Reed College?

Parents Forum
61

<p>Mini--your list says "per student admitted" or is it "per student attending"? Very different beasts. Just given the numbers, I think it must be attending students.</p>

<p>Also, is it only financial aid offered by the college? I know many MIT students have full ROTC scholarships, as is the case at some of the other schools on your list--which might explain the apparent skewing toward small liberal arts and women's colleges. Does the financial aid include Pell grants? What about student loans?</p>

62

<p>Sorry. It is "per student attending". It is need-based institutional "grants" only.</p>

<p>My d. didn't apply to Reed. But as I've already noted, the offers she received based on the same EFCs varied very widely, with a range from the lowest to the highest being as much as a full year of attendance, and loan requirements varying from $0 to $17,900.</p>

63

<p>Mini, "institutional needbased aid per student admitted" is mostly a reflection of the percentage of students receiving aid and the overall size of the student body, not size of individual awards. So that list doesn't mean that Mt. Holyoke gives more generous aid than Princeton; it means that a higher percentage of Mt. Holyoke students get significant aid. Since Mt. Holyoke is a lot smaller than Princeton, that "average" can come from </p>

<p>In 2003, Reed awarded a total of $12,822,760 in institutional aid; it had 1,266 students. Thus it awarded $10,129 per student (simple math) - about $2550 less than your figure shows. I don't know how your list was calculated - I got mine from the Reed Common Data set for 2003-2004 and simply divided total number of full time undergrads into total institutional aid. Cite:
<a href="http://web.reed.edu/ir/ReedCDS200304.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.reed.edu/ir/ReedCDS200304.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Numbers can be strange. From the same data set, I can see that in 2003, Reed had 686 students who received any financial aid, and fully met need for 649 --or 94% of the students receiving aid -- but Reed claims on the same form that the average percentage of need met for students receiving aid was 100%. That same year, Reed claims to have fully met needs for 145 out of 161 freshmen who received aid, or about 90% -- yet again reports that the "average" percentage of need met is 100%. </p>

<p>In other words, in 2003 there were 37 undergrads at Reed who qualified for aid but whose need was NOT fully met.... where they went in that calculation of 100% need per student, I don't know.</p>

<p>So its relatively obvious that somewhere along the line, a little bit of fudging or number manipulation is going on. I don't want to single out Reed, because I'll bet that I'd find the same anomolies looking at the data sets for other colleges. Reed is to be commended for not only posting its current common data sets on line, but also for leaving all the old ones on their site in a way a URL hacker like me can find them. </p>

<p>For what its worth, the year my son was admitted, Reed's figures show that 186 freshman were determined to have need, need was fully met for 162 (87%) -- and again, Reed claims to have met 100% need "on average" for all students receiving aid. Since Reed does not give any merit aid, those numbers don't make sense. All I see from the numbers is that 24 freshman that year didn't get the aid that they needed - so its probably a good thing in the long run that my son followed the money. </p>

<p>My real point is not to attack Reed -- simply to point out that there are some students there who qualify for financial aid but don't get it -- and that the broad statistics don't tell the whole story. I am sure it is probably the same for other colleges. </p>

<p>My son did received a very strong financial aid award at the college he did attend, but things were still tough financially for him -- when he got to school, he found out that everything sold on campus was overpriced, and that if he didn't eat within a certain time frame, he would lose out on the ability to use his meal plan and would have to pay cash for food at the campus snack bar. He could buy cheaper food and personal items off campus, but he didn't have a car and it was a long walk to the nearest grocery store. He had a good work study grant, but a hard time finding a job on campus that gave him enough hours at enough pay to allow him to get the money he was awarded - so he only ended up earning about a third of the total he was entitled to. There were a lot of students from wealthy backgrounds who were insensitive to his predicament - not intentionally, but they simply didn't understand that when they all went out together and my son declined an invitation to go with them, that my son's problem was that he couldn't afford to join in on whatever they were doing. Of course there were also many other students like my son who relied on work study and loans to make ends meet - so my son wasn't lonely - it's just that he was and ordinary middle class kid in a place where there were a lot of very privileged kids. </p>

