<p>FC – No way to tell for sure, but your situation would be consistent with what I’m saying.</p>
<p>Let’s assume your kid has swanky admission stats (and so would likely get admitted to other schools as good or better than TU). TU also knows that Dad is an alumni (so perhaps your kid is more likely to want to attend TU). From demographic information, TU also knows that you probably won’t apply for need based FA. TU figures if they offer you zero, your kid will instead pay full freight at say Duke. They guess that your kid might get offered $15k at Wake or Davidson or Miami. So they offer your kid $30k at TU. FC, being a well documented cheapskate, takes the deal. TU gets $25k net from you. </p>
<p>The public data says that TU (as of 2010) had an average net price per student (after merit and need aid) of about $26k per year. So that deal makes sense for TU. They get your kid’s awesome stats (which helps in the USNWR rankings) and they stayed pretty much within their budget. </p>
<p>But if your kid needed FA on top of the merit scholly, then the math would not work for TU.</p>
<p>“The public data says that TU (as of 2010) had an average net price per student (after merit and need aid) of about $26k per year. So that deal makes sense for TU. They get your kid’s awesome stats (which helps in the USNWR rankings) and they stayed pretty much within their budget.”</p>
<p>I am assuming the net price included loans offered by the school? There is a big difference between receiving a merit scholarship for 25k, or taking out 25k in loans a year. I do not think using that statistic is relevant.</p>
<p>I’m using the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ database, which says that TU gets $26k per student defined as follows:</p>
<p>Average Net Price After Grants: Average net price paid by first-time, full-time undergraduates who received grant or scholarship aid from federal, state, or local governments, or the institution. Net price is calculated as the total cost of attendance minus the average amount of grant aid (from federal, state/local, and institutional sources). (IPEDS)</p>
<p>In my example, FC doesn’t apply for FA. So he actually pays TU $25k, which is about the average revenue per student. Whether FC finances the $25k with loans or not, he still pays TU $25k. I think my math is good.</p>
<p>What TU is searching for in all of this is how much FC is “willing” to pay to send his kid to TU vs. the alternatives. That’s related to, but not the same as, how much FC is “able” to pay.</p>
<p>I think that explanation is overly complicated, has numerous assumptions, and besides I find it hard to believe that all the data points fit so well between award size and stats and then by coincidence people happen to have all the other factors right that would make the data fit the alternative explanations. I believe in applying Occam’s Razor to this.</p>
<p>In previous years you were successful at predicting merit aid though, FC?</p>
<p>And yeah your right northwesty.</p>
<p>FC – I don’t know what that razor thing is you are talking about. But see this article about TU in the NY Times from 1997. </p>
<p>"The young woman’s $10,000 scholarship – in any other business, it would be called a discount – brought down the price of a year at Tulane to $18,700, roughly that of William and Mary, a competitor in the tier of schools just below the Ivies. Yet even the discounted tuition she is paying more than covers Tulane’s cost of educating an extra freshman. ‘’</p>
<p><a href=“Private Colleges Juggle Aid Formulas To Fill Seats With the Top Freshmen - The New York Times”>Private Colleges Juggle Aid Formulas To Fill Seats With the Top Freshmen - The New York Times;
<p>hugo - Yes, in the past it was very consistent, so by keeping track of the stats and awards of previous students I could almost always say what a student that was still waiting to hear would be offered. That is why I don’t buy the more complicated explanation, because it is exceedingly unlikely that those students would all have the same major or majors of similar interest to Tulane, and/or geography, and/or demographics, etc. That is why I mentioned Occam’s razor. It says that in the face of two or more competing explanations, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually best.</p>
<p>As far as that article, it is from 1997. I have no idea what Tulane’s policies were back then. It certainly was a simpler construct, with only two tiers, full ride and $10,000 (I wonder what tuition, etc. was back then). The article also never states that they used anything like the sophisticated segmentation northwesty is suggesting. In fact, they say that in Tulane’s case even back then it was used to attract more students with great academics by simply spreading the money around more. They cut the full rides down from 111 to 50 and used the money to offer the partial scholarships. Pure merit, as far as the article reports. Johns Hopkins figured out that they didn’t need to offer as much to students that visited campus but never acted on that information to practice scholarship (price) discrimination. They say a few other schools did use higher scholarships to achieve certain very specific aims, but in the case of Carnegie Mellon, those students are being accepted into a different school within the university. Tulane isn’t structured that way. In any case, if Tulane were doing that the data wouldn’t have tracked the way it did.</p>
<p>I also disagree with the statement that a scholarship is the same as a discount in another business. Generally speaking discounts are either available to everyone or are based on something such as volume buys. Merit scholarships are based on academic track record, they were earned. It trivializes them to say they are simply a discount.</p>
<p>Not to beat a dead horse… Although that’s one of our favorite activities here! :). I have seen big inconsistencies here. It can’t just be about tests and GPA. I don’t have excel spreadsheets but I have kept mental track over the past few months on merit aid, especially when stats were posted that approximated my child’s profile. The merit has been all over the map. I have seen $25k to zippo. There has to be a secret ingredient. I believe it is ranking if available and applicant pool from geographic or actual HS. If there are lots of kids applying the bar is higher. Like several others reporting, we expected more merit based on stats from our school in previous years. We are thrilled to have made the cut but we expected to be giving a deposit instead of weighing all options. Pushy dad, we are waiting for some of those on you list. Also we got unexpected scholarship from OOS schools which put them in the running to my child’s dismay!</p>
