<p>My D’s school has no loans included in their meeting full need if the family income is under $60K. There’s a cap on loans for the next tier of family income (I think $60 - $120K?) of $8,600 for all 4 years. Above that the cap on loans is $12,825 for all 4 years. </p>
<p>Do your research - look at the school’s financial aid policy. Look for “meets full need” and also review their loan policy. </p>
<p>My S will be a senior in HS next year. Our college search strategy is based on what we learned with his older sister about financial aid. I initially identified over 60 schools which meet full need; he is narrowing down where he applies based on his criteria (location, athletics, major offered, chance to be admitted, etc.) As mentioned, many of these schools are extremely competitive for admissions.</p>
<p>If your family income is very low, consider applying through QuestBridge. Also, there are application waivers available through your school guidance counselor if you qualify.</p>
<p>If none of these options look realistic, consider ROTC scholarships. My S was also looking at some of the service academies, but decided it was not a good fit for him.</p>
<p>To answer your original question, low EFC does NOT rule out Tier 1 schools.</p>
<p>My D also attends a top LAC for less than the sticker price of our public thanks to generous need based aid. Her only “hook” was exceptional academic stats with a well-rounded application. But, we received very different financial aid offers from different 100% need based schools. Apply to a lot of schools to compare financial aid offers.</p>
<p>Loans are an important way to meet need. No college of university expects parents to pay for college out of current income, but rather past income (in the form of savings) or future income (in the form of loans, discounted for inflation). But many of the families that truly need loans to pay the bill couldn’t qualify for them, or at least couldn’t at an affordable rate of interest. </p>
<p>As for the need-blind mythology, there is NO school that doesn’t consider income in admissions. For some, it is because they “developmental admits” (school likely to receive million dollar plus donations as a result of admissions); all have a financial aid budget (or “target”) set in advance by the trustees or financial committee; all count “socio-eq” (read: low-income) admits as they go through the process (they want to make sure to have some…but not too many - though sometimes the college wants more, as in the case of Amherst and Princeton, and they are “magically” found), etc. Some join Questbridge, where the financial status of the applicant is an explicit part of the process. The only question is the degree to which they use the information, and how. </p>
<p>We too found schools extremely generous, and my older d’s school (Smith) cost us less than half that of the state school.</p>
<p>Georgetown and Northwestern are each “need blind” admissions schools. The admissions committee will act on your application without knowledge of your EFC unless you make it the theme of your essay.</p>
<p>If you are looking for aid beyond your EFC, then you need to make sure you look at schools that are generous with merit aid and that your child is in the upper 25% of applicants. And as others have said, even if a school meets your FA “need” that aid may include loans.</p>
<p>Generally the Ivies are better at meeting need for low EFC students, Northwestern not so much. Our EFC is around 6K and my son or us would have had to supply around 12K to attend NU through loans or other means. At Yale, he is responsible for term job and summer earnings that equates to 4.5K. He will have no loans and we are not expected to contribute. The endowments at the upper tier schools allow the schools to meet the needs of the deserving students who would otherwise not be able to attend these schools. Of course, with a 6-8% acceptance rate getting admitted is the hard part.</p>
<p>But those that they do admit, tend to have lower test scores, less difficult course under the belt than those who are non PELL kids.</p>
<p>The way need is met, even at the so called full need met schools is an issue along with how need is defined. Schools that say they meet full need can meet it with loans and workstudy (called self help) and in addition have a pretty hefty student contribution requirement. For a kid who has zero savings and lives in an area where jobs are scarce, coming up with that amount can be an issue. We know a family who is struggling with that $3K that the student needs to raise. Can’t raise it in that little WV town where work is scarce. The problem with the work study award is that it is part of the school award and takes away from hours that the kid could use to earn some of that student expected contribution. I did not think that the aid package was impressive at all from that school with that work requirement and the amount in loans they are offering the student. She will be over $80K in debt at this rate.</p>
I am not sure what you are saying here. I don’t think that makes much sense when admissions are done before fin aid is even calculated. I can assure you my son’s stats were just as good as the others selected. I also don’t understand the comment about work study taking away from hours the student can use to earn. They are getting paid for working which can be used to help defray cost. What am I missing?</p>
<p>I don’t know about the work study, but every app process I have seen does give some nod to those who come from truly adverse economic situations. They are flagged and put in a pool. If enough of such kids make admissions standards without any consideration, then fine. But if more are wanted, then special consideration is given. So just because you are a low income student does not mean your stats are any lower than anyone’s; you can be top dog there, but OVERALL that is not the case. Income and test scores are very much related in every educational study. So it is not saying that there are NO low income kids with high test scores, stats and high level courses, but as a group they do not meet the norm. This has been an educational fact for years. It has nothing to do with financial aid. When a student is so needy as to need an application waiver or is from a school that serves a low income area or the counselor mentions the situation, the apps are flagged as such. Not all are, just those where the info is given. Many schools do not give a fig about whether the student is PELL eligible or not and do not cross check that information but will give some latitude to those kids who have had adverse life situations including poverty when brought to their attention. </p>
