<p>ooopss timed out</p>
<p>change the word "case" to cash in the first full sentence in the third paragraph.</p>
<p>"I agree as well in principle. But, that would mean more redtape, larger government, and more pressure to raise taxes."</p>
<p>IB- I agree. I support merit aid. Especially like Harvard and others do where they make it affordable for <$50K income kids. That breaks the cycle of poverty. </p>
<p>But lets not kid ourselves. Private college is not affordable for everyone. That is just reality.</p>
<p>It bothers me that state schools are thought of only good enough for average students. There are many high performing students that can't afford private colleges. I hope more universities offer public honors programs and they continue to improve in quality.</p>
<p>A big problem with "financial Need Aid" is that there is no consistent way for a family to know what a school will cost going into the process. There is a high price,but then every school has its own interpretation of the facts. Then you get a month to choose from schools that maybe never should have been in the mix in the first place. Some schools seem to offer "merit aid" just to make the thing work out reasonably. I know you can show differing offers to the schools, but if they were just more upfront about how they do the whole thing, it would make the choices more in line with family finances. I am talking Ivy and NESCAC. Merit seems to be a way of life in the Midwest, because of the major land grant schools, who do all offer merit aid in some fashion.</p>
<p>jlauer:</p>
<p>internal merit-aid and FA is not a zero sum game. I don't agree with that. But to paint the system with increasing merit-aid at the Expense of need-aid does affect the latter.</p>
<p>At state collegs, which usually do not meet need nore are they generally institutions that guarentee need, funding for a particular career choice or major does not usually benefit those that have need-aid. Generally, corporations donate tons of money for research, but the schools do not increase their aid budget typically. If that were the case, the public schools which bring in the most research would indeed guarentee need aid or meet 100% of it.</p>
<p>Take the top twenty public research schools, and you'll find that almost without exception, there is gapping going on, even as they give out merit-aid.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that there won't still be "gapping".</p>
<p>The point is that the "gapping" will close at a greater rate. And the college foundations that fund FA comes from donations! So.... that an increase of donations (and a good stock market) does bring more money for F/A. Just because the gap isn't totally closed doesnt' mean that merit money is to blame. Merit money does help close the gap by attracting the best and brightest which encourages rich people to donate.</p>
<p>There is just too much reliance on debt to finance education, and the elite schools seem to be the biggest purveyors of debt. Why don't they try to establish an ETHICAL reason for their graduates to donate their financial aid back after they have graduated and reached the pinnacles of success the schools promise? There are no MEANINGFUL tax breaks for education for families, but plenty for donations. The schools count savings against you in their crazy asset formulas. If you buy a house or a car and the payments are too high, you can sell it. With education, how do you liquidate the investment if it does not pan out? The Federal government can even garnish social security payments to pay off student loans now!</p>
<p>I guess the colleges have seen the success of payday loan companies and high interest credit card scams and figure they should get in on it too.</p>
<p>(Definitely a rant! But seeing what "need based aid" to a family really means is an eye opener!)</p>
<p>Another thought--To the extent that the schools are using high tuition prices for the "wealthy" to subsidize the "needy", shouldn't they do this out of their own endowment funds and not force families to pony up for their kids' as well as someone else's education?</p>
<p>jlauer:</p>
<p>That research and development money does not usually increase the size of the FA budget. It may make a school more prestigious, more visible, which will lead to certain donations to the school. Often it goes to a building, an endowed chair, etc....</p>
<p>At some presigious schools, howvere, the shift towards merit-aid is viewed as suspect. And, alumni and students aggitate for change by witholding support (e.g. Brown University).</p>
<p>Donations also come with a list of special requirements that must be met. So FA budgets get bigger when alumni give for specific purposes, like helping those kids that have need and are good students.</p>
<p>So, again, research dollars, do not usually translate to a larger FA budget. Corporations want productivity, so they will invest in the technology at a particular school, because it reduces their cost in the long run. Are the corporations concerned about the students who attend?! Nope, they are concerned about the research. And, they are going to invest where their interests are, typically.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB</p>
<p>MickeyD:</p>
<p>The idea is proportionality. That is why there are federal guidelines. </p>
<p>Also, since school was developed to promote the greater good, there is a social componet which affects our economy at the macro-level.</p>
<p>Likewise, less affluent families also pay taxes which subsidize programs that they may or may not use. As to a public school giving out internal merit-aid, ALL taxpayers are bearing a cost--even those people who have or do not have kids which can take advantage of the education. </p>
<p>The idea that affluent families are NOT subsidized is a bit strange. That is why, for myself, I prefer merit-aid that is EXTERNAL to a financial aid budget.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB.</p>
<p>IB: I agree, merit aid should be external. But if you look at the policies, the schools now reduce their need based aid by the amount of external aid! </p>