<p>doingthisagain - We love to beat dead horses on here, you are right! Just to be clear, I agree something has changed this year. For the past 4 years it was far more predictable. Personally I think the change this year (or at least one of them, there might be several) is to look more strongly at strength of schedule and to take into account upward trend in grades. Ranking was, I think, always part of the equation but as you say it is often not available. I still disagree that geography or a particular high school is being considered, but I am not married to the idea that I am right on that. Whatever the case, it does seem murkier this year.</p>
<p>FC… is it possible your sample size is different? I am not sure how much data you have collected, but it definitely is probably skewed to the high-achievers.</p>
<p>FC: My kid had slightly upward trend/consistent grades. 3.7 UW 4.0 W -2010 SAT - 8 AP- HUGE displayed interest with NOLA visit and multiple contacts, Why Tulane, well done essay, crazy extra curricular including multiple leadership roles and community service. AND the number is??? Don’t cheat.</p>
<p>None of us know exactly what TU’s current model is for handing out merit aid. But the concept for TU (and the other big merit aid schools) is that they use their merit aid “strategically.” Which means they are targeting the aid to achieve certain institutional goals.</p>
<p>FC’s spreadsheet tells me that in the past TU’s goal was to increase academic selectivity above all else. My guess is that TU feels it has made significant progress on that goal (the 29-32 ACT range for the current frosh class is pretty high), and so doesn’t need to throw as much money at just high test scores as in the past.</p>
<p>Maybe TU doesn’t like its current m/f ratio; if so it would start sending more merit money to the guys. Maybe it wants to raise its overall net revenue per student; if so it would send money to applicants requiring less need aid. Maybe it is targeting different geographical areas. </p>
<p>Who knows. But my hunch is that the current targets are something that TU thinks will improve retention and grad rates. As previously discussed, TU lags its peers on those metrics (which coincidentally are significant parts of the USNWR formula).</p>
<p>“Maybe TU doesn’t like its current m/f ratio”</p>
<p>I hope the ratio stays the same for when I enter next year… lol.</p>
<p>“Who knows. But my hunch is that the current targets are something that TU thinks will improve retention and grad rates.” </p>
<p>I can see that… I know I made it very clear in app I will be graduating in 4 years.</p>
<p>My last swing at the dead horse carcass. As my two kids went through the application process, I became somewhat fascinated with the whole concept of college “enrollment management.” “The Best Class Money Can Buy” article below really opened my eyes up to how the schools were doing it.</p>
<p>No surprise, then, that I steered kid #2 to apply to TU… </p>
<p>[The</a> Best Class Money Can Buy - Matthew Quirk - The Atlantic](<a href=“The Best Class Money Can Buy - The Atlantic”>The Best Class Money Can Buy - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>
There is no question the sample size so far this year is quite limited. And of course it is “skewed” towards high achievers, they are the ones that get the scholarships! But the whole idea (in a purely theoretical, scientific modeling sense) is that once you have sufficient data and formulated a model, it will predict every point from then on out, within a margin of error. Of course, if variables are added to the equation or weightings change, or both then it is useless, or at least less useful. I think that is what has happened. I agree with Northwesty’s post #32, it makes sense to me, at least as a possibility. I can only tell something has changed.</p>
<p>doingthisagain - well, as I have said this year I have a rather unclear picture as to how they are going about this whole thing. In the past I would have said probably $22,000, the Founders. This year it seems they are rewarding taking a lot of AP’s more, so maybe $25,000. Of course it doesn’t matter what I say, only what the letter says.</p>
<p>FC: okay so at least I am not crazy! The number was $8000. I know some previous posters mentioned the SCEA vs EA possibility. I think SCEA, which we did, may have shown them too much interest. We also come from the background and zip codes that northwesty mentioned. Truthfully this Forum gives you bits and pieces. No one knows the actual answers. However, we were anticipating $ or we would not have allowed our child to apply. We had many highly qualified in our school apply so it may have been a comparison game, as well. Interestingly we think the ones who got the top scholarships in our town are definitely not choosing Tulane. Their EDs are rolling in and Tulane and the $ will be left behind while my kid sits on the sideline watching it play out.</p>
<p>If you read the Atlantic article linked above, you will learn that some schools (who knows about TU) take expressing too much interest as a reason to reduce the merit award. I never would have thought of that. And that living in a wealthy zip code potentially increases the amount of the award.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that as schools get more selective (as TU is), the admissions and merit aid decisions become less predictable. Sounds like that is what is happening this year.</p>
<p>Tried to get into the article but could not access. When we went to Info session at Tulane the speaker advised that Tulane is very interested in those who are really interested in them and gives $ accordingly. SCEA was recommended to show the most interest and even though it limited us we felt it was worth the gamble to get a high return. Being on this forum, interestingly enough made me neurotic about our child getting in. That helped me to forget about our need for $. Now that the dust has settled I am free to do a post mortem. So here we are performing an autopsy on the poor dead horse we beat!!!</p>
<p>Oh boy, now I am feeling guilty for encouraging DS to apply SCEA to increase his chances, discounting the fact that so what if he is accepted if we cannot truly afford it? I believe our AGI will demonstrate definite need but not 100%</p>
<p>Beating myself up for not keeping other EA options open now. Oy.</p>