<p>anyone know how exactly MIT scholarship works?
i know it is not merit-based
then does it mean that u will get scholarship for sure if u get accepted and u can't pay for it?</p>
<p>MIT Scholarships are need-based financial aid. They will double Pell Grants and count them as scholarships if you qualify for one.</p>
<p>Basically they calculate how much they think your parents can afford to pay, for most families this will be close to $0 but climbs slowly after about $60,000 in income and then takes off rapidly near and after $100,000 in income.</p>
<p>Then they will add that to a few thousand you’re expected to earn over the summer and a “self-help” component of like $3000-$5000 that you can pay with other scholarships you win or a Pell grant. </p>
<p>Subtract the total of all that from $50,000 and that is roughly how much they will give you as a scholarship.</p>
<p>Expect something like this for parent contribution -
$60,000 or less - a few hundreds
roughly $75,000 - $5,000
over $100,000 - a lot</p>
<p>ok
thx
can u tell me how to apply for Pell Grants or whatever?</p>
<p>I think when you apply for financial aid the college will get you a Pell Grant if you qualify so it’s automatic.</p>
<p>Other scholarships you have to find on your own. There is a search called FastWeb that also has information about scholarships in general. I didn’t think it’s that great. You are more likely to win local scholarships since the pool of applicants is small and they can add up. You’re school or local newspaper might compile a list of these.</p>
<p>My experience is that you should play on your strengths if you have a limited amount of time. If you are good at writing try the essay writing ones first. If you are low-income (around the poverty line, < $20k) try applying for scholarships from big corporations or hospitals or ones that say they favor low-income applicants. Wal-Mart does for instance. </p>
<p>If you are a minority that can help you win scholarships, unless you are Native American or an Aboriginal Australian in which case people probably don’t care. Even if the scholarships application does not say “preference for minorities,” if it is from a big corporation doing this for good PR then it most likely does prefer minorities because it’s better PR.</p>
<p>Anyway, the most important thing with financial aid and scholarships is to apply on time, which should be when you apply to colleges. You fill out the FAFSA and College Board PROFILE and send copies of a few things like tax forms. If you don’t meet the deadlines they may not help you even if you have no other way of affording to go to school!</p>
<p>Think of it this way. If you can get into MIT, cost of attendance is unlikely to be a major issue. </p>
<p>Hardly any students turn down MIT for financial reasons. Parent income has to be well over $100,000 before tution catches up with that at state schools. </p>
<p>MIT is need blind even to international applicants and aggressively seeks out high performing low income students. Over 2 out 3 students are on financial aid. MIT will not gap you with loans, so you don’t need to seek out additional private scholarships.</p>
<p>Regarding Post #3:
You just file your FASFA and CSS/Profile forms. If you are Pell
eligible MIT will include that in your scholarship (and double it).
They take care of all that once your forms are in and the tax
documents have been filed via the IDOC process.</p>
<p>With the exception of Caltech where I was covered by merit aid,
MIT gave me the best aid amongst HPMS. Given how generous (very)
H is, that should give you an idea how good MIT is! </p>
<p>You will also find that the humanity you see in the admissions office at
MIT extends to its financial aid side. This is not something you will find
at Duke or Stanford. H and P like MIT are very considerate and Caltech
of course is so laidback it will be like talking to your family. Overall though
MIT made me feel human during the financial aid process and as stated in #5
cost of attendance will not be an issue.</p>
<p>^^
Stanford’s aid is better than MIT’s overall. Stanford’s FA office is very human and considerate, don’t know how you got that impression.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true.</p>
<p>From 2007-2008 CDS</p>
<p>% of students receiving financial aid
Stanford 45% MIT 63%</p>
<p>% of students with need fully met
Stanford 36% MIT 63%</p>
<p>Average Scholarship grant (excluding loans) of students receiving financial aid
Stanford $32,413 MIT $33,476</p>
<p>MIT is need blind to internationals. Stanford is not.</p>
<p>Um. I don’t think so. The percent of kids receiving financial aid has nothing to do with how good the aid is. Also, I’m not so sure I understand % of students with need fully met. Do you mean how many kids get their COA-EFC fully covered? Then that should be 100% for both schools since they both agree to meet all of demonstrated need. If you mean how many kids are there on a full ride, well, I really doubt 63% of the kids at MIT are not paying anything to go to college. Again, for the average scholarship grant, that has nothing to do with how strong the aid program is (i.e., if there are more wealthy people at Stanford the average grant will be smaller than that at MIT even if Stanford’s aid program is better). Also, if the OP isn’t an international that doesn’t matter, but still, if admitted Stanford will fulfill their full need. Lastly, I think MIT includes UROP in their aid figures, but I’m not sure. I do know that Stanford does not require any contribution for people making less than 60k and eliminates tuition for those making 100k. According to jessiehl, MIT removes tuition from those making 75k. I also know that Stanford has eliminated loans while MIT still has them. Overall, most people would consider Stanford’s aid to be more generous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simply false. MIT’s scholarships are all grant, not loans. Check the CDS.
