<p>SteveMA - The money that a family “brings to the table” is their earnings, their savings, and their merit scholarships. If there is remaining financial need, then need-based aid takes over from there. Your son or daughter earned merit scholarship, and that’s great; nobody can take that away from them, and it reduces your financial need. </p>
<p>Now, when the school beings to distribute need-based aid, their goal will be to help make the school affordable for as many needy students and families as they can. They want to help you and others reduce need given their limited funds.</p>
<p>Agree with Waverly. With regard to merit (not financial), merit is not ‘aid’, it is a discount. The discount amount is determined by enrollment management algorithms specific to each school. It helps if you stop using the term aid when thinking about merit.</p>
<p>What some people here have noted is that, the merit aid that was originally awarded to their child was, in fact, taken away from them when it came to awarding need-based aid. Of course, we understand that merit aid is going to lower a student’s overall need. But, to take away a portion of the “merit” award seems disingenuous.</p>
<p>And to some of us, the difference in so-called “free money” does matter. When your finances are less stable from year to year, knowing that the merit award will remain unchanged is very important to some families. (Of course, one always needs to be aware of the minimum standards each merit award requires.)</p>
<p>I think this is key and to some extent Greta’s comment about not mixing the word “aid” with the word “merit.” It is difficult to discern honorary scholarships from financial need scholarships. I know it was a learning curve for me with S1 back in the day.</p>
<p>At one school tour the admission director talked about tuition and specific scholarships and tuition discount for students with exceptional stats. That was the first time I had heard of merit aid talked about as a discount. Yet that is what some forms of merit aid are indeed. The challenging part here I would assert is knowing how each school operates.</p>
<p>Yes, that seemed to be the novel aspect of this thread, but it turned out not to be the case - it was actually a substitution of grant for merit, but no loss in free money. So nothing was taken away. </p>
<p>
I would also prefer the merit using the same reasoning, but luckily the OP prefers the need-based grant.</p>
<p>Yes, I did notice that, so hopefully it all works out for that family. I guess I just never thought that it is possible for a school at which my child was accepted, and offered a “Merit Scholarship Renewable for 4 Years” could decide to switch it out to a need-based grant when the financial aid package is configured.</p>
<p>…Just another unexpected bump on the road to college, I guess.</p>
<p>So many posts since I posted at lunch! I will respond to a few at a time as I peruse the posts. First:
“kelsmom - I first learned about equity packaging from your post a month ago where you said you thought it was fair because it increased the number of students who could receive need-based aid. On this thread, you seem to have the opposite opinion (you said you disagreed), but I’m sure I’m missing some subtle point - having to do with gaps, perhaps?”
I do believe in equity packaging as a good way to spread the money. The reason I didn’t agree with reducing equity for ACG and SMART was because these two awards were based on merit … and our policy excluded adjustments for outside merit scholarships. It’s a subtle distinction. If a student received a school merit award, it counted against equity. If that same student brought in a Lions Club scholarship, it did not count against equity. Federal aid is almost always based strictly on need. ACG and SMART were different … they did not go to everyone. There were criteria to meet, and where I worked, VERY few students did well enough to get the second year or ACG or any SMART (yes, really). I felt that they had “earned” that money, and to reduce equity just seemed wrong. Obviously, Need would never be exceeded to add the ACG or SMART. The other part of my issue was that we did not use equity packaging until a couple years ago …so students who had received ACG or SMART as an add-on that appeared halfway through the year previously thought it would be an addition that year, too. They did not realize it would be a wash, because our management did not want to actually let them know in advance. Lack of consideration for students, lack of proactive thinking are part of why I left.</p>
<p>Remember, folks, that Need cannot be exceeded if there is even one penny of federal aid involved — schools can give any amount of their own money they want, but as soon as they award ANY federal aid — including loans — Need cannot be exceeded. It’s not about whether or not you or I agree. It’s about federal regulations.</p>
<p>For the record, I do not like the idea of reducing merit awards to award need based awards. Say a school gives a student $20,000 but the student qualifies for Pell. I can see why the school would “want” to reduce the $20,000 by the amount of the Pell in order to save money … but this is MERIT money, not need-based, and I think it stinks.</p>
<p>That was the first time I had heard of merit aid talked about as a discount. Yet that is what some forms of merit aid are indeed. The challenging part here I would assert is knowing how each school operates. </p>
<hr>
<p>I know someone who worked at a small, private school that considered freshman year aid a tuition discount. The discount remained in effect all four years, even if the EFC rose. That was the first I had heard of that!</p>
<p>Kelsmom: I feel the way you do about MERIT scholarships being taken away. We didn’t expect it, but when you get a letter congratulating you on your ‘outstanding’ scholarship, well, you kind of get your hopes up. Then you start mentally calculating what you know you could be getting in aid. Then you start to get hopeful. Then they take away the the merit money and your fin aid package still has a bunch of loans. It’s sort of deflating.
