<p>You have to be careful about how the school defines need. When schools calculate their cost of attendance there are vast differences. Beyond tuition, fees and room and board, they also look at books, personal expenses and transportation. And the assumptions they make vary widely. Some are honest about the cost of books, and some low ball. Some are honest about personal expenses-and some low ball. Some include realistic transportation costs and some don't include them at all. The differences can add $2-3k in uncovered expenses.</p>
<p>"In theory, yes -- but the reality is that the elite 100% need colleges tend to offer more generous aid and to have more lower-income bracket students than the colleges a few notches down the ranking ladder that don't meet 100% need."</p>
<p>Evidence please? The largest percentage of students receiving need-based aid at Princeton had incomes between $100-$160k. Harvard has among the lowest Pell Grant percentages of any private college or university in the country. Again, take the total amount of financial aid, divide by the total student body, and you'll quickly find that H and Y, despite their press releases, don't break the top 20 (though P has moved up significantly, and is close to the bottom of the top 10.) Roughly half the schools ahead of them are "need-aware".</p>
<p>"those Cornell loan figures are pretty scary"</p>
<p>Simply may reflect more low-income students with LARGER grants-in-aid.</p>
<p>"But keep in mind that richer students overall might translate into more financial aid dollars available to share among the smaller number of poor students."</p>
<p>Would be nice, but the evidence that I've seen doesn't bear it out. Though it might indeed be true that the 3.2% of students on Pell Grants at Washington & Lee are treated slightly more generously than the 25% on Pell Grants at Occidental. The latter might even have more loans.</p>
<p>Evidence please? 54% of the admitted students at Pton receive financial aid. Moreover, you ignore or gloss over that the only school on the list with $0 for loans is Pton. It borders on unconscionable that schools with billion dollar endowments are socking it to needy undergraduates and Pton is the leader since 2001 in rectifying such practices. Yes, they give scholarships to kids who have 4 siblings and the mother is a nurse and the father is a big city cop and have a shockingly high over $100,000 combined AGI. Frankly, I think there is a legitimate need for economic diversity that Pton is addressing. Please don't define economic diversity solely as Pell grant recipients.</p>
<p>While yes, there are schools that meet 100% of your demonstrated need, keep in mind that how this need is met (percentage of scholarship/ grant aid vs. percentage of self help aid in the form of workstuyd & loans) varies from school to school.</p>
<p>a good source to cross reference this information is on the college board's website because they do state the percentages of scholarship/grant aid and the % loans/ workstudy.</p>
<p>Agreed that College Board provides another, valuable, data set. Relying on ANY single source detracts from validity. Case in point: Reed College doesn't appear in USN&WR's top-40. Why? Because Reed for ten years has refused to play their stats manipulation game and doesn't provide all requested data (but Reed does publish its dataset online). Princeton Review rates Reed #1 in overall undergrad experience, and for good reason. And Reed does meet 100% of need. (BUT Reed has a relatively small endowment and isn't quite need-blind this year; it's a goal they hope to meet in coming years. Reed says they'd rather reject a few borderline applicants based on need and therefore be able to meet 100% of everyone they accept -- which was 39% of applicants this year.)</p>
<p>Mini - I am talking about the aid given on an individual basis -- your comments seem again and again be directed to the general -- how much aid does the college give overall, as opposed to how much can an individual student expect when they apply.</p>
<p>My "evidence" is personal experience, now with two kids: in the absence of merit aid, the higher up the "elite" ladder we went in terms of of admissions, the better the aid package. First tier colleges gave my son better need-based aid than 2nd tier colleges; Barnard gave my daughter a better aid package than Fordham (and that is with merit aid from Fordham included). I am talking better by many thousands. </p>
<p>Another personal observation: the lower down the rankings, the bigger the loans. The elite colleges seem to have policies that put limits on the amount of undergraduate loans, generally limiting the loans to Stafford only ($2625 for the first year) -- lower down the rankings my kids had loan packages of $6000 or more for the first year, who knows what in subsequent years. The elites gave small work study "grants" - as you know work study is not a grant at all, but merely a job opportunity -- at the non-elite, the work-study was much higher, meaning many more hours spent working in order to earn the funds. </p>
<p>You seem to have a political agenda here. I don't disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm here for another reason: I want to help parents and students understand and navigate the financial aid system, in order to get better aid packages. You can speculate all you want about Cornell having "more low income students" -- but the fact is that $10K in loans on average for first year is an outrageously high figure - well above what is available in through federal subsidized loan programs -- and you can find many posters on this board complaining about their loan-heavy Cornell financial aid packages. The reality is that most kids are going to get better offers from the 100% need schools than the near competitors, though as they go down the ranking at a certain level the merit aid potential at lesser ranked schools will overtake the need-based awards. Where that level is depends on the student however-- there are many "well lopsided" students who might well gain admission to the elites, but whose stats are not at the level to qualify them for substantial merit aid at first-tier or even many second-tier level colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
keep in mind that how this need is met (percentage of scholarship/ grant aid vs. percentage of self help aid in the form of workstuyd & loans) varies from school to school.
