Glad you found your error…FWIW, the NPC for Mudd was incredibly accurate for us (I think it actually came in slightly less!) We have a very simple situation though (i.e. no divorce, extra homes , businesses etc.) My S is now a junior and loves it there.
It is nonsense to punch in hypothetical numbers for comparing the NPC of different school. Each school uses their own formula and look at equity, retirement investment, etc differently. Keep the numbers for yourself as it has no meaning to other people.
^ It isn’t nonsense, as long as we’re using identical inputs for all the schools we’re comparing, and as long as we’re disclosing those inputs. The OP and other posters can judge for themselves if these inputs are similar to their own numbers. Is there a better way to address the topic question head-on? How else do we judge whether the CDS (line H2(i)) financial aid claims mean anything? It would be better to have a massive, peer reviewed survey of actual FA offers (representing a wide range of income/asset scenarios). AFAIK, that does not exist.
But the inputs you chose won’t reflect others’ pictures, only the narrow hypothetical you entered. It’s a starter example and families need to run numbers on their own data. Then the family can compare “head on.” It can mislead FA newbies to suggest, eg, that Barnard will necessarily offer more than Bates. We want families to check for their own details.
Plus H2i “percentage of need” still hangs on how that school calculates need, not what the family deems affordable. The stingiest colleges may claim they met 100%. It’s not what tells you that you can afford them. You need your numbers and how loans are included or not.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Perhaps “pointless” would have been a better choice to say than “nonsense.” As another example of its use, which I can apply to this thread: it is pointless to have a debate over hypothetical numbers, so please refrain.
^^ My inputs may or may not reflect others’ situations. They can judge for themselves. The inputs I chose do result in net price spreads consistent with what the OP reported for MIT and Harvey Mudd. As I stated above, I’ve run these trials with many other inputs (and have reported the findings along with my assumptions on CC.)
I’m not really addressing the question of whether Barnard will necessarily offer more than Bates for any given candidate. I’m trying to address the topic question: Does the “meets full need” claim mean ANYTHING? If the 40-60 colleges that make this claim generally offer better n-b aid (and lower net prices) than similar colleges that don’t make the claim, then it isn’t a meaningless claim (notwithstanding the fact that a few colleges may be playing fast and loose with the claim). It is a more or less testable claim (unlike, say, “more prestigious” or “better for pre-med”) but I don’t see how one can test it without running numbers.
Again, absolutely, you do need to run your own NPC estimates. However, it isn’t practical to run the NPCs on hundreds of colleges. The problem cries out for “satisficing” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing). So, which heuristics are most useful for constraining the initial large search space? IMO it is useful for the CC community to assess the “meets full need” claim (including the boundaries where it tends to break down), along with other more or less testable claims, so that families don’t focus their searches only on famous/familiar/nearby colleges that may not offer the best combination of quality and value.
I appreciated your efforts @tk21769. Once I fixed my error I got more what I expected with Mudd being more in the range of Rice at about double the estimate from MIT and Princeton. Your numbers are sort of close to ours except the numbers I had shared were after they added in student work and loan so the actual MIT net price value is closer to $16k. Still, even if she could go to our State Flagship for $10k, I’d say most would agree MIT is the better value. Not all kids can look at things that way, but if your kid has stats in the mid 50% of these schools, they obviously need to take a serious look at them.
If schools are getting the matriculants they want, their chosen formula is working for the school, filling their available seats. There’s no right or wrong, no fair or unfair.
Well, that’s the point of these hypotheticals (and this thread) – that parents/students need to run the NPCs rather than take “meet full need” claims at face value or assume that a school that claims to “meet full need” with automatically be less expensive than one that does not.
Indeed among private schools my kids applied to, some meet-need schools offered packages with a higher cost than not-guaranteed-to-meet-need schools that simply wanted them more so used preferential FA packaging to entice them.
Sometimes, this can happen even without preferential packaging. For example:
College A claims to “meet full need”. College A’s methodology determines that the parent+student contribution should be $30,000 and offers grants to give a net price of $30,000.
College B does not claim to “meet full need”. College B’s methodology determines that the parent+student contribution should be $20,000 but gaps the student by offering grants to give a net price of $25,000. I.e. it leaves a $5,000 gap in terms of “meeting need”, but still gives a lower net price than College A that “meets full need”.
I.e. claiming to “meet full need” is an empty promise if the college determines “need” in a way that is relatively unfavorable to the parent+student.
^ so, Boston college, basically. And especially not Californians applying to BC.
Basically, the main point on this thread:
RUN THE NPC on every college before applying.
If the college ‘meets need’ yet numbers look really off, check for mistakes. (You could even email the financial aid office).
If the college doesn’t meet need, don’t be surprised by anything.
Now we’re going in circles.
There is one point from the beginning to the end, check the NPCs with your own data. Forget about what the schools or other people telling you. The percentage of students receiving need based aids and the average amount of aid for students with need are good information to do primary screening. Using irrelevant hypothetical data from others is misleading and a waste of time.
You know, this thread started with someone who DID do their own NPC with their own data, got an
unexpected result and then “irrelevant hypothetical data from others” led her to realize she may have made a mistake on the form. She found it, fixed it and voila, expected result.
I’d say this thread is a great example of crowdsourced problem solving, actually. And no one suggested people not run their own NPCs.
This is a very interesting thread. So informative
@tk21769 are your numbers for direct costs or do they include the, IMHO, arbitrary indirect costs? Are they before or after loans? Do they include work study? Too many people spit out numbers that have no meaning without explanation. Also, too many people just look at that bottom number on NPCs without really looking at the numbers. You should look at what you have to pay the college directly (tuition, fees, room, board) and subtract out what grants and/or scholarships expected. Look at that number.
Yes…one needs to cover the billable costs of tuition, fees, room and board…and those are fixed costs.
BUT one also needs to also cover costs of books, transportation back and forth to school, personal expenses, sometimes lab fees. Often school health insurance isn’t included in the COA either. So while students and families can try to economize on some of these expenses…it’s prudent to include a realistic dollar amount in the cost of attendance for your kid when looking at college costs.
"Sometimes, this can happen even without preferential packaging. For example:
College A claims to “meet full need”. College A’s methodology determines that the parent+student contribution should be $30,000 and offers grants to give a net price of $30,000.
College B does not claim to “meet full need”. College B’s methodology determines that the parent+student contribution should be $20,000 but gaps the student by offering grants to give a net price of $25,000. I.e. it leaves a $5,000 gap in terms of “meeting need”, but still gives a lower net price than College A that “meets full need”.
I.e. claiming to “meet full need” is an empty promise if the college determines “need” in a way that is relatively unfavorable to the parent+student. "
@ucbalumnus I don’t think this EVER happens, but if you could cite a real example with two real colleges in your example I might be persuaded otherwise, and private college XXX against community college CCC doesn’t count.
@thumper1 I understand that completely, but indirect costs estimated by schools vary widely and are generally not realistic. I do not believe they use these numbers when calculating your school granted financial need.