<p>I'm not saying that we don't subsidize education in some fashion through taxes. It's just that a DIRECT subsidy to someone else's kid, no matter how deserving, as the elite schools demand, tends to distort the decision process in favor of schools with large public subsidies. If the elite schools cannot see this, they are not only need blind, but have their heads in the sand! </p>
<p>Many middle class families have spent a lifetime accumulating the assets they have. They may have more reticence to part with them than their children. Many families have experienced the pressure of a high debt load and do not wish that on themselves or their children.</p>
<p>Mickey:</p>
<p>Some schools do reduce need-aid when given an external award.</p>
<p>As for the distortion, blame the justice department which outlawed the 50 selective colleges and universities that used to meet until the mid-90's to ensure that aid packages were similar, so that kids that got accepted to several would be able to choose based on fit, rather than dollars. That coupled with the increased focus on USNews rankings (aka 'WashU' syndrome) caused much of what we complain about now.</p>
<p>As for the elite PRIVATE schools, they can fill their spaces many times over. So, I'm not sure that they much care about the schools that have larger public subsidies.</p>
<p>Being middle class myself, my family and I have accumulated assests and have decided to part with some of it so that I can get a good education. It's a question about what we value verses what we do not value as much.</p>
<p>Personally, I believe that the subsidies my family and I provide to ensure that more kids are educated is resonable to ensure a better educated workforce, a high standard of living, etc....at the macro-level. At the micro-level, I understand the pressure, but it comes, often, from a reliance on what rankings say is better, or getting into that right school and then not being able to afford it.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB</p>
<p>IB: I agree the feds have not helped the situation. I mean this in the kindest way-- I'm glad you can be so high minded with your parent's money. It will be interesting to see your perspective in 25 years. Hopefully, some equitable thinking will enter the picture by then. I sincerely wish you the best of luck at your school and you will do fine as your posts are very intelligent.</p>
<p>I agree we, especially a student I know well, have been overly influenced by US News rankings. </p>
<p>The private schools seem to indicate they will be affordable by advertising their "need blind" admissions and "need based" aid. I don't think the $50 app fee covers their costs for all this application and essay nonsense. I am just advocating a little truth in advertising and pricing. It would save a lot of time and grief if you could just tell what the cost will be in advance. The FA formulas are not consistent between schools and this is something that should be improved.</p>
<p>Look at Forbes, 3/13/06, "College Aid Strategems" by Ashlea Ebeling for a great article on how schools look at families and the special antitrust exemption given to a group of NE exclusive schools called the 568 Group. Excerpts:</p>
<p>"Now that colleges have gone from merely expensive to rapacious, it's not just average Americans who have to worry about financial aid formulas. . . What schools expect you to hock your house? There's no complete list available, and many families aren't aware it's an issue. It's the inside story of needs analysis, says Carl Buck, vice president of College Funding Solutions at Thomson Peterson's, a publisher of college guides. . .</p>
<p>"Aid formulas, alas, are taking on some of the complexities of the federal tax code, and also give rise to the familiar phenomenon of marginal tax rates. Your marginal rate is the penalty you pay for earning an incremental dollar of income. In the most widely used private college aid formula a family of four reaches a 46% marginal rate on only $66,000 of available aftertax income, says Sandy Baum, senior policy analyst at the College Board. That is, if you squeeze an extra dollar of take-home pay out of your boss, 46 cents of it belongs to the college."</p>
<p>Interesting. Wouldn't it be nice to have all of this information about what this is going to actually cost up front, Parents?</p>
<p>MickeyD:</p>
<p>The 568 group was dismantled because it attempted to make financial aid more even across the schools. That is why they cannot share financial aid formulas. They used to be able to do so until the mid-to-late 1990s.</p>
<p>What happened when the schools were treated as businesses that could not offer similar packages? They started to compete for kids by using different aid formulas.</p>
<p>As for being transparent, both the FAFSA and CSS do adequate jobs at this. It takes a little digging, but it is there. Colleges also used house values to put together aid packages of all kids before the move in the 1990's to use preferential packaging (thank you again WU, and the justice department).</p>
<p>As for the Forbes example, the question becomes what kind of assets/investments/proberty does the family making $66,000 a year have? Which schools are they looking at, and do those schools guarentee to meet need or not. NYU would obviously be different than Amherst. If CC is any indication, I would expect my cost of attendance to be greater (and my contribution to be higher) at the first university compared to the college. And, because NYU gives out merit-aid, but does not guarentee to meet need, well scoring kids will usually get non-need aid.</p>
<p>Becuase NYU or Amherst do not necessarily know before looking at the FAFSA or CSS what kind of aid an individual student will get, it would be odd to guarentee a certain level of aid. </p>
<p>An example of this is paying people that have the same job different hourly wages. It is a tool of negociations. If that was made illegal, then the marginal rate that people pay for an output would go up. But, since schools often aim to educate, it is not always the business model that wins. Colleges, public and private, attempt to walk that fine line.</p>
<p>And, yes, it would be great to know what the ultimate cost would be, but that would mean doing away with merit-aid in toto. Although I do not like internal merit-aid, I do still see the value in external merit-aid.</p>
<p>Just my opinion.
