TheDad

I got a call from one of the regional Smith coordinators tonight. Here in the L.A. area, we [Smith] seem to have lost more than usual to competing colleges, especially where others beat Smith significantly on financial aid. I hope this is an aberration and not a trend.

I try not to bond with any one particular prospect but I was greatly vexed with a Government major who got a much better deal from Georgetown. She wanted Smith but her family couldn't swing it. A bit of "through the Looking Glass" because Georgetown had been pretty high on D's list until she visited Yale & Smith and there's some alternate world where D did indeed go to Georgetown.

Lost in translat

I agree. it seems that Bryn Mawr, for example, is far more generous with financial aid.

wedgedrive

Interesting. Our daughter was offered $ at Oberlin, and non-$ incentives at Bates and Haverford, but nothing from Smith. She still chose Smith, and I think it is a good decision.

TheDad

Wedge, your D's case doesn't surprise me. With fairly fine gradations, the further down the food chain you go the more $$$ many colleges will offer to attract a top student who will go elsewhere. Smith is generally ahead of Bates/Oberlin/Haverford in many pecking orders, whereas Bryn Mawr is a direct competitor...LiT's notice of Bryn Mawr giving more money is disturbing. And losing a student to G'town, which is one of the most expensive universities, is disquieting.

I don't know that any global conclusions can be drawn from these few data points; if I had the time, I'd nose around and see how the endowment is doing in today's investment climate. I could speculate that Smith has more students applying for aid given the current economic conditions and thus there is less aid to go around per student.

Then there's that untenable familial middle finanical ground: not enough assets to easily write a check, too much to get much financial aid. A common predicament, by no means restricted to Smith. In that context, we have no complaints; I just hope there's not a sea change where financial aid is getting tougher.

mini

There's good data on this in the Common Data Sets. As of last year, Smith remained in the top 5 schools in the country (well ahead of Harvard, about the same as Princeton) in need-based aid per student attending. (Bryn Mawr isn't even close.)

Of course, they all claim to meet 100% of need. Need is in the eye of the beholder.

SmithieandProud

A lot of students have been feeling the financial pinch, with the recession looming and all. It's kind of a vicious cycle, because in bad economic times the college doesn't make as large of a profit from its endowment, so what it can offer in financial aid is curtailed. And it's during bad times that more families need every dollar in aid they can get, so they consider other options.

It's not a trend so much as a sign of the times. I know some Smithies are seriously considering whether they have the economic resources to continue with their degree. Things are tight right now for everyone.

foolishpleasure

TD, I understand your concern about G'town and Bryn Mawr - - but i would't dismiss the Oberlin/Bates $ quite so quickly.

Even if Smith is "ahead" of them in many pecking orders (I don't agree w/ you about Haverford), all are top 25 LACs. For families in that untenable financial middle ground, Bates/Oberlin at an $8K discount could be more attractive than paying full-fare at Smith or a $15K discnout at Wooster. I have been surprised by the number of strong students applying to Clark b/c the sticker price is about $10K less than the top 25 schools.

I believe Bryn Mawr is capping it's loans at $15K, that's $3K less in loans (over 4 years) than the current $18K Fed loan debt that Smith student incur. But the Fed loan max increases every year; by 2011, the max for first-year students like my D will probably be $20K. If Bryn Mawr keeps it's cap at $15k for just a few years, students admitted to both schools will incur $5K more in loan debt if they chose Smith - - and that would be for every finaid family.

Sadly, I believe there are also disincentives w/ Smith's merit awards, like STRIDE that offer paid research, instead of an out-right grant.

foolishpleasure

Mini, even if Smith leads with finaid expenditures per student, couldn't the but other schools be offering more aid (or more grant money) per finaid applicant?

Momwaitingfornew

Bryn Mawr is offering nice incentives to families from the middle ground -- the $90,000 - $150,000 range. I include the upper figures here (which in some parts of the country is a fortune and others, not) because Bryn Mawr seems to take into account factors other than straight EFC and Profile. For example, my D's friend was offered a generous award from BMC because her father had just founded a start-up company that had no guarantee of success AND they had a hefty mortgage leftover from when he was not self-employed. I've heard that BMC also takes into consideration the cost of living in various parts of the country as well -- although I can't say whether that is true or not. Smith's FA seems to exist purely for truly low-income families and for the top of the applicant pool in the form of research fellowships.

I would not put any of those schools -- Oberlin, Bates, Georgetown, Haverford -- below Smith. They are all peer schools, in my opinion. I have been concerned since joining CC that Smith is not being competitive with FA packages. Too many students have come here to complain that Wellesley or MHC or Bryn Mawr offered them better FA -- and this goes for those with low EFCs as well as the middle class.

memake

Hmm. My daughter is a junior, and both Smith and Oberlin look interesting to her. From her perspective right now, I'd guess Oberlin's advantages are the conservatory with all it implies (possibility of double degree, availability of fabulous teachers/studios/ensembles), co-ed is preferable to single-sex, SAT scores are higher.

