<p>
</p>
<p>But the colleges use a secret, non-standardized formula based on criteria they refuse to disclose. So there is no way that a student who has any sort of complicating financial factors to know in advance what the college will define as “need”. </p>
<p>If the colleges used the FAFSA formula it would be fine. But they don’t.</p>
<p>DStark. I hope you were not thinking of me. The problem is that you made a blanket accusation without any foundation whatsoever. I will let other posters speak up for themselves.</p>
<p>calmom</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this assumes you are completing the FAFSA correctly. if you are leaving off the income and assets of your child’s father - you are not. The calculations are logically based on BOTH parents contributing to their child’s education. That is only fair - whether you are divorced or not. Both parents have a responsibility to contribute</p>
<p>Marite, ok.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, Your post was very well written. You understand me very well. </p>
<p>I’m going to sleep now.</p>
<p>Calmom:</p>
<p>I think that the disagreement is over whether an ED applicant can break an ED commitment over “a more advantageous offer.” </p>
<p>I agree with your post 1021.</p>
<p>berryberry: Here I side with calmom (see my story of the student who had to give up on BC because BC expected her absentee father to contribute). It may be “fair” to expect both parents to be involved and to contribute. It does not always happen. And the one who gets penalized for the sins of the absentee parent is the child.</p>
<p>FAFSA EFC provides a baseline for calculating need, but it’s not neutral and it’s not necessarily fair. For all the reasons it falls short, just take a little walk over to the Financial Aid forum. It is, however, the current status quo for determining eligibility for federal student financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re talking about divorced parents, this statement is incorrect. For divorced parents, you do not include the income and assets of the non-custodial parent or his/her spouse on FAFSA. You do include the income and assets of the custodial parent and his or her spouse. There is no place on the form to include non-custodial information on FAFSA, regardless of logic or responsibility.</p>
<p>^ Do ED colleges use FAFSA only? I was under the impression that many use other methods.</p>
<p>berryberry61: Not kidding at all.</p>
<p>“But I would think that disagreement over how much a non-custodial parent is willing to pay would be ground for being released.”</p>
<p>I’m sure you’re right, Marite. However, even if a student is rightfully released in a case like this, he/she would still suffer the consequences of appearing on the ED list. If a naive applicant had actually believed the college’s statements encouraging those who need FA to apply ED and the so-called “100% of need”, there would no longer be any possibility of being admitted to peer institutions. This seems unfair to me – some of those other schools may have had different policies towards non-custodial parents and granted sufficient FA. Obviously, applying ED in a case like this is unwise; unfortunately it happens because some families actually believe what colleges say.</p>
<p>Regarding “need” and “want”: I’ve never met anyone who confuses these. I have known plenty of people who <em>needed</em> a certain amount of FA or their child would be unable to attend the college in question, simply because of the limits of cash reserves, savings, income and ability to borrow. This is what most FA applicants mean by “need” and the colleges need to be much more careful with their language, since the common meaning of the word “need” does not match their usage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We do not know how the list is compiled. The list can be compiled after finaid discussions have been held and when some (very few, it sounds like) ED admits have been released from their commitment. The RD colleges do not meet to make their decisions until February or March, so there is absolutely no hurry to compile it.</p>
<p>As for the distinction between “need” and “want” it would appear that some posters think it is wholly subjective; in other words, what someone says “I need” is whatever that person believes. Now, if a family needs finaid at a certain level “simply because of the limits of cash reserves, savings, income and ability to borrow,” then a college pledging to meet full need must provide it within the context of these limits. These should be ascertainable, unlike the willingness of a non-custodial spouse to contribute. And if full need is not met, then the college has the duty to release the applicant.</p>
<p>berryberry61 – re your post #1023 – it’s obvious that you don’t have a clue as to what goes onto a FAFSA. Since you clearly do not know how financial aid is calculated, I’d suggest that you don’t offer opinions based on ignorance. (The income and assets of a noncustodial parent is NEVER on a FAFSA - and the FAFSA instructions are very clear on that).</p>
<p>vballmom, by “neutral” I mean that the COLLEGE doesn’t get to manipulate the FAFSA to its benefit. As between student and college (two sides of the negotiation), FAFSA is neutral in that it adheres to a government set standard, not a standard based on what the college wants (example: college wants to add in home equity) – or what the student wants (example: student wants to subtract out parental debt).</p>
<p>The issue was meeting “need”. If colleges all used the FAFSA as the benchmark, then I think they could honestly say they were meeting “need”, because they would be meeting the figure set by an outside entity by standards that they cannot manipulate. But when they tell students they are meeting “determined need” meaning “whatever we determine need to be by our internal policies” – then they are putting out misleading statements about what they do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does it matter if she has a better offer? If she didn’t have an offer, but simply realized that she wasn’t able to pay the costs for Penn – wouldn’t you expect that after turning down Penn, she would try to find a college that would offer enough aid to make it affordable? She just happens to now be in possession of information that allows her to make a well-informed choice. </p>
