<p>WayOutWestMom & cptofthehouse- interesting…I didn’t know about that, as around here most kids just go to the local public university, which just uses the FAFSA for aid, I believe.</p>
<p>A lot of these private schools are hurting to keep up and they always cut the financial aid. PROFILE really goes after the gold in your teeth, and your parents’, cuz that’s where the gold is. </p>
<p>Also with some of the PROFILE schools, if you apply as a non need student and then apply for aid, you have to show what your status was when you applied. Unless there is some drastic change in circumstances, like another student going to college, lost income, catastrophe, they won’t give you the money. THese are the schools that are not need blind for admissions but guarantee meet need for all they accept. They don’t want any games played.</p>
<p>People can be remarkably righteous about how schools use their own money.</p>
<p>We are grateful for every penny of FA our son got…whether it met our “need” or not. Having said that, the only real bone I have to pick with the process is the issue of geographic cost of living…and it’s my understanding that most schools do not make the distinction between a family of 5 with an AGI of $100,000 that is living in Iowa and a family with “equal” earnings that is living in NYC.</p>
<p>^^My guess is the schools, like a group of posters on this thread, figure it is your choice to live where you live - so - to bad.</p>
<p>Yes, the fact that geographic location is not part of the FA package adds to the unfairness quotient.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree. The Calif system of only using custodial parent’s info is ridiculous. There are too many low-income moms with high income ex-H’s in that state.</p>
<p>Using non custodial parent information only makes sense if the state will require NCPs to chip in.</p>
<p>
Yes!
NCPs should always be required to give their info AND to chip in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ordinarylives,</p>
<p>Your post that finaid comes from endowments is only correct if you are talking about super-rich schools. For the large majority of schools, operations cannot be sustained without tuition money.</p>
<p>So schools such as Wesleyan even call finaid as revenue discounting.</p>
<p>So do not say that this is Hogwash because in many, many situations the financial aid system is an elaborate price discrimination system.</p>
<p>Check this link if you wish:
<a href=“http://2020.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/06/22/sustainable-affordability/[/url]”>http://2020.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/06/22/sustainable-affordability/</a></p>
<p>From the link:
“I am grateful for the various suggestions alumni and current students have submitted for how Wesleyan might offer a greater percentage of its revenue for scholarships. There is a fairly straightforward equation: the more we spend on providing access to the university, the less there is to spend on providing the education to which students want access. Yes, there are certain things we can do to increase revenue: we can charge (those who pay) more; we can spend more of our fundraised dollars (rather than putting the money in the endowment); we can increase spending from the endowment.”</p>
<p>So please do not say that finaid is money that schools have and that this has nothing to do with how they charge for tuition/COA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There aren’t many schools that will meet full need to the extent that a poor student has to pay nothing. Those schools are generally the most selective in the nation. No one gets into them with a low GPA. No one gets in who hasn’t worked their tail off. If anyone is getting into tippy-top schools with relatively lower GPAs and relatively less effort expended, it’d be students from the wealthiest families, who can afford 7+ figure gifts on a regular basis.</p>
<p>Yes, the official term is the discount rate. And yes, most small privates are tuition driven. They cannot operate without tuition revenue, but I assure you that even at tiny schools, endowments have strings, limiting how and for whom the money can be used. College finances are far more complicated than the simplistic “we take in this much and spend this much, so this full fin aid recipient of offset by this full pay kid.”</p>
<p>I am always astounded by the vitriolic rhetoric thrown at these private schools that so many people seem desperate to get into. Obviously, people have choices. Why get upset because a business gives away it’s own money under a set of parameters that it establishes for itself. Don’t apply to these if their fin aid practices are so offensive.</p>
<p>Not certain if it is vitriolic, but I think some people are resentful of what is percieved as a tax imposed by colleges. Which they do not impose on their own middle class people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Schools offer merit scholarships as a way to boost their brand, not as some sort of public service. USC, for instance, has repositioned itself in the last few decades from “school for rich lazy kids who couldn’t get into UCLA” to a highly-regarded academic institution. How’d they do that? A number of factors, but offering automatic half-tuition scholarships to National Merit Finalists and a handful of (increasingly competitive) full-tuition scholarships has definitely had a huge impact. </p>
<p>Merit scholarships are a way to flatter and capture high-achieving students, boosting yield. They’re also a great way to capture students who’d balk at paying full price, especially at schools that don’t guarantee to meet need. There are plenty of LACs and smaller private universities that offer $10k+/year off rack rate because then the students and their families feel all warm and fuzzy about going somewhere that wants them. 
