<p>So...when is a 'need' a need? If you get "gapped" by a 100%-of-need school, and go anyway, did you really have a "need" (not a "want" but a "need") beyond what they provided you? If you are "gapped" exactly the same amount by a NON-100%-of-need school, is it because of their policy of not meeting 100% of need, or because that level of need (as opposed to "desire") really didn't exist?</p>
<p>In other words, the words don't count. The packages do. And as far as I can tell, there are only 6 "need-blind" schools in the country: 4 service academies, Cooper Union, and Olin. (and, even with these, I sometime have my doubts.)</p>
<p>Mini, you are confusing the term "need-blind" with "free". Need-blind simply means that they do not consider need in the admissions decision; many schools are need-blind but do not promise 100% need. Some schools promise to meet 100% need, but they are not need-blind -- they are need-aware, meaning that some qualified students who would otherwise be admitted may be rejected because of their request for financial aid. </p>
<p>It is true that schools that say they meet 100% need only meet the need as they define it, and that can be a far cry from what the family actually needs to make the college affordable. But those schools do use a consistent internal formula -- that is, however they determine "need", they will apply the same formula to everyone. So that means that once accepted, the student knows that need is going to be calculated consistently throughout. </p>
<p>So it isn't quite the same as a "gap". It is true that a college that does not promise to meet full need can end up costing far less than the 100% need schools, because most colleges leverage their aid, giving preferential packages to the students who they most want to attract, based largely on how much money they think they need to offer in order to entice the student. So kids with high stats relevant to their applicant pool tend to get better packages. But at those schools, students are not on equal footing with one another. </p>
<p>I personally would prefer that need be defined strictly in accordance with the FAFSA EFC, and college statistics reflect how close they come to meeting that EFC, as opposed to being able to claim 100% need met when they all define "need" separately. </p>
<p>However, for the purpose of developing a list, there is a distinct meaning to the term, and the term is especially important when it comes to applying to reach colleges. The 100% need schools are for the most part highly selective colleges, with very strong applicant pools - so they tend to be reaches. </p>
<p>Obviously, if the real goal is to save money then the student should apply to colleges where significant merit aid is likely -- usually colleges that are safeties for them -- or stick with their in-state publics.</p>
<p>"Need-blind simply means that they do not consider need in the admissions decision; many schools are need-blind but do not promise 100% need."</p>
<p>I understand how the schools use the terms in their PR; I am also saying that, other than these 6 schools, I know of NO schools that are actually need-blind. I'm not confusing anything. Even my alma mater now admits to attaching yellow "social-ec" tags to the applications. And if you think the adreps don't use their full understanding of an applicant, including their economic class, in their calculations, I'll ask you what you're smokin'? ;) Find me a single school other than the six I named with an open-ended financial aid budget that isn't determined in advance of admit season.</p>
<p>"that is, however they determine "need", they will apply the same formula to everyone." "Even if the 100% need college award is disappointing, the family knows that the college will continue to calculate EFC the same way over 4 years, and continue to meet that amount."</p>
<p>I haven't seen a shred of evidence, other than the colleges' own PR, that suggests that this is true. And I know literally several dozen cases of schools engaging in "finding more need" in April to prevent an applicant from going to another school where "more need was found". This is true even at the most selective colleges. Somehow, the so-called formula is no longer so sacred. And I have consistently seen "bait-'n'-switch" at 100%-of-need schools, where increasing amounts of the need (as they determine it, which the family believed "gapped them" to begin with) are met by loans rather than grants.</p>
<p>"many schools are need-blind but do not promise 100% need."</p>
<p>Actually, more common are the need-aware schools that meet 100% of need. In fact, in my examination of LACs, 7 of the top 10 schools in the provision of financial aid per student are need-aware, not need-blind. And there are no patterns regarding their relative size of endowments either.</p>
<p>Sorry for the bump, but I wanted to make a comment. I saw on the UNC-Chapel Hill common data set that they guaranteed to meet 100% for all applicants who filed their FAFSA on time, the ones who didn't get 100% weren't on time. It said it was a state law I believe. And it wasn't in PLUS/private/unsubsidized loans either. So I think it should be added.</p>