Kdog044

mom2collegekids, I understand what meeting need means and had no misconceptions about it. My point is if most of that need is being met by loans it doesn't mean much. To answer your question, yes the PLUS was to cover the gap. Our EFC her first year was around $6K. Here was the breakdown:

COA $23,721
Grant $3,880
Work Study $2500
Perkins $500
Stafford Loans $5500
Promise Award $1000 (government rescinded that)
Total $13,380 (leaving $10,341 and eventually $1000 more to cover Promise)

P.S. I don't know about you but offering 16% of COA in grants/scholarships is not what I would call generous.

Kdog044

Also, I don't know why they call it EFC. It should be called EPC (Exepected Parent Contribution) as the students are still expected to cover loans on top of EFC.

cptofthehouse

It is broken into a parent and student component, and some schools truly build on that , UChicago, a Profile school does make that distinction.

mom2collegekids

Frankly, I don't really understand what UMich is doing. It promises to meet need for instate.

Yes, it's a CSS school which means that FAFSA EFC is not relevant, but when a family's financial situation doesn't include the issues that will bump a CSS family contribution, then the family contribution should be the same or very close to the FAFSA EFC.

Did you ever ask for a review and have them explain why their CSS family contribution was so much higher than FAFSA EFC when you don't have big savings, lots of equity, or any of the other things that will bump what's expected?

Do you have a lot in a 401K or retirement? If so, maybe UMich considers that??? It doesn't make sense. UMich should really only be using CSS to capture things like lots of equity, private businesses, and other things that FAFSA doesn't include...and if the family doesn't have those issues, then the expected amount should be the same as EFC.

Kdog044

I will say the financial aid was much better her second year but our EFC was about half of what it was the first year so we were Pell eligible. The amount of COA covered in grants/scholarships was closer to 53%. She still had $7K in loans plus $2500 in work study and we had another $2000 in PLUS

cptofthehouse

KDG, I agree that when one is looking at what colleges cost, the numbers should be set out with no loans or work study offsetting the amounts. That way you can see exactly what you are expected to pay minus the grants given by each school.

Once you have those final numbers, the job then becomes how those figures can be met. A student then has about $5500 of Staffords that are pretty much an automatic. Which schools then still have unmet costs? If a Perkins or other subsidized loans are also in the picture substitute the un subsidized part of the Stafford with those. Many times, it comes down to what school ends up costing the least out of pocket but will still have loans in the picture.

Kdog044

We don't have any equity to speak of (thanks economy) and savings were eliminated with losing a job so 401K is the only thing we had. I don't consider it a lot but we have been contributing for a while. Just as an FYI, U-M only uses CSS Profile for freshman year and returning students only need to fill out FAFSA.

Kdog044

We obviously learned the second time around. I like to use percentage of COA covered by grants/scholarships as that gives a true picture of how generous the school is. Schools that have tuition that is double as others should give more aid. For my son, U-M was the least generous of his top 3 (the others were privates) based on that percentage. Of course that doesn't mean the school won't still cost more but you can decide if the school is worth the added expense or not.

mom2collegekids

I still don't understand how UMich can tout that it meets need for instate students, yet still gap.

It seems like they're using CSS as a cover to gap and yet claim that they met need as "they" defined need....even when there aren't any details to warrant a "higher than FAFSA EFC" contribution.

cptofthehouse

Bottom line, though, it come down to how much you and your student has to pay, through savings and current income or sweat equity or future income in the form of loans. Only grants reduce that cost. I don't care what percentage of cost the grants covered. 75% of $60K, and, yes, some of these schools are not coming up with COA's even in excess of $60K, though generous at $45K still leaves $15K each year that has to be coughed up. That is the minimal amount, as costs do increase each year. For a family that has the income and prospects of future income, some savings, that is one thing, but for a low EFC family that is living hand to mouth, we are talking about $60K in debt. This is really to much for a kid to take on; certainly no bank is going to lend it to an undergrad, so it has to be a family decision.

There are a number of schools that do give initial awards based on PROFILE and then just require FAFSA for subsequent years. The "tone" for fin aid is set with the PROFILE info and the FAFSA just makes sure that federal eligibility is maintained.

Also, as far as I am concerned, schools that give loans beyond the Staffords and Perkins are not meeting full need though they may so claim. I saw one award at such a school with over $15K In a school loan that they were hanging on the kid. Also any number of schools, package their financial aid letters so that the PLUS are even included as part of the award. Some nerve, given that the parents may not even qualify for the loan.

kmcmom13

Okay, something is just plain wrong here for Kdog -- there HAS to be something that was originally in the CSS that has caused the gap.

That first year, you were gapped by about $4,300. At a guestimate rate of 5.6% of assets (just based on how FAFSA counts assets - of course, no one know how UMich does it) somewhere on that CSS, erroneous or not, there must have been about $80 k in either home equity or non-registered funds...

The problem is, they use that first year as a baseline, then only use FAFSA each year thereafter to adjust. So whatever counted against Kdog in year 1 likely has carried forward.

If the plus was used to cover the EFC, that's not really part of the equation. But the 30k figure is pretty typical from any program these days -- including those that meet demonstrated need.

romanigypsyeyes

^ I still want to know if kdog asked for a review. The question was asked, but never answered. If he/she did then he/she would know why they were expected to pay that much.

Kdog044

No, I never asked for a review as I thought it was what it was and I thought EFC was just a baseline. I can assure all of you there was no equity or savings that would have skewed the EFC. I just assumed U-M wasn't a school that guaranteed to meet 100% of need and if they did, they considered loans a big part of it.

So I take it you don't think the student loans are part of EFC and that is totally separate?

MisterK

Agreed. Only kdog can say, and kdog ain't saying.

Michigan is an incredibly generous school.

Kdog044

They state that loans are considered a part of meeting need. They just don't state that it is NOT limited to just Stafford loans.