But that’s what happens when you start counting the chickens before the eggs hatch (such an old saying but oh so applicable).</p>
<p>kelsmom - Thanks for the explanation on the ACG and SMART grants. That is super-subtle. But I have questions about the final part:
Assuming these are internal university scholarships, this sounds identical to the equity packaging that you mentioned before - the approach that you agreed with as a way to cover the need for more students. Again, I’m sure there’s a subtlety here that I’m missing, so I’m trying to understand. Thanks.</p>
<p>I am going to be honest. This seems so odd to me that I would call to find out if it’s really correct (maybe you did & I missed it - if so, sorry). Mistakes happen, even to the best of aid offices. Be kind and polite, but ask for an explanation. And let us know, because we are curious.</p>
<p>Steve: My EFC was 20K with the 1st, so all her college (a cal state) offered was loans, but with #2 it was $10K each, so college #2 (a UC) paid for S2’s tuition and we paid for everything else. We have come in under the cost of attendance by being very thrifty (neither kid has a car, kid lives in a triple instead of a double, etc…).</p>
<p>MisterK, Pell is an entitlement and a merit scholarship is based on merit. You can’t reduce the first, and I maintain that it is wrong to reduce the second. Just my opinion, of course.</p>
<p>Let me explain equity as I believe it to be fair. The way I see it, equity is a policy that strives to give students a combination of free money and EFC that totals a given amount … say to cover the average amount of tuition. If schools want to include merit money in the free money pool, that is cool. If the merit + EFC exceeds the equity number, there would be no need based aid … EXCEPT Pell, since it is an entitlement. If merit + EFC + Pell falls short of the target number for equity, either SEOG or a school grant would be awarded to make up the difference. It is okay to exceed equity in the first case, because no institutional NEED BASED aid is being used. A smart school will award all merit scholarships before packaging, so that students don’t see institutional grants being reduced when merit is awarded! </p>
<p>I strongly believe in need based aid for those who need it the most. On the other hand, I believe that there is also a place for merit scholarships. That is why I don’t like the idea of merit being reduced.</p>
<p>*Quote:
MisterK said: Your son or daughter earned merit scholarship, and that’s great; nobody can take that away from them</p>
<hr>
<p>What some people here have noted is that, the merit aid that was originally awarded to their child was, in fact, taken away from them when it came to awarding need-based aid. Of course, we understand that merit aid is going to lower a student’s overall need. But, to take away a portion of the “merit” award seems disingenuous.*</p>
<p>I think the mom should call these schools and ask why merit was removed/reduced when they were given letters stating that these scholarships were awarded. I’m wondering if there was a mistake.</p>
<p>kelsmom - Yes, the reduction of the merit scholarship is quite bizarre (although in this thread, there was no loss of free money). But since there was no dollar loss here, let me ask about the more normal scenario (where merit dollars are used to reduce need first).</p>
<p>On the equity packaging, you would support reducing the non-entitlement need-based grant by the amount of the merit scholarship amount, but you would never cut into the merit amount grant, correct? (I would agree that this is fair, because merit dollars have been earned). Sorry if I’m struggling to understand something that is obvious to you.</p>
<p>On the equity packaging, you would support reducing the non-entitlement need-based grant by the amount of the merit scholarship amount, but you would never cut into the merit amount grant, correct? (I would agree that this is fair, because merit dollars have been earned).</p>
<hr>
<p>Yes, that is correct. Unless the merit award has a component of need, as some endowed scholarships do, I think it should be left alone. The need based grants are there to plug the gaps, so they can be reduced if the gap is reduced or eliminated by merit.</p>
<p>That is just my opinion, of course. There are many different opinions in the aid community, just as in the general public. There is a contingent of aid folks who don’t believe in merit, for example. I think they are wrong, but that is just my personal opinion. They think I am wrong, of course! :)</p>
<p>Excellent … I have descended into the labyrinth, and I have emerged! Thank you for the detailed explanation, there were many nuances hiding in that discussion, and now I understand how to reconcile those two equity packaging posts of yours.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I think your position is very fair and well thought out. It respects the earned merit award, protects the entitlement, and shares with all who have need. </p>
<p>I am also a believer in merit-based aid (and I’d like to see a greater emphasis on that), but the need/merit interplay becomes very complex. Although I can sympathize with folks who are unhappily surprised to learn that their merit dollars first go to reduce their need-based aid, the rationale is clear. The whole point of a need-based aid program is to distribute money based on need (not merit), so that many qualified students can attend. Of course, the escape hatch is to go out and earn “big merit.”</p>
<p>My understanding is that FAFSA EFC will be split in two if there are two kids in college. For PROFILE schools, it may well not be. Each PROFILE school calculates its own cost. Our cost for two in PROFILE schools is about 130% of our EFC for one. Expected parental contribution at my kids schools varied by several thousand $$.</p>