Smith's advantages (again, for *her*) are location with all it implies (friends/family/comfort zone within 2-3 hours, Northampton is cool, 5-colleges...) and strength in sciences.

Anyway, without knowing enough to be a basher or supporter of either college, it seems natural to me that quite a few kids with the choice of Oberlin vs. Smith would pick Oberlin. I would be interested to know *how much* of the decision comes down to different fa packages, especially merit awards? All things being (close to) equal, price should matter - no?

SmithieandProud

If your daughter is serious enough about music to want to pursue a conservatory education right away, then it sounds like she's probably got the right perspective. Plus, I'm a huge advocate of going to college far from home (I live 2,500 miles from Smith).

Yes, you are farther from your comfort zone, and I can't say my mom is a huge fan of me being so far away, but the kids I know who have gone really away to school have grown much more than the kids I know who haven't. It's scary, but you really get a sense for how you stand on your own two feet, and since you have to basically make all new friends, you get very integrated into your campus. For me, Smith is home now, and when I'm there, my friends are literally my only family within a six hour plane ride. But I've learned a lot about myself, and definitely become much more of an adult than my friends who stayed closer to home.

I was attracted to Oberlin for its strength in writing and its proximity to my grandmother's house, but eventually went with Smith as a better overall fit. I was becoming more interested in politics, Ohio as a place didn't really interest me much, I wanted to be closer to major cities, and Smith just "felt" right.

All things being equal, price should definitely matter. If it's financially viable, i don't think that price should trump personal fit, but if a student is equally amiable to both schools, or if the family just can't swing it without the better aid package, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with placing price first.

I don't think that merit awards neccessarily make up much of the decision however. They're pretty rare at small LACs, and they're not always renewable (STRIDE is only for two years, for example), so you can't really count on them the same way as need-based aid (which you can't really count on either).

mythmom

I know at least one student who will be attending Smith who got the best aid package there. Because each school has its own FA policy the results really vary for each student even though the formula seems fairly consistent.

I have noticed that among the people I know that Smith is really doing well, but that is an admittedly small sample.

I agree that rating these schools in terms of "pecking order" is silly. Smith definitely has its own cache and really wonderful things about it, but these other schools do too.

mini

"Mini, even if Smith leads with finaid expenditures per student, couldn't the but other schools be offering more aid (or more grant money) per finaid applicant?'

Quite possible. Except that some schools are making a point of accepting more applicants who require small amounts of aid in order to entice them to attend. So it will vary school by school. (Anecdotes don't really count, but my d. received better aid from Smith than from Williams.)

"Sadly, I believe there are also disincentives w/ Smith's merit awards, like STRIDE that offer paid research, instead of an out-right grant."

STRIDES provide BOTH paid research and out-right grants. But they aren't need-based financial aid (and aren't included in the calculations of need-based aid per student).

"Smith's FA seems to exist purely for truly low-income families and for the top of the applicant pool in the form of research fellowships."

Statistically, this isn't true. Well over half the students receiving need-based aid at Smith are not Pell Grant recipients, even though 26% of the student body is on Pell Grants. The STRIDES, etc. are on top of the need-based aid.

mini

So, some data checking. Bryn Mawr provided $17,600,000 in need-based aid across a student population of 1,362 students, for a per student allocation of $12,922. 58% of students (the same percentage as at Smith) received need-based aid.

Smith provided $38,851,000 in needbased aid across a student population of 2,569 students, or a per student allocation of $15,123 (which is, by the way, higher than any of the Ivies, though Princeton is close). An additional $879,000 was provided in non-need based aid (if it was used to meet the need of an FA student, it was counted in need-based, so that this is merit money provided to students who did not qualify for need-based aid.)

No matter what metric you use, Smith is far more generous than Bryn Mawr, and (especially given the addition merit aid), I doubt it matters what the economic status of the student is. Of course, anecdotes may be variable, and there are variations in the way need is figured. But the hard numbers are what they are.

(I don't have time to work out the numbers for Georgetown just now, but I immediately see that they award need-based aid to 15% fewer students, and the average award per student is more than $5k lower than Smith's.)

mini

Some more data points:

Oberlin awarded $33,846,000 in need-based aid to 2,718 students, or an average of $12,453 per student. They also awarded $4,861,000 in merit aid (to students who didn't require need-based aid.)

Bates awarded $16,247,000 in need-based aid to 1,660 students, or $9,787 per student.

Haverford awarded $11,160,000 to 1,168 student, or $9,555.

In all three cases, these colleges are far less generous than Smith (in the case of Bates and Haverford, Smith is more than 50% more generous.) It is true, though, that the Smith student is far more economically diverse (read: many poorer students in the student body.)