[MIT</a> Office of the Provost, Institutional Research](<a href=“Home - MIT Institutional Research”>Home - MIT Institutional Research)</p>
<p>Stanford actually provides aid in the form of loans to parents as per their CDS at least until the 2007-2008 school year.
[Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2007-2008](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#financial]Stanford”>http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#financial)</p>
<p>Stanford provided need-based financial aid to less than 36% of its 2007 class. It is actually the lowest number of any top 20 private university. MIT provided need based aid to over 64%, the highest of any top 20 private university. </p>
<p>The self-help component to be paid by the student is actually greater at Stanford than MIT. The average indebtdeness of Stanford students from their self-help contribution is $16,728 at graduation as compared to $15,051 at MIT. Also a greater percentage of Stanford students (40%) borrowed money for their self-help contribution than MIT students (37%). UROP’s have nothing to do with FA. </p>
<p>By every objective measure MIT’s aid is better than Stanford’s. You should check the facts first before making random comments. You obviously weren’t admitted to MIT, so you have no first hand knowledge of any of their FA programs.</p>
<p>Stanford as of this year and onwards has eliminated loans from all financial aid packages. The data you are using is from the past when Stanford did include loans in their FA. I am VERY sure, MIT puts student loans or expects students to take out loans in their financial aid package otherwise they wouldn’t ask “6. What does it mean when you say you eliminated the student loan expectation for families earning less than $75,000?”.
[MIT</a> - Student Financial Services](<a href=“MIT Student Financial Services”>MIT Student Financial Services)
Stanford expects students to do neither as of now.
The number of Stanford students receiving FA has NOTHING to do with how good the FA program is, because, apparently, more Stanford students are wealthier. You wouldn’t contend that since less Stanford students receive FA than say Cornell, that Cornell’s FA is better than Stanford’s. MIT even recognized this saying that
“MIT students have greater need than those at other schools on average”.
[MIT</a> - Student Financial Services](<a href=“MIT Student Financial Services”>MIT Student Financial Services)
However, Stanford has now eliminated tuition for kids making <100k while MIT has only done so for <75k. That is an objective measure by which Stanford’s aid is far superior to MIT’s. I don’t know how much kids making <60k have to contribute at MIT but I do know at Stanford that it is absolutely zippo, which leads me to believe that at MIT kids are still contributing something. Even up to 150k, Stanford states on their website that with FA the cost of attendance is still similar to that of a state school. Yet with MIT, only 38% of the kids receiving FA make over 100k. That other information about, self-indebtedness after graduation is very close now, and with Stanford completely eliminating the loans the number is sure to go below that of MIT’s. And if, as you still say, MIT gives out no loans, then their number can’t drop much, now can it? Please check your information before you start posting things that are clearly incorrect and are pretty irrelevant to the argument.</p>
<p>You just should read the CDS before commenting, not try to interpret statements you don’t understand. </p>
<p>Loans refer to the self-help component, not the parent contribution. I should know, I have a child at MIT and pay the bills. Scholarships are all grants. MIT never had any loans as part of its FA, unlike Stanford which showed it as late as 2007. (Read the CDS). </p>
<p>The self-help component is greater at Stanford than MIT so Stanford students have greater debt on graduation. Stanford has never claimed it has eliminated self-help. You are just confused. </p>
<p>If Stanford’s FA is supposedly better now, let us see what the next CDS says. As per verifiable information in 2007 it was clearly inferior to MIT’s.</p>
<p>How good is a program that only applies to very few students? Of all top colleges, Stanford is the one that offered FA to the lowest percentage of students. Out of 61% that applied for need-based aid at Stanford, only 36% got any aid at all. They are also one of the few to not be need blind to internationals. One really wonders if Stanford is really need blind at all. Is their applicant pool really that different from that at HYPM?</p>
<p>We will see next year, how many more students get FA at Stanford with the stated expansion to $100K. My bet is the total number of students affected will be nominal. Most students at Stanford pay full freight and it will continue to be the case. Get back to me when Stanford reaches 50% on FA, let alone 64%. The new Stanford FA program is all smoke and mirrors. Talk a big game about expanding aid, but in the end admit students who don’t need any. As one of the few schools with merit aid and scholarships for athletes, Stanford has compensated by s***wing the rest of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>Cervantes: You are simply wrong. I have received aid from Stanford in the
past for online courses and have had Stanford as my #1 choice almost
through March of this (my Senior) year.</p>
<p>Cellardweller is right on the money.</p>
<p>To give you perspective:
I was an academic likely admitted to Stanford in February.
I was admitted EA to MIT.</p>
<p>Stanford had parent contributions for me despite being way under
their requirements for full coverage. MIT had none. Same paperwork.</p>
<p>Stanford had student contributions during the work year and summer.
