<p>“… but that just doesn’t explain what we saw.”</p>
<p>Curious: What did you see? That packages at one school differed across applicants, or your packages from various schools differed, or something else?</p>
<p>Both, really. We saw substantially different aid packages from 100% needs met schools. And although I do not have direct evidence, I am absolutely convinced that the FA package we received from one school was far more generous than what most people with a similar financial profile received. This school did not offer institutional merit awards, and D has none of the standard hooks, so there is no logical explanation for the FA other than preferential packaging.</p>
<p>For the former, different schools use different formulas, such that there can be significant differences in full need awards. For the latter, the particular formula in use can cause significant differences for various students at a given school, even though, e.g., household income might be similar.</p>
<p>Home equity is sometimes cited. Schools A and B can treat it differently, resulting in significant aid variations. At school A families C and D might have the same income but different assets which could make a difference.</p>
<p>It’s not to say that preferential packaging doesn’t happen, but it’s hard to know it’s a factor unless the school says it can be, and even then it’s just a maybe.</p>
<p>Von, I understand your reply; it is pretty much the stock explanation, and understandable given the pertinent info I left out. I don’t want to compromise my privacy, but I would be interested in your take on whether this school is practicing “preferential packaging”, or you can envision a “standard FA calculation” for the following:
Upper middle class income
Liquid assets, retirement assets, home equity above norm for this income range
No debt other than mortgage
No out-of-norm expenses </p>
<p>CSS profile school. FA package contained no merit, but satisfied a need that was far greater than FAFSA- calculated need, which I’ve often seen referred to in this forum as a “best case”. Did contain a small amount of loans and work study, but even without these the grants alone far exceeded FAFSA-specified need. </p>
<p>Still a maybe?</p>
<p>If the operating-income-per-student ratio (usually tied to endowment) is higher than average, it could be normal for this school (a few schools are “wealthy”). If not, you may have received a packaging benefit. </p>
<p>If you overheard other families feeling like you do, it could be normal, but if you heard moaning, you may have received the benefit. It’s hard to tell.</p>
<p>As I’m sure you know, there are a very few schools that are known to give aid that is based on a very generous formula, and for these schools FAFSA-calculated need would not be considered a best case. The reach schools D applied to were wealthy, and met 100% of need, but did not have a reputation for being exceedingly generous. And maybe that’s the way they want it to be perceived. Who knows? My guess is that there is more of this “poaching” going on than is acknowledged. Unfortunately, this isn’t a strategy to plan around, since two years later I couldn’t really tell you why she hit the jackpot, just very thankful and appreciative.</p>