"Meet full need" schools can vary significantly in their net prices.

<p>"Meet full need" schools can vary significantly in their net prices.</p>

<p>Using <a href="http://www.collegeabacus.com"&gt;http://www.collegeabacus.com&lt;/a> , I tried three different schools which claim to "meet full need": UCLA (for California residents), USC, and Yale.</p>

<p>Here are some net prices, based on a family of 3 with 1 going to college and living on campus, with no student income and assets, and with parental income split between two married parents, and all US citizens and California residents:</p>

<p>


Income  Assets  Net Price               Notes and assumptions
                UCLA    USC     Yale    </p>

<p>20000    2000   8600   10500    4400   3250 EITC, school lunch,
                                        food stamps</p>

<p>60000   20000  13759   16141    4400   4000 federal income tax</p>

<p>100000  400000  32563   51543   11817   10000 federal income tax
                                        400000 assets including 200000
                                        home equity and 180000 non-cash
                                        investments


</p>

<p>Note the very large variation in net prices in the $100,000 income and $400,000 assets case.</p>

<p>The conclusion is, do not make any assumptions based on claims that a school "meets full need". Use the net price calculator to get a better estimate.</p>

<p>I have to admit my first thought on seeing the thread title was “yeah, we all know that”. This is one of the few times I’ve seen someone try to do some sensitivity testing on the differences.</p>

<p>Very true, UCBA. Some of those meet full needs schools provide need based aid to families with incomes approaching $200,000 a year. Those schools have deep pockets and can do so. The vast majority do not provide need based aid to families with higher incomes.</p>

<p>Even without the above…there can still be huge variation due to factors different schools consider, or don’t consider…primary home equity being one, and self employed business expenses being another. And some schools will consider tuition to private high schools for siblings, and some don’t.</p>

<p>It may be worth to point out some schools use FAFSA, some use CSS profile. There are also some using both. That may contribute to part of the difference.</p>

<p>Bill…there are NO schools that guarantee to meet full need for all that use the FAFSA only. Princeton uses its own form, and the others use the Profile.</p>

<p>UCLA is being used as an example of a school that meets full need (for CA residents) and only requires FAFSA. I don’t see a statement on their website saying they meet full need, but I didn’t look that hard and I defer to UCB.</p>

<p>@thumper1 What do you mean? At least some in state public universities meet full need and use FAFSA only.</p>

<p>UCLA does NOT guarantee, nor do they meet full need for everyone. Only about a quarter of the students get full need met. The OOS students are absolutely not the only ones being gapped with those stats. With $20K as income and food stamps eligibility that student should have a zero EFC, and if UCLA were meeting full need, the cost there would be a big fat zero.</p>

<p>Other than some military academies or special situations, no school guarantees to meet full need as defined by FAFSA EFC. Not a one Some SUNYs meet full need up to tuition and fees, and there may be some other such schools with such caveats.</p>

<p>The reason ED is so risky when a family doesn’t really have a good feel how things work, is that you have no idea what kind of a fin aid package you are getting in a vacuum. Easy to say, just turn it down if you can’t afford, but emotion, momentum play a large role in this along with the reluctance to let a prized bird in the hand go without any idea of what else is in the bush. </p>

<p>It would a nice extra piece of info to know what percentage of need a school meet using the FAFSA EFC as the measuring stick. We can see how Yale and USC, both schools that guarantee to meet full, differ in their definitions of need.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“Meet full need” schools almost all have a non-zero student contribution (yes, including Yale at $4,400 and USC at $10,500 in this example), which means that net price at such schools is generally not “a big fat zero” even for EFC = $0 applicants.</p>

<p>In any case, you are free to ignore UCLA in this example and note the difference between USC and Yale net prices, despite both being “meet full need” schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The only public universities that guarantee to meet full need for ALL accepted students are UVA and UNC-CH. UMich guarantees to meet full need for all IN state students. All three of these public universities require the CSS Profile in addition to the FAFSA.</p>

<p>Yes, SOME students will have their need met almost everywhere. But these three public are the only ones that GUARANTEE to meet full need for all accepted students (umich for instate only)…and all three require Profile.</p>

<p>What public universities do you know that guarantee to meet full need for ALL accepted students with only the FAFSA?</p>

