I have petitioned for this, but gotten no where (showing need met in relationship to FAFSA EFC). Not a popular request but schools just don’t want to give up anything. THe only thing to do is play with the NPC at certain set points, something I may do with some schools if I feel like it.
Meeting 100% of need does include subsidized loans and work study as part of package. That’s why for those who have need, applying ED is risky. You can’t compare packages. You can end up with $10K in loans (perkins and direct) and another $4K in workstudy in a package vs one with no loans and less workstudyy and more grants. That can add up to whopping $60K in 4 years, difference between loan and grant.
The only misstep I’ve noted with USC, is that they appear to put the entire Direct Loan into their aid packages, which they should not be doing. I don’t know if they are using that in determining their CDS submissions. But that isn’t a huge amount. I’ve read of kids getting their best package from USC. So far,I’ve not heard anything to the contrary about them meeting full need, and using self help is permitted. I have not heard that they define need across the board more scantily than other schools other than posts here. Doesn’t mean it 's not true, but it just isn’t some recurring issue more than what most schools get regarding financial aid. I do wonder from the post here whether they will be full need for all four years. That’s a niche that goes un discussed at times. Their data does show a break between freshmen and upperclassmen that makes me wonder, as does Maggpie’s post. If they only require FAFSA for upper class years, that is a sign of that practice.
The whole process is crazy. It is really hard to get into the mode of “don’t get excited about any school until you get in and know whether you will be able to attend due to financials”.
This year USC FA is a bit different, it does not include Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan as part of self help, Thus, effectively (kind of) reducing $2000 (for freshman) from EFC. The student will still need to take the additional $2000 direct loan, but at least that amount is not deducted from grant (at least this is what I think they do).
Yes, and these schools are the wealthiest in America and can afford to offer more generous financial aid. OTOH, they enroll tiny student bodies compared to USC, and thus are not representative of the vast majority of college bound students. Most kids are lucky to attend third tier public schools, so in reality, you get what you pay for. I’m no fan of Nikias, but he does have a point that there are only about 50 schools in America that can get away with a high sticker price, as opposed to hundreds of undistinguished colleges that charge exorbitant tuition. If you are going to spend a lot of money on college, it MUST be a brand name, unless, of course, you can afford it.
“This year USC FA is a bit different, it does not include Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan as part of self help, Thus, effectively (kind of) reducing $2000 (for freshman) from EFC. The student will still need to take the additional $2000 direct loan, but at least that amount is not deducted from grant (at least this is what I think they do).”
I’m kind of surprised you got a grant at all. In 3 years of USC finaid applications, the USC efc is generally about double the FAFSA efc.
And not sure it’s been stated but I am not sure USC claims to meet 100% of need.
USC does claim to meet full need. From its brochure entitled, “Investing in Your Future: Financial Aid and USC 2015” it states on p. 21: “At USC we work with families to meet a student’s full USC-determined financial need, subject to a review of the student’s financial aid application and the family’s finances, as well as to available funds from federal, state and university sources.”
There is also a highlighted box on p. 23 stating, “Cost of Attendance [minus] Expected Family Contribution = Your Eligibility for Financial Aid.” The brochure is misleading, IMO.
I think the problem is that schools determine the EFC, so they can always claim meeting full need. Until there is a published number for the Profile EFC (just like FAFSA EFC), we cannot truly see how real is “meet full need” for each profile schools .
Yes, co4. I think the part that misleads families is the use of the term “Estimated Family Contribution” at all, which, especially when capitalized, is a term of art that people reasonably assume equates to the “EFC” set forth on the family’s FAFSA submission.
USC-determined need. That is the key that applicants tend to gloss over until the hard reality of their aid report. What I need, and what USC determines I need, are never the same thing.
Yes, Snowdog, exactly. That is the disconnect. And not just with USC, fyi !! Many schools mislead in this way, and most families are not savvy enough to parse the language and figure this out. That said, some lucky students will get big merit aid, or might get their need met, and if a school is their dream school, they should apply. Need to keep the emotions out of it until the FA award comes in.
As said before, they are very, very clear that about a third of the total aid provided is in the form of loans and work study. Some people don’t view that as meeting need (“what, I have to take out loans?!”) when what the college is trying to do is find ways for the student to be able to attend, including loans.
I’d just like to add that I’m in a similar situation as OP - USC gave me about 1/3 the FA Columbia offered, although both schools meet a student’s “demonstrated need.” I, too, feel pretty upset at USC for this. If they claim to meet a student’s need, they should actually do so.
@Skyoverme: loans are not financial aid but “self help”. The federal goverrnment is very clear on this point. Telling students that you are offering them aid, and them burying them in aid, is misleading and not in their long term interests. I’m glad that I was able to decline UCS’s offer for another university with a “no loans” policy.
USC enrolls about 25% of student body as URM. So obviously they give good aid to some… I bet their strategy is to enroll as many white/Asian rich/upper middle class who pay the sticker and then give full rides/near full rides to the URM to meet some artificial diversity requirement. Basically it shuts out poor whites/Asians…
Many of the URM cited are full-pay international students. The rest of them (from the US) are taking out loans like everyone else. Note “meets 100% of need” includes their calculation of your resources from all sources including fed loans. Since parents can borrow up to 100% of EFC from the feds with only a simple credit check, that factors into it.
They’re not being misleading - when you sit in on financial aid discussions (Campus preview, student tours, etc.) they’re remarkably upfront about the fact that their EFC doesn’t often match the FAFSA. They use Need Access and CSS to determine need.
My student was accepted and narrowed her final 3 to USC, Cornell and Notre Dame. Each school claims to be need blind and 100% need met. The Expected Family Contribution from USC was MORE THAN DOUBLE that of Cornell. In fact it wasn’t any better offer than schools like Syracuse and Carnegie Mellon that were eliminated earlier from consideration and never claimed to meet 100% of need. I think the college is being deceptive. If families compare offers, they’ll see this but if the student has applied Early Decision on the assumption that the financial aid will be adequate given the claims to fully meet need they may be very disappointed.