katwkittens, did the amounts vary less at schools that did not make “meet full need” claims? And were the offers better from any schools that do not make those claims? If so, were they need-based or merit grants?
I’ve run quite a few Net Price Calculator comparisons for a variety of scenarios (from very low to upper middle income), for “full need” schools up and down its selectivity spectrum. I find that the “full need” schools frequently meet or beat the alternatives (including state flagships and sometimes “big merit” schools). This becomes less true the farther up one goes on the income scale.
Below is one example.
Assumptions
CA resident
$76,000 family income (split evenly between married parents)
$20,000 in financial assets, all in cash/checking
$5K paid in income taxes
No home equity
3 children, 1 age 14, 1 age 17 (HS junior), 1 18 or older (already in college); 5 exemptions
GPA=4.0, SAT M+CR=1500
Fall 2015 admission
Estimated Net Costs of Attendance
$39,899 Purdue (OOS)
$31,700 Virginia Tech (OOS)
$23,843 Carnegie Mellon
$18,018 RISD
$16,422 CSU-SJ (in-state)
$15,405 Cal Poly Pomona (in-state)
$16,141 University of Southern California [“full need” school]
$14,909 Alabama (OOS; appears to reflect merit aid, but may also reflect most expensive R&B plans)
$14,617 Holy Cross [“full need” school]
$12,172 UCLA (in-state)
$11,280 Harvey Mudd [“full need” school]
$9,405 Brown [“full need” school]
$6,955 Vanderbilt [“full need” school]
$6,782 Olin College of Engineering
$4,589 Yale [“full need” school]
So in this case, yes, the offers from “full need” schools did vary by more than $11K.
However, the variation is still much less than the variation among schools that do not make the “full need” claim. Perhaps more importantly, 6 of the full need schools come in below the net costs of the in-state public schools or the one “big merit” school. Even the worst offer from a “full need” school is much better than many of the alternatives (including some in-state public schools).