<p>What I am saying is that NO school that I know of, other than full pay type specialty academies, meet full need as defined by FAFSA EFC. You don’t think that $8600 a year is a bit much for a CA family of three to have to pay for college when on food stamps, other entitlements like free school lunch, a zero EFC? The package is likely to include the loans and workstudy as part of the award as well, whereas Yale would leave that Direct loan open so that the student could meet the expected contribution with and have some seed money to get there. </p>

<p>It makes no sense to say that school meets full need using FAFSA PROFILE but has its own student contribution. UCLA clearly does not make this claim with only a quarter of their students getting need fully meet.</p>

<p>I just ran the calculators using the abacus, and for some reason, USC’s calculation was significantly higher than any of my other schools. They don’t seem to meet 100% of need.</p>

<p>Ok, ignore whether UCLA “meets full need” or not for in-state students.</p>

<p>The point of this post is is, two schools that supposedly do “meet full need”, USC and Yale, have greatly different net prices for various levels of family income and wealth (e.g. a nearly $40,000 difference in net price for one of the example situations). Indeed, if one considers that UCLA does not “meet full need” even for in-state students, then USC’s net prices being higher than in-state UCLA net prices is even more of an indication that “meet full need” is not something that one can rely on without using the net price calculator.</p>

<p>Yale provides some level of need based aid to families that earn nearly $200,000. USC does not provide aid to families with incomes in that range.</p>

<p>There are many factors colleges use. For example, FAFSA does not use primary home information AT ALL. The Profile (which USC uses) asks for equity information about the primary residence. </p>

<p>Absolutely, Ucbalumnus, the definition of full need differs from school to school. So schools guaranteeing to meet full need means little without the school’s definition of what need is. According to the Common Data info that schools release, USC has a big fat 100% for need met for all students that meet their definition of need. Appalling, IMO, that USC can make this claim when they are asking for 1/2 of a families income, a very low income family on food stamps, to go there. I wonder what their own NPC would show for such a family. I find that number very high for a school that prides itself on meeting full need unless some other factor is present. specially if loans and workstudy are in the aid package. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Presumably, they expect that high a student contribution (loans and work earnings). Yale apparently expects a much lower expected student contribution.</p>

<p>The difference in the expected student contribution can be a significant part of the net price variation, particularly for low income families whose expected family contribution (whether federal or institutional) is $0 or close to $0.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.collegeabacus.com”>http://www.collegeabacus.com</a> appears to web-scrape the colleges’ own net price calculators, so one would expect the result to be the same. It does make it convenient to do NPC runs at three schools at once.</p>

<p>The net prices are the result of subtracting grants only (not loans or work-study) from the list prices. Loans or work-study may be additionally offered (student contribution).</p>

<p>“The net prices are the result of subtracting grants only (not loans or work-study) from the list prices. Loans or work-study may be additionally offered (student contribution)”</p>

<p>Now that makes more sense to me. A student at USC could end up with $5500 in loans and $4K workstudy for a net out of pocket cost of about $1000. For UCLA and Yale, the costs could be nothing (certainly for Yale) once Work Study and Loans are in the picture. The common data does include the student govt loans and work study as aid, but not any private loans or parent involved loans as such. Still UCLA does not come off all that well in the common data info that they themselves provide in the percent of students that get full need met. Kind of unfair because clearly USC’s definition of need is not as generous. Looking at those two school, one is at 25%, the other at 100% of need met for those students who so qualify. </p>

<p>But as a further example of how this can vary greatly, take a student with divorced parents. Custodial parent makes $20K, has the house, and some assets. NCP makes $300K and has assets of that amount equal to home equity (a typical split with the parent getting custody of the kids getting the house). Kid gets zippo from Yale, most likely, and USC and UCLA , both schools that do not take NCP financial info will be a lot more generous.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The above is from the USC website. Looks like they DO require the NCP Profile.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that’s the point. “Meet full need” is based on the college’s own definition of “need”, “student contribution”, and interpretation of the CDS question. Based on NPCs, it looks like USC, which claims to “meet full need”, will be more expensive for most California resident students than UCLA, which does not make such a claim on the CDS (UCLA’s California resident percentage is much higher than 25%).</p>

<p>@thumper1 I see more than 3 on this list besides privates:
<a href=“Colleges That Meet the Financial Needs of Students | CollegeXpress”>http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/lists/list/colleges-that-meet-the-financial-needs-of-students/349/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;