IB.</p>
<p>PS--As for telling me that 25 years will make me more even handed with this issue, I'd have to disagree. Such issues that my family has faced with respect to college, as well as other costs, has always been an issue since I was in elementary school. And, we do talk about issues of fairness for the individual versus the needs of the whole.</p>
<p>IB, </p>
<p>I beg your pardon about the 568 Group. There is a different group called the 568 Presidents Group that is now in place and I may have confused the two, as their goals seem to be the same according to the website, <a href="http://www.568group.org%5B/url%5D">www.568group.org</a> .</p>
<p>After going through financial aid discussions with an Ivy and a NESCAC school this year, I thought the word "rapacious" was an excellent choice in the Forbes article. </p>
<p>I think what is missing is from the whole discussion is that there are different types of systems that lead to a BS or BA degree. It is less expensive for a student to live at home and attend Jr. college. Also less to attend a public research university. </p>
<p>My complaint is that the exclusive schools are cooking the books to make it look like they are egalitarian when in fact they are nothing of the sort. Their "need blind" admissions have nothing to do with the statistics of students who actually matriculate. The Common Data set tracks aid "offered" not aid actually given to students at the school. </p>
<p>They only compete against each other, which is their right. But if they want to make these claims to try to attract an economically diverse student body, they should be accurate which would save a lot of people a lot of time.</p>
<p>MickeyD:</p>
<p>Ahhh...but, every situation is different. And, they do make certain claims (of course with disclaimers). Again, it depends on what the definition of 'economically diverse' means to the colleges, to parents, to kids, to educational beauracrats.</p>
<p>Need blind admissions (which is seperate from financial aid) simply means not looking towards whether or not a kid or family can pay the cost of an education. Guarenteed need-based awards, just mean that the school will meet the gap between a family's EFC (whether FAFSA or CSS determined) when it comes to funding their education.</p>
<p>So need blind admission is SEPERATE from need-based awards, as they are different 'programs' with different aims.</p>
<p>As for a BA or BS, one has more science and math generally (the BS). And, yes it is more cost effective to go to a community college and live at home. But, do you notice that most kids and parents here on CC look at rank and prestige when choosing a school or bemoaning the fact that they were gapped at either the public or private school?! Then, they sometimes attack AA and need-based aid arguing fairness (while using every advantage they can). It's the sense of ENTITLEMENT that I have a hard time with. And the need to bash other peoples kids. </p>
<p>Anyhow, if public schools did function to guarentee to meet need, I'd have no problems with that, except that the middle and upper classes would revolt, because some of them would not want their kids to go to a community college. You'd probably hear that it is 'unfair' that it happens at that level but not at 4-year schools. You'd hear that the subsidy should hold true, even if their kid is going to a private college. You'll hear many justifications why they or their kids deserve it. I hear that at my HS a lot, even from my parents.</p>
<p>It is the perception that somehow their kids are missing out. And, that USNews has become the end-all, be-all of ranking systems.</p>
<p>The debate has generally not been about overall fairness. Nor, perhaps, will it be.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB</p>
<p>If it's not about fairness, why do they call it Financial NEED based aid? </p>
<p>I think you are agreeing that the processes are linked.</p>
<p>It is about fairness with respect to Need-based aid programs.</p>
<p>It is not about fairness when affluent kids cry fowl when they themselves look for every advantage (so attack the fitness of a URM, etc....).</p>
<p>The admissions process, at least in my way of thinking, is that one can get into a college (without looking at income, the ability to pay being favorable) and that the need met (or un-met) to attend the college (which is determined by aid packages) will be the arbitrator as to whether one will attend or not.</p>
<p>Some schools have a combined admssions and aid office, but the trend is that most schools have seperate offices so that they minimize some of the more obvious characteristics reguarding ability to pay.</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>IB, </p>
<p>There are a lot of talented people working on the issue and I hope you maintain your interest in this area. We could use someone like you to help reform the current system. I hope no one is begrudging what goes to brilliant but needy students. I think the evaluation of people in that situation is probably quite good. However, I found quite a variation in price (+or-20 % difference) between 6 schools who all claimed to meet need and whose sticker prices varied by less than 3%. </p>
<p>Based on that I believe the aid system is unnecessarily inefficient in what is inherently a difficult decision process for students and parents.</p>
<p>Private non-profit selective colleges which do not give merit aid must have enough list-price-paying students to subsidize those receiving need-based aid. Does anyone know of data or statistics that show the extent to which colleges have lower admission standards for those paying full list price? Thanks.</p>