<p>“Financial aid meeting 100% of need” can be a very misleading term. Only a tiny handful of elite colleges meet 100% of need with grant aid. Most also rely on loans and work/study—both essentially forms of self-help. The more relevant point of comparison is net cost of attendance after grant aid, whether the grants are need-based or merit-based. On that basis, public universities are highly competitive with even “100% of need” privates for many students, and substantially cheaper for some. </p>
<p>Most public universities, with larger enrollments, don’t have enough federal work/study money to go around. But part-time non-work/study jobs tend to be abundant on and around bigger campuses, and many students hold part-time jobs that are not federally subsidized and therefore not counted as “financial aid.” What’s the difference between the student earning $4,000 per year in a federally subsidized work/study job and the student earning $4,000 per year in a non-subsidized non-work/study job? From the student’s point of view, very little, except that the work/study job is “guaranteed”—but once you have the non-work/study job, that difference becomes meaningless. From the institution’s point of view, it gets to count the $4,000 in work/study money as part of its “generous” financial aid award, counting towards meeting 100% of the student’s need—with federal taxpayers picking up 70% of the tab. But the $4,000 earned by the non-work/study student doesn’t count as financial aid, and doesn’t count towards meeting the student’s calculated need—even though it costs the school more hard cash to provide that job than the federally subsidized work/study job.</p>