And then the school gets a student who’s paying, say, $40k a year, rather than having to pay out $30-40k or more a year for another, poorer student. I’m not knocking it–D2 is certainly a good candidate for those kinds of offers.</p>
<p>So, if that employee benefit makes you angry, don’t give that school your business. Once again, though, it is a private business giving something to it’s employees, just like some employers pay for family insurance coverage (or a high percentage of it) and some don’t. You’ve moved past wanting to dictate how a school handles fin aid and into how an employer provides benefits to its employees. </p>
<p>Now, I happen to agree, employment benefits shouldn’t be called or considered a form of fin aid.</p>
<p>Ordinary, my point was that college professionals might be more sympathetic to others if they had the same issues. Many don’t.</p>
<p>Oh no, I get it. I’m currently using that benefit. Ironically, it hasn’t made me less jealous of people with employers who provide family health care. I keep thinking 1k/month for family coverage times 20+ years equals . . . Hey, wait a minute, I could have paid for that tuition OOP and had money to spare!</p>
<p>I know a number of teachers and employees at schools that are working there to get tuition benefits. Many do love the work there , but if it weren’t for the college discount they get, they would go elsewhere, because on what they are paid, they would not be able to afford their own college for their kids. Most schools do NOT meet need remember. </p>
<p>These deals are getting cut down regularly, because they do only affect those employees that have kids, kids going to college, and often just to that college, so they are not distributed on an equitable fashion. But it 's the same principle that gives store employees some discount, airline employees the same, and so on. A tradition that those in the field might get a little personal benefit. Doctors give professional courtesies too, you know. Talk about unfair when a life or medical condition is on the line.</p>
<p>But the way the market is going, these benefits are being slashed. Some years ago, I remember some schools being free for employee kids that now give a dollar amount (Cornell is an example) and school are now in some Exchange or other where it is like a lottery to get spots from other schools in the same when they used to pay an allowance. So the movement is certainly in the direction of getting rid of that benny.</p>
<p>I actually support partial tuition benefits for employees of the institution. At least they’re working to EARN those tuition benefits. And, most tuition benefits aren’t full-time student benefit amounts. They have limits each year. And, like I said, are eligible to FULL-TIME people who WORK to earn those benefits to attend night school. </p>
<p>It’s a “cheap” way for the college to let their workers educate themselves at night, sometimes in work-related educations and sometimes not. It’s a form of employee training and development in some instances. Who doesn’t want more educated workers?</p>
<p>Many colleges that offer tuition benefits don’t pay as much as private sector companies, so they offer tuition benefits to sweeten the deal. There are a some exceptions of colleges that both pay well and offer tuition benefits.</p>
<p>It’s not the employee education benefits that are under discussion, I believe, but the ones extended to the children of the employee and maybe the spouses. </p>
<p>I agree fully that tuition benefits for the employee is a good thing. You want your employee to stay up with what is being taught. It’s also a benefit equitably distributed. Not so much when you extend it to other family members.</p>
<p>
Actually, at the State Directional where I adjunct (part-time) we are part of the teacher’s union and can take 1 course in a semester if we are teaching at least 2 courses ourselves.</p>
<p>
Given the amount of education I have already…I am, however, considering whether I want to take something related to one of my many hobbies or other interests. No rule saying the course has to be work-related :). No reason the school would “want” me to be more educated in the area of one of my hobbies.</p>