[/quote]
Sybbie, I disagree with the approach of looking at the self-help aid as a percentage of overall amount, rather than looking at dollar figures, because aid is not caculated on a percentage basis. So it is very misleading to look at a percentage, because there a limit to the amount of federally subsidized loans available and to the amount of work-study hours that can reasonably be required. The implication of a percentage approach would be to expect that a student with less need would have less of a loan.</p>
<p>Example: my daughter's aid package from Barnard is more than $30K; 14% of that is loans and work study. Does that mean that a student who qualifies for a need based package of half that amount will have half the loans? No - Barnard is probably going to require every student to take a $2600 Stafford loan, and probably has a set amount of work-study hours it offers which reflects campus job availability and their sense of how many hours it is feasible for first year students to spend working rather than studying. So the kid who qualifies for half the aid overall will probably see a package that is 28% self help. A kid who qualifies for very little need based aid - say, only $4000 -- is going to see a package that consists entirely of self-help without any grant whatsoever.</p>
<p>In the end, colleges that have a larger percentage of needier students who qualify for larger grants are going to be the ones that show the lowest percentage of self-help aid. That provides an alternate way of looking at the data, but it is not much help to the kid whose family income is on the high end of those qualifying for financial aid. </p>
<p>So I really think that it is necessary to look at the dollar amounts for loans and work-study awards. On the other hand, looking at typical grant dollar amounts is meaningless, because those reflect the overall expense of the college and the average income level of financial aid applicants. Rice and Cal Tech probably give much lower average grants, but their tuition is significantly less. So grants can only be evaluated in the context of overall cost of attendance, such as the way the information is presented at <a href="http://www.collegedata.com%5B/url%5D">www.collegedata.com</a>. (Excellent web site for getting a profile of likely financial aid; however, I would give it an A- for reliability of data and suggest that figures on the site be cross-checked against other sources).</p>
<p>celloguy, Reed's's common data set figures do not support a claim that they are a 100% need school. Their 2005-2006 CDS show that they met full need of only 158 of 177 first year students who were found to qualify for aid, and of only 648 of 696 of the total number of students found to have financial need. So basically, last year there were 48 students at Reed who did not have their full need met, including 19 entering freshmen. </p>
<p>Now maybe that is changing for this year's entering class, but up until now it has definitely not been a 100% need school. A college that fails to meet full need of more than 10% of its entering class simply cannot claim to be a 100% need school.</p>
<p>calmom,
Can you post the US News data for Brown loans? I have heard that they tend to be poor in providing need based aid compared to some of the other very selective schools and I'd like to see the comparison. Thanks, ento</p>
<p>My "evidence" is personal experience, now with two kids: in the absence of merit aid, the higher up the "elite" ladder we went in terms of of admissions, the better the aid package."</p>
<p>Needless to say, my ANECDOTE is not the same (and the plural of anecdote is not evidence.) No fewer than four "need-aware" schools made better offers than the highest ranking (and wealthier, in some cases, MUCH wealthier) need-blind one. Whatever - the plural of anecdote is not evidence.</p>
<p>In the end, you are going to find that those schools with the lowest amount in loans have the wealthiest students. It makes lots of sense to offer small grants and small (or no) loans to students in the $100-$160k bracket. It means that the "average loan amount" of those receiving need-based aid will be lower. But by itself, it won't help those with high need in the least. Both the Crimson and the Princeton website have shown the very large number of students receiving aid in this cohort. And the cost to Princeton of turning those small loans into small grants was relatively miniscule. Their problem was that they found themselves competing with the Vanderbilts of the college world, and too often for their liking, they were losing. Hence, no loans.</p>
<p>"In the end, colleges that have a larger percentage of needier students who qualify for larger grants are going to be the ones that show the lowest percentage of self-help aid.'</p>
