<p>well I would think that meeting 100% of need is meeting 100% need
However schools usually use the EFC- the Profile EFC may also illustrate extra funds that they deen available- in addition schools may also have their own aid forms.
So the 100% of need met- is definititely * their version* of what your need is- not * yours*</p>
<p><<< when we first came across the phrase "will meet 100% financial need" we were thrilled. I naively assumed this meant we might qualify for at least some help, until I learned how narrowly "need" is apparently defined. >>></p>
<p>My brother had the same thoughts when he and his son visited Notre Dame and they were told the same thing (they have 5 kids). However, he quickly learned that his child didn't qualify for any FA -- he is an engineer and his wife is a teacher. Their combined salaries put them "over the top". Naturally, since they have 5 kids and live in Orange County California (high cost housing) they have a high mortgage because they need a big house (for all those kids!). My nephew is now attending UC Irvine.</p>
<p>jlauer--your brother's predicament is quite common here (San Diego County)--double income family considered "affluent", but in no financial condition to fully fund a year of private college out of cash flow. </p>
<p>Most of the top kids who get into (and go to) the highly selective colleges are poor minority kids who get need based aid. Most other top kids go to the UCs or to local private colleges with merit-based aid (USD is the big one here).</p>
<p>IB,</p>
<p>Understood, in fact I find the term quite deceptive because of the preferential packaging of aid. Fortunately you can get a feel for what a package should look like if you the US News Online information. They provide background on a number of financial aid stats.</p>
<p>For example, one of the earlier posters noted how UCLA had provided for 100% of financial need by requiring the parents take out a PLUS loan. One of the US News stats is, "Students whose need was fully met (excluding PLUS or other private loans)". The UCLA statistic was 48%. For a number of other schools it is 100%. In other words, grants could be a large part of the equation . . . but it is quite a black art.</p>
<p>I don't think Plus loans should be counted for meeting need
My D school has a package of subsidized loans, grants and work study
We do have a couple PLUS loans, but they are to help with our EFC, not to meet need above that.</p>
<p>We don't have extravagant bills, as many do not, but meeting EFC would be impossible without either taking out a home equity loan or a PLUS loan.</p>
<p>Call me cold however- but I would rank having 4 or 5 or more kids as an extravagance. Most people just cannot afford that many kids- and limit their families accordingly- without even going into the environmental impacts- I would just leave it as we considered that having more than 2 kids would be as unrealistic as if we considered to buy a house next door to Bill Gates or to buy a Bentley every other year.Its not just a social and emotional choice- it is a financial one.</p>
<p>emerald: I agree that having a large family must be a "well-thought out" decision but its not the same as buying a Bentley or some other pricey shallow material good. People and their lives cannot and should not be compared to material things.</p>
<p>My brother can afford his 5 kids -- they eat and live well. They go to Catholic schools (so they aren't crowding the publics). Of course the oldest has now graduated from a Catholic high school and is now at UCI (which my bro is paying for and will do so for the rest.).</p>
<p>Jlauer:</p>
<p>In the abstract that maybe true, but the reality is that people do make those judgements. Just ask the person that came up with "Keep up with the Joneses". Or look at why people fled to the suburbs during the 1960s and 1970s. Look at the gated communities. Yes, people should not be judged by their income and what they have, but it occurs. People should not be judged by their ethnicity as well, but it happens. We make judgements about illegal immigrants, about the inequitable funding of public primary and secondary schools. We make choices that do affect our college possibilities. We send kids to private schools rather than public ones. And, schools unfortunately make choices to reduce need based aid for merit-aid. It happens because there is inequity in many areas of society. Deal with that and maybe it won't happen. Then colleges will be less inclined to discount for those who are less likely to need it.</p>
<p>BTW, have you seen the democrats and republicans at eachothers throats about what is fair??? Lots of fighting for definitions...little coherent policy.</p>
<p>Just my opinion.
IB</p>
<p>PS--it is nice that people who do not like their public schools can afford to go private. But, remember that is a choice. Some do not have that luxury. People sometimes cannot go to the UCs because they do not gurentee to meet need. But, the UCs can afford merit-aid. Funny how that works. So less affluent kids also have to do more work to find schools that guarentee need. Just another hurddle to college, especially when they are first-generation college students from low-income families. Wow.</p>
<p>I don't want to put moral judgements on peoples choices whether it is to have 5 kids or to buy a 6,000sqft house.
I know people who have kids without thinking about it, and put about the same effort into parenting, and I know people who saved their lives to have their dream home so that they can entertain or sponsor exchange students.
Still they are choices which affect what you can do with income- and schools primarily look at income, not debt or bills.</p>
<p>Its unfortunate that many families don't realize that earlier, it isn't very transparent, not when families are encouraged to have accounts in the students name from birth topay for college.</p>
<p>Not realizing that unless you have 100% of the money to pay for the most expensive school, the account would be much better of in the parents name.
So there is a lot we don't really learn about financing college until we are there, and by then it is too late to change our strategy.</p>
<p>So to get back on topic, again,;) I don't quibble if a school wants to attract students by offering merit aid.
