<p>The reason this thread will probably never end is because of posts like this. (2080)- “In fact, there is little lost.” That is debatable. In terms of integrity, that is–an intangible, for sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that such situations are not all that complex AND not at all uncommon. Eliminating people with anything other than a single residence and a salary from ED may mean eliminating most families.</p>
<p>As far as my personal experience is concerned, I offer it ONLY to counteract the blithe statements made by many here that many or most peer schools will offer the same FA package, within a couple of thousand dollars at most, and so families should be able to plan accordingly. I am not laboring under the illusion that one person’s anecdote equals data. Don’t be so GD condescending.</p>
<p>The fact is that methodologies vary widely, and the schools in question do NOT reveal it in advance, while all the time the PR department trumpets that they will “meet need.” People should realize what this actually means. Yes, there is a financial escape clause, and I don’t think that anyone who engages in the ED process in good faith should hesitate to use it if the FA award is not realistic.</p>
<p>And let me make this very clear: most of the “meets 100% of need with no loans” schools that accepted my S would have forced us to sell our home, our sole residence, in order to come up with the $$ they said we could “afford” because there is NO way our income could enable us to get a loan for that amount and drawing that much more that rapidly from our home equity would probably have triggered a foreclosure. We are not talking about decisions about how to spend discretionary income.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s important to note that ANY family can receive widely varying aid packages. Financial aid packages offered to families (like my own) with EXTREMELY UN-complicated situations can vary by an enormous amount (over $10k/year) and that fact is particularly relevant to this thread. Many applicants wrongly assume that all top schools, or all 100% need schools, or all President’s 568 group schools offer comparable FA. And it does work that way for some. But definitely not for all and the variance cannot always be blamed on “complicated financial situations.” Nothing could have been further from the truth for us, and hopefully this thread will help potential ED applicants to be fully aware of the risk.</p>
<p>The college can structure the FA any way it wishes, and even similar bottom-line total awards can vary enormously in what percentage of the FA is grant vs. loan, so even identical total awards can result in huge differences in loan debt.</p>
<p>Do “many applicants” really assume that about the 568 group. My son applied to four of those schools and I never heard of this 568 group until this thread! I really don’t think most applicants assume all top schools are going to offer the same amount in FA either. Why should they? As for “100% of need” schools, I really have to wonder how many smart kids and smart families do NOT understand the truth behind this concept/statement. I’m not a rocket scientist, and I got it pretty quickly when we began researching schools, for instance.</p>
<p>I did not know about the existence of this group, either, but I certainly “knew” that some schools claimed to meet 100% of need; I also knew, based on friends’ experiences that one school’s idea of need was not the same as another’s.</p>
<p>Not every family begins exploring colleges when their children are in elementary school. Every year there is a new crop of applicants and their families, and every year, some of them need to become educated about ED/EA/SCEA/rolling admissions, the meaning of “no loan” (for the students, not their families), need-blind, need-aware, merit money, etc… I for, one, have learned new things from this thread.</p>
<p>And while I strongly believe that one ought to live up to one’s commitments, I would never ever suggest that a family that had mistakenly interpreted a college’s offer to meet 100% of need ought to sell its house at a loss in order to fund its child’s education; or that it was acceptable for a college to claim to meet 100% need but offer $100k less than a peer college for the same education, based on the same financial data. The commitment is only to accept an offer of financially affordable education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okidoki – this thread will never end because of a post (mine was 2080) that pretty much says that this discussion should have lasted all but about 30 posts! That is quite contradictory.</p>
<p>All tha was needed in this thread is to tell the OP to notify Penn by January 2010 and be happy at the school that offered her a full ride.</p>
<p>Why should colleges meet 100% of YOUR NEED? What are they–philanthropic institutions?? A little common sense can go a long way.</p>
<p>COLLEGES MEET WHAT THEY THINK IS 100% OF YOUR NEED.
THIS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT YOU THINK IS 100% OF YOUR NEED.
BY VARYING-EVEN LARGELY VARYING-AMOUNTS.
IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT, FIND ANOTHER COLLEGE.
ONE YOU CAN AFFORD.
QUIT WHINING.