<p>Maybe, maybe not. Both H and P have (relative to other 100% of need schools) very low percentages of students who qualify for larger grants (i.e. Pell Grant recipients), and yet they may show the lowest percentage of self-help aid.</p>
<p>entomom, here is the Brown data:</p>
<p>Need-based aid
Students who applied for financial aid 58% 51%
Those determined to have financial need 45% 45%
Students whose need was fully met (excluding PLUS or other private loans) 100% 99%
Avg. financial aid package
(% awarded aid) $25,803 (45%) $24,878 (45%)
Avg. need-based scholarships or grants
(% awarded aid) $23,177 (44%) $20,767 (42%)
Avg. self-help aid, such as work study or loans (% awarded aid) $3,945 (36%) $5,959 (40%)
Avg. need-based loan (excluding PLUS or other private loans) $3,943 $4,900
% need met (of those awarded need-based aid) 100% 100%</p>
<p>If you don't have access to US News data, I would recommend using the College Net Cost calculator at <a href="http://www.collegedata.com%5B/url%5D">www.collegedata.com</a> -- registration is required to use the site, but it is free. The net cost calculator gives you an estimated financial aid figure based on your EFC and the college's financial aid patterns as discerned from the CDS data - so for example the site calculates the net cost to attend Brown for a family with a $10,000 EFC to be $16,617, whereas the same family would pay $15,736 to attend Dartmouth. Of course the hitch in all of this is that your EFC is what the college says it is - so you really can't rely on those numbers.</p>
<p>That being said, I just tried running those numbers using the EFC that Barnard set for us against other colleges that my daughter got awards from, and at least in our case the calculator seems to have good ball park numbers. For example, if U of Chicago had determined the same EFC as Barnard, our net cost for Chicago would still have been $4k greater. (There actually was about a $9K discrepency between the awards, because Chicago also assigned us a higher EFC - but with the calculator I can see that about half of the difference comes from Chicago's less generous policies in respect to self-help aid).</p>
<p>
Actually, Mini, in a courtroom it is, as is the singular. Anything that I can relate as of direct personal observation is "evidence". And even the realm of science, an anecdote is a form of evidence (hence the phrase "anecdotal evidence"), albeit generally viewed with skepticism. </p>
<p>My question for you is simple: did the lower ranking need-aware schools include merit awards in their offers? Because my experience was similar -- merit money on top or in lieu of need based aid potentially improves the situation especially as many colleges use the merit money to replace the self-help aspects of their typical package. </p>
<p>But the point isn't to compare the low-ranking colleges with the high-ranked ones -- it is to look at schools that have similarly qualified applicant pools. The problem with your <em>anecdote</em> about the lower-ranked need-aware schools is that you are not considering the plight of the significant percentage of students who are denied aid. Lewis & Clark gave my son the most generous offer of all, but his award was at the expense of the 69% of L&C financial aid applicants who do not get their need fully met there. As the college has become more selective over the years, there would have been no way that my daughter could have counted on a similar award had she applied there, though she could have been reasonably certain of admission.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that when you look at a 100% need school, however they define need, you are looking at a college that promises to apply the same formula to everyone. When you are looking at a need aware school that only meets the need of some of the students, then you are seeing a college that uses enrollment management concerns to leverage its aid dollars, and what you as an individual perceive as a generous offer is a reflection of a campus that has its own set of haves and have-nots -- really great if you come out on top, but not so hot if you purport to have an egalatarian view of things.</p>
<p>Also, I think that you are somewhat mistaken to use the Pell grant qualifiers as your data point for determining who qualifies for "larger" grants -- I certainly would consider a $25K grant to be quite large, but the family who gets that at a $42K COA college probably isn't a Pell grant qualifier. I understand that may be the only data point you have absent additional statistical evidence provided by the colleges, but I really think that the "average" grant often represents what is typically given to median-income level families, who are simply not going to qualify for Pell grants but do qualify for substantial levels of financial aid at private colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And even the realm of science, an anecdote is a form of evidence..
