<p>^ OK, agreement at last! Since an $8K difference is HUGE and since same-strata schools offer this amount of FA difference (and possible double that), it would seem that the standard advice “If you need to compare FA offers DON’T APPLY ED!” would seem obvious and reasonable direction.</p>
<p>And yet here we are at #2060 reflexively attacking virtually every post. No room for middle ground … at all. </p>
<p>Attack away. Certainly the capable folks on CC can do better than “Your post is silly” and “Your observations are pure speculation.”</p>
<ol>
<li>The thread has been, within the context of ED, about what a school is willing to offer and what a family can afford.</li>
<li>You claimed that there was little difference between finaid at the top schools.</li>
<li>I showed a case where the difference was $28k.</li>
<li>You claimed it was insignificant.</li>
<li>I responded that it was a silly argument.</li>
<li>You shift the terms of the debate.</li>
</ol>
<p>Indeed, folks on CC should restrain from making silly posts, such as claiming that $28k before interest is an insigificant amount or that people apply to colleges they hate and that attending such colleges (Princeton!) would amount to “educational duress.”</p>
<p>NewHope, I think we all agree that it is better NOT to apply ED if there is a need or desire to compare awards. But we are dealing with a different issue for students who have made a different choice.</p>
<p>But again, it all depends on what the individual colleges say in their terms for their ED applications. Some allow another early app, some don’t.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, LGM. As you pointed out, the chart does say that for ED and SCEA, the student cannot apply early to other colleges. I’m surprised at that, because I know that is not the case for most ED colleges, having researched this issue when the parents at S1’s high school challenged the GC’s rule that said students could apply to only one college using an early app.</p>
<p>But as you say, it depends on the individual college.</p>
<p>My son was accepted at three of the schools on the list and the FA awards all came within 1,000-3,000 of each other (not going to dig up paperwork to check on exact amounts–but I know they were all close). FWIW</p>
<p>^^ It’s important to read each college’s posted information. ED and SCEA are very different than EA, early decision and rolling decision and the permutations of accepted practices do vary. Like the college board business which is “commonalizing” the application cycle, perhaps your GCs were simply trying to “commonalize” the process for the students at your school rather than to parse all the various accepted practices by the individual schools. Our school strong arms the kids to have their apps finished torward the end of October/early November because of the competitiveness of our flagship. Technically, many kids are applying EA or regular decision to other colleges and have much longer, it’s just what our GCs do for the kids own good and of course, their personal schedules. Regardless it was good that the parents got together at your school and made the GCs understand all the changes that occur every year with college practices. Much earlier in the thread there is discussion about the understandable vast differences in the knowledge base of GCs across the country.</p>
<p>The College Board’s website is NOT the ultimate authoritative source as to what each college does or does not allow. While it posts a chart that claims that EA applications are not permitted when submitting ED applications, it gives itself an escape clause by telling readers to check with individual colleges. These are the only authoritative sources as to what policies each one of them pursues. In other words, verify, verify, verify.</p>
<p>I have not seen one post on this thread to the contrary. But, (and it’s a big ‘but’), the ED colleges themselves appear to say just the opposite. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>“If you need to compare FA offers DON’T APPLY ED!”</p>
<p>I would change it slightly to “If you want to compare FA offers DON’T APPLY ED!” since an ED FA offer from a dream school can be enough to obviate the need.</p>
<p>^ Decline and apply RD to non-dream schools. I think we agree that applying ED to a dream school might confer an admissions boost, so that possible advantage should be exploited, since the ED and RD FA packages are likely to be the same; there might even be more merit money available at ED time.</p>
<p>It also might not. It is actually counter-intuitive to infer any sort of admissions boost or improved prospects for financial aid, given the interests of the college. (So given that, I lean toward “probably not” – to conclude otherwise means I have to believe that the college acts against its own interest)</p>
<ul>
<li><p>As to admissions, it is not in the college’s interest to tie up a space with candidate who is less qualified than the candidates likely to be encountered in the RD pool. It is in the college’s interest to lock in “hooked” candidates, where “hook” is defined as an attribute highly desired by the admissions committee.</p></li>
<li><p>As to merit based aid or preferential packaging of need-based aid, it goes against all principles of enrollment management to throw money at students who are already committed to attend.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>On the other hand, it is in the colleges’ interest to hype their ED programs as much as possible, including creating the impression that ED provides a significantly improved chance of admission and that the school will give its best financial aid packages at that point. But its a marketing issue – and hype in marketing is never the same as reality.</p>
