<p>
I would agree with that if you assume that the applicant has a low EFC (<$5K). I can only comment on in-state and have no idea of how they are out of state.</p>
<p>Kmcmom,</p>
<p>thank you for answering my question. I would have never guessed that it was endowment. </p>
<p>Do you know by any chance if the substantial grants for in-state students you are talking about are purely need-based, or more like preferential packaging practiced NYU? Basically, both need and merit-based?</p>
<p>
I would not doubt that and my daughter loves the school and does not regret her choice either. However, as you stated, for the high stat in-state students there are many privates who are more generous (and not just the ones with sub 10% admission rates).</p>
<p>^Kdog, we know this to be true first hand ;)</p>
<p>Lerkin, I believe the grant funding is strictly need-based. Merit can be both a form of strategic attraction and what they call at UMich “need-informed.” In other words, some of the merit can be used to offset need – since in fact it pretty much is all coming from the same pot. However, I also know of students who received merit who did not necessarily need merit at all. So it’s anybody’s guess – and yes, that too is funded from the endowment (which btw, I checked, and has grown to 7.8B as of last year…)</p>
<p>Because nearly every successful applicant is high-stat, however, the vicissitudes of merit drive lots of folks nuts. Eg. UMich will use merit to strategically fund students who have a particular and unique (ie national level) talent in a specific area, or who have overcome extreme obstacles, or whose viewpoint and accomplishments they particularly like without regard to the overall stats competitiveness etc. etc. and give comparatively little to a perfect GPA/ACT scorer who otherwise might not especially stand out in one particular area. </p>
<p>In-state, many folks view this phenom as stingy, because they’re not thinking about the fact that stats alone could never drive merit – because SO MANY admitted students have THE BEST stats in their school – and all the schools are UNEVEN in GPA and rigor. So they have to use a different measuring stick to single some out for merit.</p>
<p>There are students who will apply to a number of colleges, UM included, and get more generous packages than what UM will provide. For such students, UM would not be considered generous. </p>
<p>Taking ALL of the US colleges, however, and all of the kids applying, the need met by UM would rank waaaay up there. It’s a matter of perspective.</p>
<p>UM clearly meets a lot of need with self help rather than grants, and will use the unsub Stafford towards need and work study as well. They will also count the PELL as need based aid, instead of extra as some of the most generous schools will do. </p>
<p>What this does is pose a huge problem to those who are left without the unsub STafford and student jobs to meet EFC. In my personal situation, my son worked part time at college last year. That was all gravy to meet our EFC, Had it been part of a need package, those hours would have been gone, and he would not have had that option to earn money to meet EFC. When he had to quit his job, and realize that he needed money, he took an unsub Stafford loan. A student on financial aid that uses that unsub Stafford does not have that leeway. </p>
<p>This is something to be aware of when looking at schools that meet full need but do not do so with grants alone. You can get sewn up pretty danged tight there. It’s really not a fair situation, as so much of life is not, since those who do not need it have the full cushion of those Staffords and the option of their kid finding some job for extra cash. Those who have their need eating into those areas have no leeway at all.</p>