foolishpleasure

"Anecdotes don't really count, but my d. received better aid from Smith than from Williams."

Certainly, anecdotes are no substitute for statistical data, but in the end, the stats don't matter either - - it's the individual finaid package[, stupid]. Smith may be more generous per student, but could be less generous per finaid recipient or in the grant/loan composition on the package. Even if the Smith is statistically more generous than other schools, if a indiv family gets more generous packages from those other schools, that family will likely feel cheated (and vent). And, depending on the difference in the awards, they may feel compelled to follow the money.

treeman

Using Pell Grants as an indicator of economics diversity, US News has provided the following list. Smith tops the list, and number 2 isn't very close. Given that there are income limits to receive Pell Grants, and those limits might indicate more financial need, one might infer that at least a quarter of Smith's students need a significant amount of aid to be able to attend. In light of this, I wonder what the distribution of the aid might look like. It might help explain why Smith gives so much aid, but those above $100 K in income don't find Smith very competetive in this regard.

Smith College (MA) 26%
Wellesley College (MA) 15%
Bryn Mawr College (PA) 14%
Amherst College (MA) 13%
Bowdoin College (ME) 13%
Wesleyan University (CT) 13%
Williams College (MA) 13%
Colorado College 12%
Oberlin College (OH) 12%
Carleton College (MN) 11%
Grinnell College (IA) 11%
Hamilton College (NY) 11%
Harvey Mudd College (CA) 11%
Macalester College (MN) 11%
Swarthmore College (PA) 11%
Claremont McKenna College 10%
Haverford College (PA) 10%
Pomona College (CA) 10%
Vassar College (NY) 10%
Bates College (ME) 9%
Colgate University (NY) 9%
Colby College (ME) 8%
Middlebury College (VT) 8%
Davidson College (NC) 7%
Washington and Lee U (VA) 4%

smithiegr

I, too, wonder about Smith's aid distribution. It seems that one either gets a huge financial aid package or almost nothing at all.

foolishpleasure

This is certainly consist. w/ Mini's post re: other colleges giving a large number of small awards to families w/ little need.

I'm glad that Smith puts its money where its mouth is, and I certainly wouldn't want Smith to cut its Pell recipients by half to fall into step with the others schools. But it seems pretty obvious that, with sub/urban northeast families of four earning $140K to $180K (painfully middle class for that area) figuring prominently in the candidate pool of all the listed above, a school offering those families a few thou $$ - - as grant aid, merit $ or lower sticker price - - will succeed in luring not-insignif numbers of those families from more expensive peer institutions.

Reading Mom

Smith gave my daughter absolutely no financial aid. We fall into the Northeastern middle class category, but with a family of five. I agree that the fit is important, but the cost of college is exorbitant, even if you have been trying to save.

mini

Relative to Bryn Mawr, since the percentage of students receiving need-based aid is virtually exactly the same, (and in addition, Smith has merit aid awards that are given to students who don't qualify for need-based aid), it is likely that Smith is more generous throughout the economic spectrum.

Compared with, for example, Bates and Haverford, the maldistribution of aid would have to be rather extreme for them to come even close for upper middle income families. (Since both are also members of the Consortium of Financing of Higher Education - COFHE - their formulas for aid will be very close to that of Smith.) It is very, very likely, though, that Harvard and, especially Princeton, are more generous to upper middle class students who, in the long run, they don't wish to see drift away to schools that offer large merit aid awards. That's the point of turning what would be small loans into grants.

Princeton hasn't posted its most recent Common Data Set. For the most recent they posted, they gave out $53,598,000 in need-based aid for 4,719 students, or an average of $11,358 per student, MUCH lower than Smith. However, only 50% of the student body received need-based aid. The average size of need-based awards is virtually exactly the same as Smith's. However, Smith also had merit awards for students who didn't qualify for need-based aid. I am sure the Princeton numbers are higher now, but even with their no-loan policy, would still not be as generous as Smith. The big difference, however, likely lies in the small awards replacing loans for upper middle class students.

smithiegr

I don't think it paints a realistic picture to take the total aid awarded and then divide it by the TOTAL number of students who attend that institution to find out aid per student because, quite frankly, that's not the case.