But I also am not going to change my thoughts that it is the schools perogative, if they feel that they best serve students by only offering need based aid.</p>
<p>"Call me cold however- but I would rank having 4 or 5 or more kids as an extravagance. Most people just cannot afford that many kids- and limit their families accordingly- without even going into the environmental impacts- I would just leave it as we considered that having more than 2 kids would be as unrealistic as if we considered to buy a house next door to Bill Gates or to buy a Bentley every other year.Its not just a social and emotional choice- it is a financial one."</p>
<p>The population I now work with has an average family size of 3-4, but they are entirely on welfare and other types of public assistance for food, housing and medical care. They have access to birth control but choose to have large family sizes. There is no incentive to work, as their "food" cards even buy cigarettes, of which many partake. I have accepted this as a way of life for them, as they seem OK with it. There are job training opportunities, but now they are too busy raising all of these children,and the majority are not interested in working.</p>
<p>But I also have absolutely no problem with working taxpayers such as jlauer's brother having large families also and then applying for financial aid. Thay paid into the system, and if the colleges and the government want to help their children become productive members of society, I say bless them, their future is bright. Same for the children of the welfare families, if they make it to college, great, let the government help them out.</p>
<p>Wow...that is a bit ummm....dunno.</p>
<p>Making judgements about people who have losts of kids, and attributing all those on welfare as being lazy? </p>
<p>Wow, again. I interned at Housing & Urban development, and that was not what I saw. Sometimes, yes...but definately NOT the majority.</p>
<p>Also, because you work primarily with low-income families...does not mean that ALL low-income families are like those you work with.</p>
<p>Have you ever tried to be a single mother? How about a low-income person in the inner city? Also, affluent families did not pay into the system for Merit-aid--which is what is being debated. Need based aid, yes. </p>
<p>If they don't qualify per the federal policies, why would you advocate such help, being that low-income families must qualify for assistance?!</p>
<p>The reasoning seems a little bit strange, given the idea is some semblence of fairness.</p>
<p>Just my opinion.
IB.</p>
<p>Seven kids here, and this is the first I've heard of my "extravagant" lifestyle! </p>
<p>Raising a big family isn't about $$. Food is cheap--if you buy basics and cook it yourself. Clothes are cheap--at the thriftshop. Private education is free--if you do it yourself at home. Most people just don't think outside the box of our materialistic culture. They're not willing to do the work, make the personal sacrifices and creative lifestyle adjustments necessary to raise a large family. </p>
<p>If you see children as "financial liabilities" or "environmental hazards,"--well, it's probably a good thing you didn't have more of them.</p>
<p>IsleBoy: I am not generalizing about all welfare families, just many of the thousands that we have contact with in my neck of the woods. The ones with large families (ie lots of children) have a lot of stay-at-home moms (and dads) who remain on welfare. It is a way of life for many. I was only making the point that there are lots of large families and however they find ways to go the college, that is great. I am glad that in your internship at HUD, you saw working people who maybe just needed Section 8 housing to assist them (temporarily). I believe the intent of the program, however, is not workfare, but to give people a place to live so they will not be out on the street. I am not aware that there is a time-limit on housing benefits when children are involved.</p>
<p>The top part of my post was a quote from another poster, I myself do not think large families are an extravagance or an environmental hazard, I consider them a joy and a right.</p>
<p>Please check my question on choosing between merit scholarship and need aid.</p>
<p>Collegial:</p>
<p>It's odd, but at HUD...there was a lot of overlap. Usually HUD families also needed other assistance.</p>
<p>Need aid is, in my opinion, better than Merit-aid. Did you Hear that tuition at Harvard would be free for families that make under $60,000 a year?</p>
<p>That assumes, of course, that less affluent kids do get in first.</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>if you want to have a large family fine as long as you can support them at what ever level that means- if that means you have to serve them mac and cheese and shop at value village and they have to attend community college or if you have money to send them to fancy boarding schools and have a summer home in france like some of our friends.
But accept that colleges are not going to allow you in many cases as much of a deduction for dependents as you might want- and while your lving conditions might indicate you don't have extra, colleges may look at your income and decide you do.
Don't be bitter because me with my two kid family has the means to come up with our EFC so that our daughter can recieve the rest in need based aid to attend an expensive school.
We each made our choice and we each live with our decision.
Maybe your kids can write a great essay about living in a large family and get merit aid! :)</p>
<p>Isleboy:</p>
<p>collegial mom is right. </p>
<p>One of the reasons welfare reform was passed (by Dems and Repubs & signed by Clinton) in the 90's was because "the welfare cycle" had been identified as damaging to families (with able-bodied adults) who had been on welfare for generations. Being on welfare for long periods of time (years and years) is like poison. Being an able-bodied adult on welfare for years is damaging to one's ego and self-worth. It also sends a bad message to any children. There is value to work (and not just financial value.).</p>
<p>Emerald: </p>
<p>I think each situation is different. Some people can't afford one or two kids and therefore shouldn't have any kids (at least until they can afford them.) </p>
<p>I have no problem with people have 2,4,6,8.+ kids as long as they can raise them, feed them, provide shelter, discipline them, etc. After all, we want as many "well brought up kids" who will be "good citizens" as we can get!!!! </p>
<p>I think that many of us are troubled when we meet single moms with several children (often by numerous "dads") who are receiving long term welfare. However, if those kids are going to school, getting good grades and will become productive members of society, then fine -- but that is not the typical scenario.</p>
<p>The number of kids you have is a choice that affects other choices you make in the future. Your family size is neither good nor bad.</p>
<p>We only have 2 kids (5 years apart) and will probably be able to afford to send them (with luck) to private colleges if that is where they want to go. I don't think I'd be able to say that if the kids were born more closely together or if we had more than 2 kids.</p>
<p>In that case, we would have told them that they could go to state schools (half price) or the church-sponsored school (one quarter of the price). </p>
<p>They would have gone to college, no matter what. . .but family size would have had an effect on where they would have gone.</p>
<p>jlauer95:</p>
<p>How do you think the cycle got started?</p>