Daughter got accepted, not sure I can afford it

Keilexandra
Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:07:57 +0000

calmom:

For many people, “a few thousand per year” is a LOT of money. We don’t consider that to be “small”.

The more we need aid, the less likely we are to think that “a few thousand” is insignificant.

I agree. But also, the more aid is needed, the more likely that “maximum affordable amount” is inflexible–you either get enough money, or you don’t. Which can make ED a good fit, especially if the applicant is borderline stat-wise for the most generous need-blind full-need schools.



calmom:

I’m confused --as you applied ED II to Swarthmore, how would you have a financial aid award to look at from Carleton? Or did your mother have a firm figure in mind as to what she would be willing to pay for each school before you applied?

The latter. My parents were willing to pay different amounts for different schools, although the range would depend on what other options were available, and did indeed have firm figures in mind. But my mother assessed the financial risk of an ED application to Swarthmore–which, among all the schools except Y and S of HYPS that I applied to, was her favorite–and decided that the worst-case scenario (enough money to attend, not enough to be easily affordable) was “worth” it.



calmom:

The bottom line is that ED succeeds because the college has managed to sell ED applicants on the idea that they aren’t good enough to compete with the vast majority of college applicants in the RD pool. It plays into fears and the idea that a “hook” is needed for college admissions.

So, you don’t believe that ANY students are admitted ED and would not have been admitted RD? I do; there’s plenty of evidence that hooks–or rather, “institutional priorities”–exist, and all of the “unhooked” applicants still have to receive a decision. Someone has to be the last admit, the same someone(s) that Reed was forced to replace with full-pays in order to balance their budget a few years ago. And for the unhooked, ED commitment is an institutional priority.



calmom:

I just don’t think any student, ever, should be expected to commit themselves to attending a college at any time prior than the time the full COA has been disclosed to them.

That’s fine; however, colleges and students don’t agree. And I don’t think the ED application numbers can be entirely attributed to marketing.



calmom:

People change their minds depending on how something is presented to them.

It doesn’t matter what human psychology leads people to think–it matters what people actually think at the time of application. If the applicant believes that choice #1 would be their favorite even if it was the most expensive, then they will be happy attending choice #1 and it’s still win-win; it doesn’t matter what they would have thought in RD, because they were never presented with that choice and will never regret it for the same psychological reasons. And they made the free choice to eliminate those options, which they have a right to do.



calmom:

5K is a lot of money to a lot of people (including me) – and schools that offer merit aid often combine that with need aid. Also, a school’s “no-loan” policy does NOT mean that the student doesn’t have loans. It often means that the student is simply able to use their loans to meet their EFC

I know a high-need student who turned down about that much or more to attend Stanford over WUSTL (in RD). Yes, it’s a lot of money–but for many, it’s not the same change in affordability as 10k or 20k would be.

My point is that at Bryn Mawr, assuming best-case preferential packaging with merit aid (and similar EFC assessment), the difference would only be in work-study. The merit aid might eliminate all loans and work-study, but Swarthmore has already eliminated loans for everyone, so that effect is canceled out. But this comparison assumes that 1) Swarthmore’s need-based assessment is not more generous than Bryn Mawr’s–which it may be, since its endowment is larger, and 2) the applicant gets preferentially-packaged merit aid from Bryn Mawr. BMC doesn’t offer many merit scholarships, and not all schools will package merit aid to eliminate loans/work; some just use it to replace grant.



calmom:

Many schools with ED programs offer merit aid, and often they go to great lengths to reassure ED applicants that they will be fully considered for such aid.

But unlike need-based aid, adcoms have direct control over merit aid and are aware of its limited quantity. Put it this way: if you were sitting on a scholarship committee and could award one scholarship, choosing between two similarly amazing applicants–but one was already committed in ED–wouldn’t your choice be easier because you want to attract the RD applicant, thus netting you both students?

At need-blind schools, adcoms aren’t responsible for keeping the budget in line, only for fulfilling specific institutional priorities (which, magically, result in a balanced budget). I believe that many need-blind schools do keep an overflow account in case FA demands are greater than usual.



calmom:

The need-aware school has greater control over their financial aid budget, so they can also afford to be more generous for those who they do admit.

This is true for only one type of need-aware school, e.g. WUSTL, the kind that takes full advantage of not being need-blind. Schools like Carleton, Smith, and Reed WISH that they were need-blind, and if they’re telling the truth, strive to emulate such a state by admitting need-blind until they run out of money, and then filling the rest with full-pays.

However, I am curious whether FA packages not containing merit from WUSTL are generally better than from need-blind schools (use Swarthmore as an example again, if you like). I have not seen any data, even anecdotal, regarding such a comparison. The no-merit specification is important because ED is most helpful to borderline students, who would not receive merit aid at a comparable school.