<p>So my point isn't to attack a college -- it's just to point out that in the midst of a lot of privilege, there can be some kids who are having a tough time financially.</p>

64

<p>thanks! I had the 2002-2003 data set. But even your numbers put Reed very high up in the top tier.</p>

<p>What the numbers reflect is the aggregate commitment to provide financial aid for its students. It says nothing about the size of packages (at a place like Mount Holyoke, they would even be higher than the numbers suggest, as there is a lot more merit aid), nor the number of students who attend that require it. But overall, it is a much more accurate number than either average size of package (if the admissions office doesn't take many students who need aid, the average size of the package is not meaningful) or the percentage of students who receive aid (one could accept a large percentage of students with very small amounts of "need", and enhance admissions by seeming to offer "scholarships".) So of the numbers available to us, it probably paints the most accurate picture. In aggregate, Mount Holyoke IS much more generous than Princeton, but it doesn't mean that any individual applicant will benefit from it.</p>

<p>I have seen students at one Ivy receive no aid whatsoever, and, with the same EFC, receive $12k/year. If they attend the first one, they may not "qualify" for aid, but actually need it, or in the later case, they may not "need" it. The "need juggle" is something one often sees among so-called "need-blind" (doesn't exist) schools in April.</p>

65

<p>Back in the early '90s, the Ivies tried to make an arrangment among themselves that they would give the same "need-based" offer to each accepted student, regardless of s/he was accepted. They didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts, or a belief that somewhere there existed an "objective" need-based formula, but rather because they were unhappy about the bidding wars they entered against each other. The Justice Department took them to court, charging illegal collusion and restraint of trade. The settlement of the case, in 1999, barred the Ivies from sharing "need" information, or information about packages being offered. So they hav returned to the old "need-based" wars, juggling scholarship, loan, and workstudy requirements to get a step ahead of the competition. But this has actually become less of an issue, as the percentage of applicants from the bottom 40% of the population income-wise has experienced an overall decline - the admissions departments have learned to look for "merit" elsewhere, where "merit" just doesn't cost them very much.</p>

<p>On the whole, though, it is hard to argue that the "needs-based" competition isn't a good thing for consumers. And, again in aggregate, Reed has nothing to be ashamed of in these matters.</p>

66

<p>OK, Mini - the 2002-2003 data set for Reed is here:
<a href="http://web.reed.edu/ir/ReedCDS200203.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.reed.edu/ir/ReedCDS200203.html&lt;/a>
;)</p>

<p>The figures from that year show that institutional aid per students was $9094, 182 Freshmen had financial need, 145 (79.7%) had need fully met, and Reed was still claiming that "on average" it met 100% of need. I have no idea how that stacks up compared to other colleges -- I just see one more year that Reed's data is fudged or manipulated in some manner, but again for all I know the other colleges are doing the same thing. </p>

<p>Reed apparently has a strong commitment to funding CONTINUING students in good standing, and since Reed also has many students who take an extended time to complete degrees, that may be very significant for the 24 year old hoping to graduate after 6 years. Reed has an improving record over time for giving aid to entering freshman, but the bottom line is that on average over the years, about 10-15%, of the students, or about 20-40 students, in the entering class do not get the aid that they need. </p>

<p>I know that the college my son attended would not have guaranteed aid for more than 4 years, so part of the "commitment" to aid question really involves a question of which students they are committed to. And as e-kity points out, "commitment" isn't just financial -- it doesn't help much if the financial aid office is being generous while the academic/administrative section won't reply to emails over whether a kid who struggled with chemistry will be allowed to return. </p>