58% of the Smith student population is roughly 1490 students, so per student receiving need-based aid, that number is about $26,074.50. That number for Bryn Mawr, using the same metrics, is $22,278.48. Because Smith has such a higher percentage of Pell Grant recipients, yet there's only a difference of about $4000 per student receiving aid, I would agree with the small awards to upper middle class students hypothesis.

mini

Except that you forgot that Smith awards merit aid to students who would not otherwise qualify for financial aid (Bryn Mawr does not).

But it is a reasonable hypothesis for Bryn Mawr. It likely isn't a reasonable hypothesis for Haverford or Bates. If you subtract the percentage of Pell Grant recipients from the total of those receiving any need-based aid, Smith still is awarding more need-based grants to a higher percentage of students. Add in the merit aid awards, and, frankly, I don't think it is really close.

smithiegr

I didn't forget, I specifically stated that those were numbers for need-based aid only. Factoring in merit awards, however, actually lowers Smith's number to roughly $25,748 for 1543 students (numbers from most recent CDS). It's still significantly higher than the other schools mentioned (save Bryn Mawr), but I don't think that Smith's as generous as you claim. For a school that has such a high percentage of lower-income students, it's not that far ahead in terms for aid per student.

mini

Merit aid adds to the overall number of higher income students receiving aid. The $26,074 is for need-based only.

citrusbelt

To the original poster:

My D is from the Los Angeles area. Smith was her FIRST choice. Our efc was 22K fafsa and 26K profile (got that one off the calculator), which we can just afford. We needed some FA, so she carefully applied to schools a touch below her statistics with the hopes of being able to go to a small LAC instead of our giant UCs. Smith is below her statistics. She applied to two slightly higher statistics LACs on a whim, too. Smith touted itself to be a 100% need school, so it was with great hopes that she applied. She got into five liberal arts colleges and was waitlisted at the two toughest admission LACs and admitted with Regents Scholarships to all three UCs she applied to.

These were her offers. All offered work study and a loan if she wanted it:
Bryn Mawr: 26K all in grant plus a plane ticket to go and visit.
Dickinson: John Dickinson Merit-$17,500 a year guaranteed (their highest) plus 7K in grant
Occidental: 21K grant (and it is cheaper then Smith) plus a zero interest institutional loan if she wanted it.
Lewis and Clark: A 10K/year merit (their highest) plus a 16K grant.

...and in case you think she may have been a borderline Smith candidate?:

UC Berkeley: Regents scholarship (ie: only pay room and board and books)
UC San Diego: Regents scholarship
UC Santa Cruz: Regents scholarship

THIS WAS SMITH'S OFFER: 8K grant and loans.

Even if she had taken the loans there was absolutely no way we could afford it. Smith costs 54K. They expected us to come up with 46K? They were over 20K too low since they were also the most expensive college she applied to. It was just way too much to make up the difference. She asked me about appealing the FA decision, but I told her they were so far off they probably didn't want her too much, unfortunately. She was so upset she threw away all the Smith stuff. A wonderful invitation to a Los Angeles area tea came in the mail for accepted students and she threw it away. She asked how come they were doing that when they knew we could never afford Smith. She mailed back the decline card and was in mourning over Smith for a while.

Smith is a wonderful college, don't get me wrong. But, they made it abundantly clear that they pay no attention to the fafsa or the profile. My D decided that she wouldn't have fit in there anyway if people all have to be super rich to go there. No matter how hard we tried to figure out how to send her there, it was impossible. Fortunately, those other four schools DID want her.

AND, she had her choice.
AND, she will need no loans.
AND she is thrilled to be attending Bryn Mawr College in the Fall. It is a fantastic school, too!

PS I have thought about why Smith's offer was so much less then the other schools. The only thing I can come up with is that they look more at the families income then they do at the fafsa and profile. Perhaps the equity in our home is looked at long and hard, but we couldn't afford the house if we took the equity. Our income is good. Our income in the midwest or South would seem pleasantly high, but here in LA County it is just comfortable. We have saved 70K for our third child's college. We felt proud of that! It was hard to do! Even so, it will be a big squeeze the next four years, but the other schools made it possible for her to go to a LAC. I wish Smith had, too.

citrusbelt

Smith is probably very generous to the lowest income students. It is those like my daughter who are middle to upper middle, but without high enough income to pay 54K a year outright, that are not looked upon as favorably. I wonder why, too? I mean, wouldn't it be in the schools best interests to accept two or three of my daughters income to one very low income student? Or, does Smith wish to have a two tiered school: The wealthy who need no aid and the poor who need fullrides? That doesn't seem healthy, either.

mythmom

Smith is not need blind and I know it has wait listed students who have been accepted to far more competitive need blind institutions.

