<p>interesteddad - look I got to fess up here I flunked statistics. But even I know that if there is a 51% chance of something happening then "on average" it will notwithstanding the fact that 49% of the time it won't. </p>
<p>Swarthmore's enrollment is 7% Black and 8% Hispanic. That gives me 7/10 of a Black person in a class of 10 and 8/10's of a Hispanic person but it still tells me there is a pretty good chance I won't get any diversity at all - and the odds go up if we rule out the Black and Hispanic offspring of Corporate lawyers.</p>
<p>If you want to impress me with Swarthmore's diversity find out how many carpenter's daughters they have going there. Get me the numbers on kids from families making between $40K and $120K and kick out the ones whose divorced Daddy is picking up the college bill while Mom claims to be a single parent. Swarthmore, Williams, and Amherst have all the diversity of Greenwich, CT before the bus takes the cleaning lady home for the day.</p>
<p>SBmom - I am a conservative populist. I have just as big a chip on my shoulder when it comes to the wealthy as any of the socialists floating around these boards :-)</p>
<p>Based on ID's numbers above: here's what you want:</p>
<p>Swarthmore: 54% over $150,000 (that is, no financial aid, plus 10% of the remaining who also make over $150,000 - this based on an extrapolation from Harvard's numbers); 34% between $40-$150k; 12% under $40k.</p>
<p>Amherst: 56% over $150k; 26% between $40k-$150k; 18% under $40k.</p>
<p>Williams: 69% over $150k; 23% between $40k-150k; 8% under $40k.</p>
<p>In the cases of Williams and Swarthmore, it is likely that roughly 80% of the student body comes from the top 20% of U.S. families in income; at Amherst it is likely over 70%.</p>
<p>The Swarthmore numbers are very similar to Harvard; the Williams numbers are roughly similar to Yale's; Amherst's don't really look like anyone else's, though they begin to look like Smith's.</p>
<p>You really can't make anything out of William and Mary numbers except that there are very few students from poor families. Tuition is low enough that you can't assume that just because students don't get need-based aid that their families are top 5%ers. Predictably W&M has a very high retention/graduation rate for a public institution.</p>
<p>Your assumption is that EFC is based on salary alone is wrong. There could be many kids from high cost states with a lot of home equity. If Californians bought a $100.000 home when their applicant was born, that house would give them up to, and over in some places, a million in home equity.</p>
<p>There could be a significant number of kids from families making a whole lot less than $150K paying full tuition. I know many.</p>
<p>Your numbers look close enough for "government work" to me.</p>
<p>Here's another data point: About half of the aid students (or 25% of the entire student body) makes under $80k per year. That breaks down about 12% below 40k, and about 6% or 7% each from 40k-60k and from 60k-80k.</p>
<p>I do question your assumption of $150,000 for all non-aid students. That is not necessarily accurate for people who have either saved (or otherwise acquired) an education nest egg. It is also not an accurate assumption for single-child families.</p>
<p>There are a number of kids who will end up at the State U honors program or to State U without the Honors program because they did not get into their preferred choices. But some of these kids did not apply to State U because it did not even make their college list and applied to schools, say like Goucher, Wheaton, because their GC suggested them and they are truly more in line with the more selective schools that they were sniffing out. When they did not get into the top choices , they may be looking at the choices among a large state school which does not suit them and some less selective private schools that are really what they are suited for. It's just a matter of which one and for how much. And sometimes it is not just the money that is the issue. The egos are bruised, they are not very happy, and then here is this $2500 to $10K scholarship, invitation to their Presidential or Leadership Program, and the school is courting them to the whazoo. A faculty member calls telling him/her that the schools is eagerly awaiting the arrival and discusses options in the chosen major. Kids call saying that the drama club, golf club, chorus, you name it wants the kid there. Dad is looking at the sticker price of this school that was not on the radar screen, which is lower than the first choice schools, researches the school, and finds that it is not bad after all and may have everything the kid wants and the academic and departments are quite good. They visit, get the red carpet rolled out and the place is gorgdous, the facilities excellent. And there is the matter of that scholarship. That is more of what happens.</p>
<p>In the case of a school like Wash U, it is a bit more up in the air as to whether or not the family is going to be willing to pay the difference between State U and Wash U. Wash U, Duke , Emory get very good merit scholars; they are excellent schools. The rankings put them right up there with the top schools, and kids who do not get into HPY generally have little trouble making the transition to those schools even without the merit money, in my opinion. And I think Wish it was April is right about UMiami, and I will add Vanderbilt and Tulane to this catergory. They are doing well "buying" quality students who are deciding to go to these schools with the money being a big consideration. The issue becomes problematic, in my opinion, when it becomes such a business decision, that kids with financial need are pushed further down the opportunity scale. I do not know if it has come to this. THe info is not open to examination to the extent that anyone can tell. The colleges hotly deny it. Though some colleges that are need aware in admissions, are upfront about their policies, many are not. And no one is divulging the exact policies driving who gets the money and who gets the juicy grants, and if economics plays a big role in it. Who is to say that a kid who would have been accepted on a need blind basis and given100% of his need, was replaced by 6 bozos who could afford full freight and are enticed by $5000 "merit" awards instead? Does anyone want to say this is not happening? I truly believe it is happening to some degree, but whether it is on the increase is not something anyone can track since there is no track record on such decisions.</p>
<p>1) home equity is just another way of savings....