<p>And, as I have repeatedly posted, our EFC and resulting FA awards from schools on the President’s 568 group (and other peer schools all claiming to meet need) varied by at least $25K PER YEAR. The schools in question were Pomona and Dartmouth with the highest awards; Carleton, The University of Chicago and Bowdoin in the middle, and The University of Rochester at the bottom.</p>
<p>It appeared to us that Pomona and Dartmouth were using the same methodology, that the middle group were using another, and that Rochester was using something with no basis in reality at all.</p>
<p>“It is actually counter-intuitive to infer any sort of admissions boost or improved prospects for financial aid, given the interests of the college.”</p>
<p>Not to me; colleges want to lock-in top academics as well as money.</p>
<p>“As to admissions, it is not in the college’s interest to tie up a space with candidate who is less qualified than the candidates likely to be encountered in the RD pool. It is in the college’s interest to lock in “hooked” candidates, where “hook” is defined as an attribute highly desired by the admissions committee.”</p>
<p>Agreed, including top academics, even if they need FA.</p>
<p>'As to merit based aid or preferential packaging of need-based aid, it goes against all principles of enrollment management to throw money at students who are already committed to attend."</p>
<p>I don’t disagree, but I was thinking of lgm’s contrary comment.</p>
<p>Consolation, was the $25K variation in the total amounts of grant awards, or are you looking at the bottom line (what your family pays out of pocket). I’m just asking out of curiosity. </p>
<p>(I’ve noticed from comparing awards that the picture can vary considerably when you factor in the way a package is structured and whether I treat the self-help portions – loans & earnings from work study or a campus job – as being “aid” or part of the “we pay” column on my spreadsheet).</p>
<p>“Top academics” would mean the best of their applicant pool, not the middle or the bottom. </p>
<p>I do think that there is something of a value of a bird in hand as opposed to a better one in the bush – that is, all things being equal, the candidate who is 95% likely to enroll is a better prospect than the candidate who is 35% likely to enroll. Looking at it that way adds some value to the candidates on the cusp – strong candidates who might end up on the waitlist RD but make the cut ED. But whatever advantage they have exists only to if there are still ED spots open after all the “for sure” candidates have been admitted. That in turn depends on the strength of the ED pool.</p>
<p>Both. The COA of most of the schools was about the same. The middle group assumed that we–the parents–could pay about $25K per year, and the top two assumed that we could pay nothing or close to it. (The latter is the real picture, unless we are able to liquidate our share of the piece of real estate that I mentioned earlier, which we have been unable to do.) All assumed that S would contribute a certain amount from a combination of summer work and/or work study, and from a modest amount that we put in trust for him before our financial disaster struck. None of the packages included student or Plus loans, although small loans were available to help pay for things like health insurance and a computer.</p>
<p>So basically the variation was in assessment of “need,” not in structuring of the package.</p>
<p>We appealed the award at his two top choices, and received a more realistically structured package and more $$ from one, and a token $1K and a refusal to reconsider the real estate issue from the other. The latter would have expected us to contribute over 60% of our income annually. I don’t know how the rest of the schools would have reacted to an appeal, since we didn’t ask.</p>
<p>Why is it REALLY relevant to a thread about ED to underscore that financial aid packages offered by schools to families with EXTREMELY complicated situations can vary? Again, it is a GIVEN that middle-class families with investments such as real estate that have variable values, income from farm and businesses, and retirement assets subject to interpretation are NOT good candidates for an ED application. </p>
<p>They are poor candidates not because the schools intend to offer sub-par packages but because it might be essential for such families to be able to compare packages, or even decide they cannot afford any of the schools to which their children gained admittance.</p>
<p>Again, the process of applying ED is not as complicated as this monster of a thread seems to indicate. It is also a process that works VERY well for about 95% as the statistics of the ED yield confirm. And, fwiw, also confirms that data is not the plural of … anecdotal evidence. However, it also remains that people who need to compare packages can STILL apply ED and roll the dice, enjoy the boost in admission rates, and prey for a substantial grant. All they need to do is, in case it is not the nirvana that they expect is to decline the offer of admission BY THE REPLY date, and start focusing on the EA and RD applications. In fact, there is little lost. </p>
<p>I still fail to understand why people are determined to find faults in the ED system. As everything else in admission, it is not perfect. But no more or no less than everything else!</p>