If the money is being given to Pell recipients I think that's okay. Each school decides on its own priorities.

I'm pretty sure that's why S was accepted at Williams and wait listed at Amherst. Just another white kid from LI was not what Amherst was looking for. (In that case money was not the issue.)

Pretty sure he would have been rejected at Swat too, for similar reasons, though he didn't apply. Dartmouth rejected him whereas Brown accepted him. I think math SAT score was the issue there, though he did have quite a good score. I just D was more numbers oriented than B.

Each school sets its own priorities. I'm glad both kids ended up somewhere wonderful that we could afford. No, we didn't completely have our pick, but I'm okay with that.

citrusbelt: I'm sorry. I know it hurts to watch your kid have to give up her heart's desire. I didn't mean this as a lecture to you. I fully understand your disillusionment. But I bet your D will have a great time at Bryn Mawr/Haverford. Both are truly lovely campuses. And Philly, too.

citrusbelt

Wow. I didn't mean to come off bitter or disappointed. Far from it! My D is going to a fabulous place and she had a choice of fabulous places. I know Smith is a terrific place, too. My D will be going to school in a castle. It's very cool. I just jumped into this thread because the original poster is from the same area of the country that we are from and my D was one of those kids who chose another school because of the poor FA at Smith. Another one of her friends chose Wellesley over Smith for FA aid reasons, too, by the way. That friend is also middle/upper middle income.

Smith is not need blind in admissions,I never said they were. What I said was they say they meet 100% of need of the admitted applicants and they clearly don't do that. If they don't use the profile or the fafsa to determine that need, what do they do?

It is very easy to explain how Smith could have a high aid/student rate, but still give most students poor packages. It also explains why they have such a high pell grant percentage. It appears they offer money to very low income students, but not much to middle or upper middle ones. Maybe they don't look at where in the country a person lives. They might even have a cut off of income regardless of the fafsa or profile, only Smith knows. It just seemed weird to accept a student and then not allow them to go, that's all. In many ways it would have been easier to just have a reject.

The fact that the schools my D was accepted to all gave her decent FA (7 of them) is perhaps why Smith's lack of it stuck out so much. That, coupled with the fact that it is one of the most expensive colleges in the country, is going to make it harder for students to go there. It wasn't like their offer was a little lower, you know. They were low enough that it wasn't possible for her to go no matter how much gerryrigging we did with the numbers. Maybe they expected a parental loan? Middle and upper middle income students (100-180K per year) might be able to suck it up where a low income wouldn't qualify for the loan?

It is probably like you said, they didn't want her that much. That's what I told her. But, why accept her in the first place? Bryn Mawr is about the same or slightly higher selectivity then Smith, so that isn't the issue. UC Berkeley is far more selective then Smith. My D is now saying she would have chosen Bryn Mawr over any of her schools and Smith's disappointment is totally gone after visiting Bryn Mawr. I don't know if she would have chosen Smith over Bryn Mawr or the others or not. She never saw Smith, there was no reason to visit.

I would just hate to see Smith become a school for only the wealthy and the low income. They need some middleys in there, too.

Here's a thought: If Smiths yield was lower this year (I think many colleges will be in this position) then maybe they will need to go to their waitlist. People who need no financial aid are usually the first offered a spot off the list.

pinkkkpanther

smith actually gave me the best FA package out of all the LACs i applied to. i seem upper middle class on paper, but smith considered my special circumstances. i was ready to appeal, just in case i had to, because smith was also one of my top choices. i would've been devastated if i couldn't attend smith because of financial issues.
i have a friend who appealed to the FA office. it was a very long and meticulous process, but the FA staff was willing to help. she ended up with 4x more grant money than she originally received. i think if u are willing to spend the time appealing, the FA office will be more than happy to help.