Do you have any evidence that any of the very small set of schools that claim to meet full need without loans have manipulated their calculations of need in this way after they went no-loan? Or is this just a hypothetical accusation?
Hypothetically, a somewhat more generous net tuition policy in what I will call the need-blindish Phase One caused by a no-loan policy could mean the need-awareish Phase Two will on average start a little earlier. I personally would have no problem with that if true–these colleges need to balance their operating budgets at the end of the day.
But of course it might not be true if the college going no-loan lowers its classwide net tuition goal, or in other words found more money to put toward need-based aid in its operating budget.
Which is going to happen at Wesleyan, or indeed a mix, is something I of course don’t know.
This is a good point. I had assumed Wes received a significant gift or decided to allocate extra financial-aid funds to cover the expense, but it may also have decided to grow the need-aware admissions phase a bit to open up funds. Would be great if their next move is to become fully need-blind, TBH.
Agree. I hope Wes gets there soon. The universe of no legacy, need-blind, meets full need, no loan schools is extremely small.
2 Likes
It is an observation that the marketing announcement, like many marketing announcements, actually promises less than it implies.
If they continue to calculate need the same as before while replacing expected loans with additional grants, then they could have clearly stated that they will continue to calculate need the same way.
I think that based on reading their full statement and also knowing a little bit about the history of their previous more-limited loan-free program, what they are saying is clear.
Again, do you have any data about similar programs at the very limited set of institutions that do this that you are basing your suspicions on? You really think net costs for the targeted population of families for this program are going to increase in some sort of sleight of hand?
Okay, you’ve made your point. You need to move on.
I work at one of the need-blind/meet-full-need universities that is NOT loan-free, and my (anecdotal) understanding is that Wes’s aid packages are far more generous to a wider range of students than what my university is able to offer. Need-blind/meet-full-need but not loan-free contributes to the barbell effect. Wes’s approach here of working toward need-blind admissions but eliminating loans first seems thoughtful and likely to result in a more balanced student population overall.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. If you’d like to reply, please flag the thread for moderator attention.