<p>If you really want to know a college's commitment to aid, then I think it makes more sense to look at the size of the endowment and how much of that goes to financial aid; Reed gets 71% of its income from tution, has a $3.4 million endowment, and spends 18% of its revenues on financial aid. Source: <a href="http://web.reed.edu/ir/revenue.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.reed.edu/ir/revenue.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Again, Reed is to be commended for posting so much information on its web site. It's not so easy to find for other colleges we have been talking about. An again, the point never was to attack Reed - just to point out that those scroungers might actually be hungry.</p>

<p>Also, the whole situation is complicated by the fact that some colleges are eligible for and receive much more in government-funded grant aid per students than others -- so those Ivies on the low end of the list you posted might have a lot more Pell grant money to throw around, which wouldn't be counted in the "institutional" aid number. See:
<a href="http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=26265%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=26265&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

67

<p>"Also, the whole situation is complicated by the fact that some colleges are eligible for and receive much more in government-funded grant aid per students than others -- so those Ivies on the low end of the list you posted might have a lot more Pell grant money to throw around, which wouldn't be counted in the "institutional" aid number."</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure I understand this. I would in fact have thought the opposite. If you accept, percentage, very few Pell Grant students (at Harvard, 6.8%, not including the extension program; at Princeton it is in the 7's, and Yale a little higher), then the amount of money you can recoup from Pell will be smaller rather than higher. In contrast, schools like UCLA, USC, Berkeley, and, on the private side, Occidental, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and even Amherst will, per student, receive much more Pell aid per student.</p>

<p>(I doubt seriously that Reed's endowment is $3.4 million? More like $350 mil, as I remember; Mt. Holyoke's is roughly $490 mil, which makes them extremely generous; Macalester, with $250 mil, might be the most "generous" of all. But I don't think this is a particularly useful way of looking at it, as the size of the endowment may not impact the financial aid of any particular student one iota, which is why the institutional grant aid per student is such a good indicator -- only one indicator of course -- but a very good one.)</p>

68

<p>oh Reed as far as I understand it doesn't offer aid for more than 4 years.
Example
My daughter because of her learning difference took a slightly lower load freshman year. No math in other words-( their lowest class is calc, and she hadn't taken math since she graduated from high school) but this pushed her other requirements for her degree back. So junior year she was taking organic when most took it I think for her major,sophmore year. Because she didn't pass spring quarter organic- (not all her fault I believe), she needed to retake. Reed wanted her to retake organic chemistry at the same time she would have been taking a full senior year including thesis. THat would have been insane.
They ( which I disagree with as policy) also would not allow her to return for the 2004-2005 school year and take organic chem- even if we paid for 100% of it, and finish senior year 2005-2006 and recieve financial aid.</p>

<p>Their story is you are eligible for 4 years of aid, and that apparently includes whether or not you actually receive it for 4 years, if you attend for 4 years, you are then cut off. So this is why she is home, attending a community college, and taking organic chemistry. It is so much work even at the community college, that I don't see how any one in their right mind could suggest that she should have overloaded credits to retake it at Reed.</p>

69

<p>Mini, you are correct on the endowment - I read the figures wrong - I meant $340 million, not 3.4. Sorry.</p>

<p>As to the Pell grant issue, read the article I quoted - its explained there. A school like Princeton will get something like $6000 for every student with a grant; whereas other private colleges might only get $2000 per student - and public universities probably get even less. The dollars are not equally distrubed - a Pell grant at college A is NOT the same amount of money as a grant for the same student at college B.</p>

70

<p>Emeraldkity -- sorry to hear of your frustrations. I didn't want my financial aid comments to turn this thread into one that was bashing Reed - I figured that whatever issues I encountered at Reed, there were probably similar issues elsewhere.</p>