MIT had none. Same paperwork.</p>
<p>It turns out that at least one CA and one Oregon resident with
similar financial profile were treated differently than a bunch (3) of
us who are from other states.</p>
<p>Later Stanford did an about face and nixed the parent contribution
with hours to spare on the deadline. It was a decent package in the
end but the way my family was treated during theprocess left a lasting
impression. This was on top of going through similar treatement on the
travel grant. Basically Stanford has focused its aid efforts on a class of
people with income > X < Y if you fall under X you are treated quite
miserably. This is not their currently publicized position though.</p>
<p>MIT goes out of its way to nurture those below X.</p>
<p>cellardweller, Stanford’s number of kids receiving FA appears lower than expected because kids who receive athletic scholarships cannot receive a need-based award, as a result they choose whichever is the higher of the two (which is often the athletic scholarship). Also, given that slightly under 60% of the kids who are admitted to Stanford applied for FA, it is highly unlikely that up to 50% of the kids at Stanford will receive FA. MIT, on the other hand, has almost 80% of its kids requesting FA, thus, obviously the percentage of kids receiving FA will be higher. Furthermore, it is quite irritating when people say that athletic scholarships take away funds from need based students, considering the athletic scholarship money is not taken away from the financial aid fund-but instead from the sports’ revenue itself. Trust me, no one is getting short changed because of the athletes. MIT 012, it is great that you got a financial aid package from MIT that made it very easy to attend. However, this was not the case for everyone or even most people on MIT’s thread on financial aid this year. Even barkowitz commented that he felt uneasy by the responses of the students. Conversely, most Stanford kids were content with their aid package. While I will not deny that some kids may receive a better package from MIT, that does not make MIT’s FA better than Stanford’s or Harvard’s. The thing about other states probably has to do with the CalGrant, which I’m not too familiar with. However, I’m from NJ and I certainly don’t think I was treated unfairly because I wasn’t from CA. I just don’t want people to not apply to Stanford thinking they will not be able to afford it but to apply to other top schools thinking that they will be more affordable. This is simply not the case. The FA office at Stanford will make things work if you want it to. By the way, this is not an anti-MIT thing, but instead a pro-Stanford thing. I applied to MIT and am a legacy at MIT.</p>
<p>You don’t need to twist the fact to try to make a point. This post was about MIT FA, not Stanford. YOU are the one interjecting comments without foundation and trying to showcase Stanford. You misinterpret information and fail to check facts. Barkowitz never acknowledged that MIT’s aid was less than any of its competitors. He simply recognized that ANY need based aid may not always be satisfactory for middle class parents making well over $100,000. </p>
<p>The fact remains that MIT has always had one of the most generous finaid programs bar none catering to a majority of enrollees. Stanford’s need based aid has always been limited to a small minority. That Stanford is finally trying to catch up is a good thing, if it really proves to be more than words. Again, we will see next year how many more students receive need based aid before passing judgment.</p>
<p>Stanford still has a long way to get close to other elite schools as far as breadth of coverage. It is simply undeniable that Stanford has very few middle class students compared to other elite schools. Families have to make well above $180,000 to receive no need based aid at all. Why are so few middle class applicants admitted to Stanford? Whether it is because the money is siphoned away for athletic scholarships or other reasons, is hard to know. In the end the money comes from the same pool. Check the CDS again.</p>
<p>This became about Stanford when MIT 012 said “This is not something you will find at Duke or Stanford” and it is very reasonable to assume the OP will at the very least consider Stanford in his list if he’s looking for strong engineering/science schools. Furthermore, I still stick to my guns that Stanford’s FA is overall superior to MIT’s especially given Stanford’s new initiatives.</p>
<p>Good for you to stick to your guns. At least facts don’t get in your way!</p>
<p>It isn’t facts. It’s how you interpret them. Regardless of what you call smoke and mirrors, Stanford eliminates tuition for those making less than 100k while MIT can only do that for those making under 75k. Stanford additionally eliminated parental contribution from those making under 60k. Those are hard facts. I’m not going to speculate what people making in the middle of that get, because neither of us can know, we can only, speculate. I also know, personally might I add, that Stanford gives a lot of aid to those making well over 100k as well. I also know kids from Stanford were in general happy about their FA, while people at MIT said their aid sucks, at least on CC. You however, are hung up on how many kids receive FA and the average grant each kids receive. Fair enough.</p>
<p>I applied to Stanford as well as MIT. Neither is a decision I regret.
Both admission departments treated me well.</p>
<p>It is the vey aspect of “humanity” embedded piece and parcel into MITs
Financial AId program that the head of their Aid program was on the
CC forum commenting about posts. Not in his job description. This is
not a bureaucrat but a human being!</p>
<p>It took me 11 days to get a reply back on e-mail the first time from the Stanford Aid officer. An inconclusive, form reply?</p>
<p>I did in the end get almost comparable aid from Stanford. It was hard
won and that is the point. That was two times in issues
related to money that I had to “win” something at Stanford compared to
talking to someone at Princeton or MIT and getting a factual view of
why I might/might not qualify.</p>
<p>Cervantes, I understand you are simply trying to protect fair Stainford’s
name. There is no intent here to besmirch it. Just wake up to the fact that
the “new initiatives” you are referring to apply to certain financial levels
and that at this point Stanford aid may not be favorably on par with
that at MIT, Harvard and Princeton for the lower income applicant from
states outside the CA region.</p>
<p>Thanks op for kindly allowing us to reroute your thread.</p>