END OF STORY.</p>
<p>Sorry for using the caps for emphasis, but I don’t know how to do bold and all of that.</p>
<p>
I think plenty of applicants mistakenly expect comparable packages from comparable schools. We’ve had plenty of posters on this thread tell the OP not to expect a significantly different aid package from MIT vs. Penn. </p>
<p>There is no way to know beforehand how any college will assess a family’s needs, no matter how much prior research the family does. It can come as a shock to those students who apply RD and can see the different awards. I don’t think it can be stressed enough how much worse this situation can be for an ED applicant who needs FA and only has the option of that one offer. </p>
<p>
I think it would be better if schools simply explained what they meant in the first place and did not use language that required understanding the truth behind the words.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Marite, I completely agree that threads such as this one could and should be instructive. I beleive that you are entirely correct that it serves to repeat the contents every so often, because it seems that the past discussions about things such as the Consensus Approach and the 568 Group do not stay fresh in many memories. For the record, I remember writing about this group as far back as 2004, and often in the context of the antitrust provisions of financial that brought this group into the limelight, or decrying the misleading statements by the school made famous by Marilee Jones. </p>
<p>It remains that the “evidence” of the range of financial packages is not particularly germane to the Early Decision process since more than 95% of the applicants DO attend their ED school and since people who HAVE to compare financial packages should abstain. </p>
<p>However, the “recent” relaxation of the rules for obtainining ED release de facto no longer precludes anyone to apply and roll the dice with one school.</p>
<p>“…did not use language that required understanding the truth behind the words.”</p>
<p>Why? Maybe they presume a certain level of intelligence in their applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what is the impact of knowing all of this for the ED process in particular? What are the possible alternatives? You either apply ED or you wait for EA/RD! If the package works, commit! If it does not, what have you lost, short of an application fee?</p>
<p>Again, this is VERY simple to anyone who TRIES to understand simple rules. It is only complicated when people start parsing statements with the wishful thinking of uncovering secret loopholes, such as getting the benefit of higher admit rates and seeking the right to compare financial packages by dragging their feet in extended negotiations with the ED school.</p>
<p>Well, xiggi, I’m erasing my post since you edited yours twice since I posted mine. 
However, I think you’re still missing many of the “intangibles” involved here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think families, unfortunately, presume a certain level of honesty and expect straightforward language when schools are presenting financial aid information. What is the point of using a phrase such as “meets 100% of need” when it requires so much explanation and definition of the word “need”? I believe it’s confusing and misleading, and that’s precisely the reason it is used. Remember that the school benefits from attracting a large number of applicants – it makes the school look more “selective.”</p>
<p>Mummom:</p>
<p>Why should colleges met 100% of a family’s need? Could it be because that is what they claim? Shouldn’t there truth in advertising? Or is ethics only for the poor suckers who bought into the claim?</p>
<p>If colleges did not make such claims, families would not believe them and apply to them–and have folks berate them for being unwilling to beggar themselves.</p>
<p>By the way, here is a link I posted several years ago about the 568 Group (in a thread discussing many similar elements as this one.)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06963.pdf[/url]”>http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06963.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone was suggesting extending negotiations to compare packages – it’s most likely impossible. Most EA schools don’t award FA until spring and the ED schools have a January decision deadline.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>I agree with you that the ED escape clause makes a lot of the discussion moot except for the die-hards who believe that students should attend the college where they have been accepted ED even if it is demonstrable that the financial offer falls well below the supposed “100% of need.” The fact that some colleges all claiming to meet 100% of need can differ among themselves to the tune of $100k over four years shows that the definition of “100%” and “need” is incredibly elastic.</p>
<p>But you know, discussing exceptions is always more fun because that’s where disagreements lie. :)</p>
<p>Of course there should be truth in advertising. Most people are smart enough to realize there usually is not. Buyer beware. We, the student’s families, are purchasing a commodity–an education for our kids. It is up to US to do all research involved. You can cry foul all you want about the colleges but it’s a waste of time–you can’t legislate ethics. DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, just as you would in purchasing a car, a home, or anything else. Competitive colleges have an endless supply of students–do you really think they MUST have your little one?</p>
<p>Now we are instructing people to “beggar themselves” to purchase their child’s education, are we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mummom, forgive me for not following what you are trying to say here. We have been discussing “intangibles” for weeks, without making meaningful advances. Also, it would be easier to state your position and illustrate your “intangibles” I am missing.</p>
<p>Yes, I know you are missing them. Especially as they have been “illustrated” endlessly here.</p>