<p>But it seems that bottom line, Reed is not doing a particularly good job of meeting your daughter's needs. I feel that in hindsight, my own son probably made a mistake in turning down a place at UC Berkeley, simply because he gave up a spot that would have been more flexible and affordable over time. Yeah - at the time Berkeley seemed impossibly huge and impersonal - not nearly as nice as a cozy LAC. But a year of tuition at $30,000 buys about 5 semesters at Berkeley for an in-stater -- and here in California it certainly is very easy to transfer make-up credit from community colleges to the university system. It is also easy to drop to part-time status or make up courses over the summer -- and if needed, for us, Berkeley is an easy commute distance. </p>

<p>But we parents don't plan for the problems ... we send our kids off to college assuming that all will go perfectly as planned, and they will happily graduate in 4 years.</p>

<p>Reed's flexible admission policies may also be a pitfall for students with specific learning disabilities or other issues impacting actual performance, if the school doesn't provide support when these kids have trouble with the demanding curriculum. To me, the biggest disappointment with the private LAC experience is that the place simply doesn't give all that much extra support when it comes down to it - yes, a university is big and cold and nobody knows your name, but it also tends to be staffed with a lot more in the way of student support services, and may be a lot more flexible when it comes to changing majors or getting waivers from specific course requirements. I say that because I'm a product of a UC campus, where I switched majors a couple of times, ended up writing my own major through an interdisciplinary department, and graduated in under 4 years. My son says the UC campuses have changed with all the funding cuts, and its a lot harder these days -- he may be right, I don't know. But I do know that the private colleges like Reed -- and many others -- do an excellent job of marketing themselves and projecting a particular image, which of course appeals to and attracts the students they want -- but in the end, it can be a very frustrating and expensive path to graduation, at least for some students.</p>

<p>I hope that Reed will accept your daughter back next year. I'm glad my son didn't go -- or to put it more succinctly, I'm glad that I don't currently owe $30,000+ on a PLUS loan. It's possible that my son would have done very well at Reed - he tends to do better when pushed and challenged, to slack off and mess up on the easy courses rather than the difficult ones -- but I think the question that too many parents overlook when choosing a college is what will happen if things DON'T go well -- if the student has to make up a required course that wasn't passed the first time around, or has to interrupt studies or reduce course load due to illness.</p>

71

<p>my daughter still loves Reed don't get me wrong,and is very defensive when I suggest that there could have been more followthrough.
The Reed culture is probably the opposite of a LAC like Smith which is a lot more nuturing from what I understand. I think the profs are very available, but they can't really help unless you ask for it, and while she did ask for some help, she didn't ask for enough. I think they also left it up to her to find a replacement for her ADD coach, although if they had known much about ADD they would have known how difficult that would be.
She has been visiting at Reed about once a month, and some of her friends also come to Seattle once a month so social wise, she feels OK. I think while she was very upset intially, she is fine with it now, it has given her the opportunity to work at her old elementary school which she loves, and has earned her a position in their science camp for next summer.
Reed will accept her back next fall- she is apparently considered as "on approved leave" and her profs approved the courses she is taking at the community college. They will go on her transcript, but not as Reed courses instead as electives although her organic chem requirement will be checked off, her Reed grade will not be dropped, and the community college courses will not be factored into her Reed GPA.
However I imagine that when she applies to grad school- they will look at all her classes, not just Reed classes.</p>

72

<p>Ok, I'm a Reed freshman and am only really qualified to address the "Scrounger" controversy that's been a focus of discussion.</p>

<p>Scrounging is a time honored tradition here that's really quite practical for students. Like many people in the world, we often have more life than time and meals can get skipped. Scrounging is a way for those who live off campus to get food quickly when they need it. Better to have someome easily get food than go hungry right? Now, as to the question of whether there are/should be social consequences for this practice. The concern is to maintain "the scrounge" as a time honored Reed tradition. It's like old patio furniture almost, you keep it because you paid good money for it, and spruce it up so it looks dignified. Scrounging is only for those that don't mind it. If you don't want to scrounge you don't have to. But for some, it is a valid option. </p>

<p>Not to mention the student body puts Commons to shame in production/waste terms.</p>