2) some private schools follow the CB rec of capping home equity at ~$400k for efc purposes (yes, 5% of $400k is still $20k of efc), but they really don't admit it, so their finaid office has flexibiity on whom they want to buy.
3) regardless of which state it is earned, $150k is still top ~5% income in the nation; plug that income into any efc calculator with 1-2 kids, and the efc will come out to curmudgeon's definition....</p>
<p>Home equity is a tricky thing in areas where the cost of homes has risen sharply. Many times it was not intended as another way of savings, and it puts the family in a tough situaton where moving elsewhere may not be a good option and borrowing the money even worse, if the income cannot repay it. I have seen families who live in areas where they are firmly esconced with schools for the younger kids, location to work, and all sorts of other things that may keep the family in balance. To move is really a big deal--having moved many times, I assure you of this, especially with younger kids in school. Also selling, moving and buying a home does not net out as much as the home equity figures show. On the other hand, it is not fair to the applicant whose folks were not fortunate enough to buy such a house and have such amenities and is otherwise in the same boat as the kid whose family was. I don't think capping home equity is the answer to anything--it's giving an allowance that would be helpful. To me $400K is a pretty big amount for a house, and to cap it at that is more advantageous to those with the more expensive homes that should get nailed for the equity. I worry more about families that are assessed $200-400 for homes in expensive areas where it is challenging to find anything decent at that price range and a move would be so disruptive because it may mean a dangerous neighborhood, a handy man special or outlying area with change of schools, lifestyle, commute, supporty system that have dollar worths that cannot be determined.</p>
<p>My point is not to say that home equity doesn't matter and that it shouldn't be counted just like savings.</p>
<p>It was to say that there are a lot of full pay kids who have not been raised in affluent environments. Kid's in those million dollar CA homes are far from being "rich kids" in most cases. So looking at a school with 59% full pay kids and saying it's full of wealthy kids with family income above $150K is not accurate.</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more. That is one of the reasons why Prop 13 rolled thru Calif years ago -- many seniors on fixed income were being forced from their houses due to rapidly esclating property taxes. Don't forget, however, that the $400k figure is net equity, i.e., less any mortgage.</p>
<p>Zagat, you may have a valid point, but that's not the way the system works, nor will it, at private schools; the publics ignore home equity. Otherwise, everyone that could and would just take any excess cash and investments and 'hide' it into a mortgage and larger house, or, better yet, pay down an existing mortgage. OTOH, I do think mini has a valid point -- with exceptions (house passed down from granparents, layoff, death of breadwinner, divorce) most folks living in million dollar homes (even by inflation) are able to keep them up. Thus, while AGI may not be $150k, it's gotta be darn close.</p>
<p>It is a painful issue many times. You get a family whose one thing that is their breathing space--a nice family home, in a good neighborhood, in a good school district. They can only afford it because of some fortuitous circumstance. It makes their life so much better. Then Son #1 appllies to a private school, and the PRofile wants the value of this home. Well, parents may make $60k with a home equity of $400K + in this high housing cost area. The house may not be in optimum shape and the furnishing found by the curb, but the market makes the property value way up there even at demolition value for the house itself. Should this family move, given that the house is really a source of much enjoyment and breathing room. Close to work, the younger kids have their friends and are in a good school, there is room for grandma to have her own room, and mom can do some home business work out of the house as well. Where the heck to move without major distress to the entire family, so that the money can be used to pay for Son#1's college costs? Is it worth it? To me, it is not. But I cannot see giving the home equity away for free. Clearly this family has an asset that another $60K a year family does not, where a kids from that other family is squeezed in an apartment in a lousy school district, perhaps a dangerous neighborhood, paying a high over the top rent each month because they did not luck into such a great housing arrangement. But you can see the dilemma the family faces. The most generous financial aid packages tend to come from the schools that want that home equity value, requireing PROfile or theier own forms. Using FAFSA alone does not generally achieve 100% of need.</p>
