped down and equalized as much as possible.</p>
<p>Ok, it is out here in CA, and we don’t quite fit in at CC, but I thought it might help the debate and OP.</p>
<p>^Very interesting contribution to the discussion, OlympicLady! I think what happened with the UCs is a combination of merit aid (which can improve need-based) and UCs not guaranteeing to meet full need. I always thought it was a pity that none of the UCs have a good track record on meeting need, since several of their public U peers–UMich, UNC, UVA, W&M–do meet full need for at least in-staters.</p>
<p>"OP, I certainly hope you feel MUCH better about this bind you find yourself "</p>
<p>I don’t really see it as that much of a bind. We tried for her top choice and it probably isn’t going to work out, she’ll be disappointed, so we move on. We turn down the package and look at the other schools we’ve applied to, what’s the problem?</p>
<p>I am not following a lot of the arguments being made, some terms and acronyms I have to look up. Due to our EFC being higher than the tuition at almost all the schools she’s applying to (except the school we applied ED to), I didn’t expect to get any financial aid from anyone. </p>
<p>One poster said it’s a foregone conclusion that the OP (me) should not have applied early decision. It’s not entirely clear to me why that’s true, assuming it is. I can see how in some situations it would be unwise, but not sure why our situation is one of them.</p>
<p>
Although my kids opted to attend other colleges, they did receive need-based offers from the UC’s. Although the offers left roughly a $2000-$5000 gap over and above FAFSA EFC, the awards were far more generous (and COA would have been far less) than the vast majority of colleges which accepted my kids. The other thing they had going for them was honesty – if our EFC was $5000 and the award left us on the hook for $9K, they didn’t play games about it.</p>
<p>What the private colleges do – uniformly – is hedge by shifting the “unmet need” part into their own calculation of “family resources” or whatever they choose to call it. </p>
<p>That’s why you absolutely cannot compare the UC’s records on meeting need with private schools. The cost to me to send my daughter to a UC would have been between $7000-$11K, whereas the financial aid awards from “full need” private colleges would have left us paying $15-$25K. Were we “gapped” by the UC’s? or “gamed” by the private colleges? </p>
<p>My daughter ended up attending a private college, because of the perceived quality of the college – but I don’t know what I would have felt if she had been admitted only to safeties rather than reaches. (that is, private colleges that I perceived as equally or less academically rigorous than the schools that admitted her.)</p>
<p>But one reason my d’s private college was as generous as they were was that they modified the FAFSA to make her Pell-eligible – getting our FAFSA EFC down to the $3000 range. This enabled my d. to get a partial Pell grant and a full ACG. But for purposes of their own aid, the college labeled our family resources as being in the $15K range. So for purposes of pulling federal dollars, subsidized by US taxpayers, into their coffers – they were happy to declare my daughter had a very high level of “need”. But when it came to actually parting with their own funds, their definition of “need” changed – they decided we had an extra $12K lying around. </p>
<p>We accepted the benefit of what we were offered – after all, that extra $12K came out of my pocket – but I don’t think its right that colleges use one definition of “need” for purposes pulling in federal dollars to their own benefit (after all, my daughter and I didn’t get the Pell & ACG money – it went straight to the college) – but another definition when it comes to allocating their own money.</p>
<p>Schools must use the government-generated FAFSA number for dispensing federal money, and are free to use their own calculation for dispensing their own money.</p>
<p>OP - I think the difference that I see between you and others in this situation is that you seem to be approaching it in a very calm manner. You seem very resigned to the fact that this ED admit will not work financially and that is ok - you’ll move on. And I guess if you are going to apply ED and need FA - yours is the attitude to have.</p>
<p>What is more common, however, are families that are just devastated when their child is accepted to that ED “dream school” and then they can’t afford it. The parents feel horrendously guilty - the child is beyond upset and it really causes substantial grief in the family. I have also read about and seen situations where the child did not apply to enough other schools - and they are in panic mode in January - trying to apply to more colleges while also reeling from the loss of the number one choice for FA reasons.</p>
<p>So, I’m glad for you and your D that you don’t view yourself as being in a bind. Many families in the same position turn themselves inside out trying to find a way to make it work. And this is why most families with FA needs should not apply ED - many times it does not work out and is a cruel twist of fate. But, if those who applied ED/FA had your attitude - than I guess it would not be such a big deal. If the FA is there - you attend. If not - you back out of the ED agreement. I guess it can be simple if you keep your expectations in check.</p>