<p>I have some former classmates who are in selective school admissions and they truly do not know who is PELL eligible or not. THey do not look at the financials, but they do read the counselor’s reports carefully and kids who have adverse life situation are given consideration when they have performed well despite it.</p>
<p>As a rule, at top schools they DO meet the norm. In fact, the Winston study found four times as many low-income students meeting the norm as were in fact attending. (Whether they actually applied, and how the admissions departments looked at them is another question entirely. When Princeton and then Amherst decided to increase their number of low-income students by about 50%, it had absolutely no impact on the median test scores averages for the entire school, suggesting they were in the pile of applicants all along, and needed absolutely nothing in the way of “help” to get in (other than a nod from the school presidents that they wanted more low-income students.)</p>
<p>“When Princeton and then Amherst decided to increase their number of low-income students by about 50%, it had absolutely no impact on the median test scores averages for the entire school, suggesting they were in the pile of applicants all along, and needed absolutely nothing in the way of “help” to get in (other than a nod from the school presidents that they wanted more low-income students.)”</p>
<p>I would say that a “nod from the school presidents” that they wanted more kids from your family’s income range is a lot more than “nothing.” That is not exactly need-blind.</p>
<p>That’s my whole point. They NEVER WERE need-blind - not before, and not after. There isn’t a need-blind school in the country (though the military academies and Cooper Union come close) - the only question is how and to what extent they use the information in admissions.</p>
<p>Community colleges and others with open admissions or admissions by a formula that leaves no possibility to consider need or lack thereof would be need-blind in admissions in a trivial sense. Of course, whether they might give sufficient financial aid to those who need it is a different story. So is whether they would be interesting to the typical poster here looking for HYPSM level schools.</p>
<p>All of the community colleges where I live administer Pell Grants and have a limited amount of grant-in-aid. When they make an offer of admission, they know whether or not some of their expenditures will be covered by the federal government or not. In that sense, they are not need-blind. Again, the question is the degree to which they use that information in admissions. We know that Princeton and Amherst do, all colleges in Questbridge do, all colleges that have “developmental admits” do, all colleges that count “socio-ec” admits (such as Williams) do, all colleges that discuss admissions with private school counselors do, the list could go on and on. </p>
<p>It’s just spin…(though, in some cases, as above, more like bald-faced lies).</p>
<p>They are not open admission? The community colleges around here admit everyone who applies, regardless of need or anything else, so their admissions are (trivially) need-blind (and everything-else-blind). Whether you get financial aid is a different story.</p>
<p>Or viewed another way, many colleges, including the most selective, use implied family financial information in order to identify and admit students from lower economic tiers: not to keep them out, but to get them in! In other words, in the right demographic circumstances having a low EFC can be a plus, not a minus.</p>
<p>The exception, I think, is for upper to middle class White applicants whose families for various reasons can’t come up with tuition (which I think is becoming increasingly common these days). These kids are getting caught in the middle class squeeze and unless they qualify for merit aid, they’re pretty much being squeezed out of selective privates.</p>
<p>Depends on program. The nursing program at our local community college is, quite literally, more selective than Harvard. </p>
<p>“Or viewed another way, many colleges, including the most selective, use implied family financial information in order to identify and admit students from lower economic tiers: not to keep them out, but to get them in.”</p>
<p>This is unknown, though clearly true for some. The five-year-old article in the Williams Record, for example, implied that there was a “target” (i.e., not too few, not too many). The lack of statistical variation, year over year, among many of the prestige institutions, suggest that a “target” (not too few, not too many) is likely a common feature. So, in the right situation, it could be a plus; in others (at the same school), a minus. And, as indicated in the Princeton and Amherst experiences, admissions didn’t have to do with other “objective” criteria - suggesting that there were plenty of well-qualified low-income students who were not being admitted prior to the school presidents deciding they wanted to have more of them.</p>
<p>(If I ran a prestige college, I would do it the same way.)</p>
<p>As to whether upper middle class White students are being squeezed out, I think the jury is out. (With the middle quintile of family income being $45-70k - I think it is more likely these are the students who are squeezed out.) The “no loan” policies were heavily aimed at upper middle class students - by turning loans into smallish scholarships, schools try to retain attraction to student families who can “almost” pay full freight, and the colleges get most of their money.</p>
<p>for those who are convinced that the white middle class are being “squeezed”, then where’s the massive outcry??? where’s the activism? why aren’t middle class white folks storming the department of education, mad as hell, saying they won’t take it anymore??? it’s time for middle class white folks who are being so pushed out of so-called top colleges to get angry and organize… don’t you think?</p>
<p>No, I don’t think private college admission-plus-aid is an unalienable right. My point was just that low economic status is a demographic that is attractive to many colleges. But if you come from a relatively comfortable/privileged background and don’t have the money for another reason – e.g., job layoff, real estate loss, bad investments – then you may not fall into the favored demographic. Somehow I don’t see this group as having much lobbying power. :)</p>