<p>yes, painful indeed. But, unfortunately, da' efc rules favor folks in low cost states, and have so favored them since the major Congressional rewrite of them in the '80s. But, then again, most US laws that deal with economics have a redistributionist effect to low cost states -- the biggest boondoggle of all is the ethanol subsidy and ethanol gas additive requirement (raises costs in Calif by several cents/gal where other less expensive gas substitutes would keep the air just as clean), but that's just one example of thousands.</p>
<p>There is simply no way to make everything scrupulously fair to all. Some families who have plain ol' been frugal and saved get slammed while their profligate cousins get more financial aid. Kids are punished when a high EFC parent simply refuses to pay.</p>
<p>I think merit aid is one more piece of the puzzle to make the system better, not worse. It is the perfect solution to the house-rich, cash poor dilemma, the "good savers punished" dilemma, the "dad won't pay" dilemma, etc.</p>
<p>High-stat kids have some schools that will reward them with $ and other that won't. Poor kids have some schools that woo and help them, and others that don't go as far. Middle class/middle ability kids also have a range of choices. From your local Community College to HYPS, there is a place for everyone in this country to get a good education. If a poor kid's aid is gapped too far, that kid has options like CC for two years & transfer, or attending a state school, even on a 6 year plan. </p>
<p>I think it is important to make education possible for all but I don't think there is any way to make it universally easy.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I don't understand your thinking. What do you mean they must have high incomes to keep up $1,000,000 homes? If they bought them for $100K, and refinanced at a good time, their mortgage would be under $700/mo. They can do their own upkeep. Yet they look like almost millionaires on paper.</p>
<p>Also, while UCs don't count home equity, many state schools do. The UCs have to do this because half of CA could no longer afford them if they counted equity.</p>
<p>As for people just paying down the mortgage, doing so would be a good trick for most. While coming up with $40K a year can be done by many of these families (often using home equity loans!) coming up with $900K to pay off the mortage is not doable.</p>
<p>Back to the theme of buying students and the impact it may have on the universities. Byerly posted links to 2 articles where the basic premise is that higher education is a winner take all environment and that there is a hierarchy in schools. However, why not catch the wave with a school on the rise? WUStL before it jumped up the USNews rankings.</p>
<p>If your prospective student is bright and can qualify for a merit scholarship then it there are others sources that say that they will not lose anything in the transaction. The most notable study on this is the 'Krueger & Dale' study. Here is a brief article on the study from the Dartmough Review:</p>
<p>On the EFC topic, it really depends upon the school, some count home equity and others do not. That is why I have trouble with all the schools that claim to meet 100% of demonstrated financial need. They are not all using the same formula.</p>
<p>As a test I ran the financial aid calculator on the Williams, Princeton and Dartmouth web-sites and my demonstrated financial need next year when my second will be in college varied by $5000. All 3 schools say they meet 100% of financial need.</p>
<p>For me it is interesting because my Profile and FAFSA EFCs are different by a few thousand dollars. It may come down to which form takes precedence in their financial aid offices. Or alternatively, whether they take the highest or lowest EFC.</p>
<p>I guess I do not understand the point in this reference. If a student is in the top quartile of an entering class the school may want to incent that student to come to their institution. This benefits the student in reduced tuition, the school by perhaps moving them up the rankings. The professors who want to teach the best and the brightest, etc.</p>
<p>I would actually turn the question around, these are "so called non-profit" institutions with large endowments, i.e. Williams at over $1B with a student population of about 2000 students. Similarly, Harvard has an endowment of $22B for an undergraduate population of 6500.</p>
<p>I understand the claim that putting money into merit aid diverts it from other budget priorities. However, this argument only goes so far, particularly with schools with huge endowments. I would suggest that an argument can be made that the students that receive merit aid would be more likely to contribute back to the university after graduating.</p>
<p>For some schools the overall merit programs would be a drop in the bucket financially. In order to maintain their overall yield they may have to start to compete economically with some of the other schools if the use of merit aid continues to grow as it has.</p>