[/quote]
Not in any science I've ever seen. Even educational research does not rely on anecdotes. And you should know that the term "anecdotal evidence" is a pejorative one, bordering on a word play.</p>
<p>Word battles aside, the evidence mini cites speaks for itself. Since Pell grants are free federal financial aid, they are a good measure of low income students. </p>
<p>Research has shown that, while the elites say they give no admissions advantage to early applicants, no advantage to legacies, and an an advantage to first time applicants, economic diversity etc., they, in fact, do the opposite. </p>
<p>These schools can use whatever criteria for admissions they want. They are private, after all. That they chose criteria that are more common among afluent, more common among prep school kids (lacrosse, crew in the inner city? right...) is their choice. As I've said before, it is so easy for a school to tip the process for or against a particular group. If they really wanted to boost limited income applicants, why don't they give weight to part time jobs as an extra curric? etc. etc.</p>
<p>Actually, Newmassdad, I've read dozens of articles in medical/scientific journals that are based on reports of only a single case. Of course, they call it a "case study" rather than an anecdote, but its still the report of a single case. </p>
<p>But the point all along is that we are not talking about the overall numbers when we talk about 100% need school - we are talking about what the individual student can expect in terms of financial aid. The number of Pell grant recipients at a school is irrelevant if that school is not committed to providing for the need of their students. Pell grants are abysmally small in comparison with private tuition. There are Pell grant qualifiers at NYU who are being asked to borrow $30K a year to attend. Yes they get their Pell grants... but not much more. </p>
<p>I'm sure you will find more Pell grant recipients at in-state public schools which may provide little if anything in the way of financial assistance beyond the Pell grant. That doesn't mean those schools give good financial aid; it just means that their tuition is set lower to begin with. </p>
<p>And that belongs on another thread entirely: colleges with the lowest tuitions.</p>
<p>calmom,</p>
<p>Please don't confuse case reports from the medical literature with data used to draw inferences. You seem to be comparing apples to oranges.</p>
<p>Also, I think you totally missed the point of mini's posts, and mine. You may be talking about what an individual student can get. Others were making different points, like it is easy to give lots of $ to poor kids if you just don't admit many of them. Please, re-read the posts.</p>
<p>"celloguy, Reed's's common data set figures do not support a claim that they are a 100% need school."</p>
<p>It's all in how you interpret the data. College Board reports 100% of need met. Colin Divers reports 100% of need met. (perhaps those whose full need wasn't met didn't accept loans offered?)</p>
<p>This from Reed's website:</p>
<p>2005-06 institutionally administered aid<br>
approximately $18 million
% of students on aid<br>
approximately 50%
% of demonstrated need met for
students receiving institutional aid<br>
100%
.
.
.
Average loan indebtedness upon graduation
(2004-05 graduates)
$17,175</p>
<p>My main point being that stats on CC, and in every other source, can be viewed from many angles.</p>
<p>Thanks for the information calmom, I'll checkout that site.</p>
<p>Maybe it would be helpful to bring up another data point, one that I think we haven't talked about: Colleges can use the federal or institutional method to determine EFC (or a combination). Federal favors some applicants, institutional (Profile basically) favors others. Also, if we're comparing packages, consider what happens with private scholarship dollars, which the colleges can choose to apply as they see fit; i.e., Reed first uses private money to close the gap (if any) between federal and institutional methodologies, then to eliminate the loan portion of the package, then ... well, you see how this is going. This info is a little harder to extract from the stats, and doesn't always matter to every applicant, but it's relevant if we're comparing packages.</p>
<p>
[quote]
% of demonstrated need met for
students receiving institutional aid
100%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>perhaps reed flat-out did not offer financial aid packages to a handful of accepted students who nonetheless enrolled?</p>
<p>anyway, a lot of numbers are being thrown around here so i figured i would post the link to <a href="http://www.economicdiversity.org%5B/url%5D">www.economicdiversity.org</a>, which has all of the pell grant data that mini has been citing.</p>
<p>and for those interested, the 25 schools (in order) with fewer than 10% of students receiving pell grants: washington and lee (the run-away winner), richmond, muhlenberg, kenyon, davidson, loyola maryland, princeton, wake forest, william and mary, washington university (stl), colby, harvard, virginia, franklin and marshall, fairfield, bates, providence, washington college, notre dame, lafayette, middlebury, kalamazoo, colgate, villanova, and elon.</p>
<p>"perhaps reed flat-out did not offer financial aid packages to a handful of accepted students who nonetheless enrolled?"</p>
<p>Nah, that would make sense of the stats, but Reed chooses instead to deny admission to those few borderline students who need aid and who would break the budget. Overall, I think that's a better way to go; it saves parents from having to tell their eager Reed prospie s/he can't go because mom can't afford it.</p>