<p>Here’s what I don’t get: its not like the OP got full-ride offer from a prestigious private U. She’s got that offer from a public school most students applying ED to Penn probably wouldn’t want to attend even if paid to do so. The ONLY reason that a merit offer at Podunk U. would ever look attractive to an Ivy ED admit is because they need the money. </p>
<p>I mean… ANY student who qualifies for admission to Penn probably could easily get a free ride offer at some public university, depending on how far down the scale the are willing to go in terms of selectivity. Yet Penn is still full of students, probably about half who are paying full freight to attend. </p>
<p>So its crazy to offer about how “need” is determined. Obviously, whatever Penn has offered is not enough to make it worthwhile for the student to turn down the offer from Podunk U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, there’s no state school bashing on this thread at all…</p>
<p>
Some folks here think that colleges’ finaid practices are unethical, therefore students and parents should ignore them and go ahead and apply ED and skate out of the commitment because you don’t like the financial aid terms. I’m sure some people think College Board is also unethical (plenty of complaints about them on these boards). What to do about that? Why, why not cheat on the tests? Why not pay others to write college essays? Don’t like the grading system? If you’re on the inside, change your kid’s grade (or maybe change your own!). All of these things have happened and have been documented on CC. If you think things are “unethical,” then take things into your own hands and ignore the system!</p>
<p>Yes, it’s no wonder our society is in the shape it’s in today.</p>
<p>People can rail all they want against big bad colleges and their finaid practices. Discussion in this thread isn’t going to change that.</p>
<p>But some high school students may get the misguided idea that it’s okay to ignore the binding ED contract that they signed this year or next year or the year after, thanks to what some on this thread have written. And then the whole thing may blow up in their face (the way it just may be about to do for the OP). But that’s apparently okay!</p>
<p>For me, my main concern is with the students, not the institutions. The institutions hold all the power, in these cases. The student is one person who read a committment, which itself encourages students to apply whether or not they are certain they can afford to go to the school, which further states that the student will be released if financial issues cannot be resolved. I’m not sure what part of this is unethical.</p>
<p>It would be unethical if a university said they would release a student if finances could not be resolved and then not to do so. It would, further, be unethical for a student who could afford said university to back out simply on a preference or a whim. </p>
<p>But, assuming the issue is financial, then there is nothing unethical, at all, in walking away from the ED committment. Both sides make a committment: the school to meet “full need” and the student to attend unless financially impossible. Either side backing out of that agreement would be unethical.</p>
<p>Given that Universities do not use the FAFSA, which is an outside, objective measure of need, but use thier own methods, which are not disclosed up front, it is unsurprising that there are occaisonally students who cannot afford to attend. End of story. I’m really unsure how this falls into the category of unethical students. This is just extreme language and very accusatory and a bizarre accusation. </p>
<p>I would assume the schools are not interested in forcing families to attend beyond their financial means, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is what I assume, too. I also assume that colleges are not vindictive and out to ruin students who were misled into applying ED.</p>
<p>Do the colleges disclose what method they use to calculate finaid? I’ve seen both FAFSA and CSS mentioned on the BC website. Is FAFSA the most generous in calculating EFC? I would assume that Harvard uses a more generous method if it is willing to offer finaid to families with up to $180k income. If so, FAFSA might not be universally advantageous.</p>
<p>I also assume that colleges are not vindictive and out to ruin student students who were misled into applying ED.</p>
<p>Agree.</p>
<p>I would even go further to say that I’m sure schools like Penn are really, actually HOPING the FA offer will allow these students to attend. In some unfortunate cases this does not happen. But, I really believe they want talented students at all levels of the economic scale.</p>
<p>marite</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is indeed fair to ask both parents to be financially responsible for their child’s college. I agree, it may not always happen, but that is the families problem, not the colleges.</p>
<p>I was the one who wrote about writing a recommendation for a young lady’s ED application at my alma mater a few pages page (I think 60 pages back). I met with the mother for 2 hours to explain to her pros and cons of applying ED, especially since the school does not meet full need. A month ago she swore up and down that she was going to make it happen for her daughter. A few days before the decision were to come out, she just very nonchalantly said it was a bad idea to apply ED, they should have considered other options!!! This is a well educated woman (with a PhD working at a private school), had someone like me explain to her about ED for 2 hours, and decided the ED contract was not worth the paper it was written on. I am very skeptical on “big institution taking advantage of little people” concept.</p>
<p>Oldfort, you talked to your friend, she thought ED was a good idea, then she thought about it some more and changed her mind. </p>
<p>Changing your mind isn’t a sin.</p>