<p>dstark - since you are so full of ummm, questions</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not pay the tuition, send your child and you can find out</p>
<p>Fireandrain, you are right. I am using what you wrote to defend my position.</p>
<p>It’s kind of tough. A person does research. Asks experts in the field. Maybe the person’s own GCs. </p>
<p>And the person is given wrong information. </p>
<p>So maybe we disagree. That’s ok.</p>
<p>Do you know berryberry, or not? If not, send my questions to your GC friends. I’m sure they would enjoy a good laugh.</p>
<p>believe me dstark - they have laughed plenty about what you have posted already. But when you want to find out more, fill out your application and write the tuition check - and I will be happy to introduce you to them</p>
<p>Again, Mummom, I really think you did the right thing in not applying ED if you wanted to compare FA packages. No matter what, I really believe there is a penalty to non full-pay students in going the ED route, if only losing the opportunity to comapare packages from peer institutions.</p>
<p>But, for the sake of people who did not have the benefit of your foreknowledge, or for someone willing to take that risk, then okay, at least if the package comes back untenable, the student will have recourse to state schools and other less expensive, if less prestigous options.</p>
<p>However, any way you look at it, ED is imho an undesirable risk for the student seeking the best FA package. You made no mistakes.</p>
<p>As for being bound by a package you cannot actually afford, I do not believe the colleges desire this for students and families, either, and given the incredibly slight, almost statistically irrelevent number of people who cannot enroll, for the most part, this is simply not happening.</p>
<p>“I should add that I got most of my info about ED from reading CC. I never read anything other than that if the FA package comes anywhere near to what you can afford, you are obligated to attend; that if you are in need of aid you should apply RD”</p>
<p>Yes, perfectly said! There is a lot of misinformation posted on CC! </p>
<p>We should pay more attention to official statements like
<a href=“https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/docs/downloadforms/ED_Agreement.pdf[/url]”>https://www.commonapp.org/CommonApp/docs/downloadforms/ED_Agreement.pdf</a></p>
<p>and
[url=<a href=“http://upenn.intelliresponse.com/srfs/index.jsp]askBEN[/url”>http://upenn.intelliresponse.com/srfs/index.jsp]askBEN[/url</a>]</p>
<p>That’s cute, berryberry.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the links from the Penn website. I appreciate them.</p>
<p>berryberry: At first, I agreed with your position and thought you made some really valid points, ones that I agreed with. My gut reaction is that if you sign the contract, you must stick to it. But your absolute refusal to even listen to the other side is really bothering me.</p>
<p>Once upon a time, I thought the phrase “100% of need” was pretty clear. But in reality – it isn’t. Other posters on here have clearly explained why that phrase is open to interpretation, and I know from my own experience that parents easily misunderstood that statement. Perhaps from your vantage point there is no wiggle room – but try seeing this from someone else’s perspective.</p>
<p>Your kids go to a private school, right? Are most of the parents there affluent? If so, your guidance counselors may never have dealt with the financial aid issues that less affluent families deal with. Do you understand that many parents cannot afford to take out PLUS loans, or second mortgages, to pay college tuition? Many parents don’t realize until they see it in black and white that paying $50,000 a year means taking out significant loans. </p>
<p>Yes, these parents shouldn’t let their kids apply ED. But they do, because they really believe those words “meet 100% of need.”</p>
<p>And calmom has not been “wrong wrong wrong.” She has been 100% on target a lot of the time. I’m not going to do a point-by-point examination here, the thread is long enough as it is, but I think you would get your point across better if instead of attacking her you simply said, “I disagree and here’s why.”</p>
<p>dstark - I am happy to do anything I can to help :)</p>
<p>:)…Not quite. ;)</p>
<p>“Again mummom, I really think you did the right thing in not applying ED if you wanted to compare FA packages.”</p>
<p>Really? I’m not so sure. Every school offered need-based aid of the same amount–within $3,000 or so of each other. One school gave us a Pell Grant (which I thought was for low-income people which we, with six-figure income are not–guess they were trying to boost their Pell Grant numbers?). One gave work study, one gave a little travel money, others did not, etc. etc… Yet they all fell within pretty much the same amount. The only great offer was a merit offer at a school S was not thrilled about attending.
So, based on what I’ve read here, I should have had him apply ED to his favorite–chances are he would have received the same (maybe better!) package had he been accepted. And since we would have accepted happily, knowing that doing otherwise was probably, to use that dreadful word, “unethical,” the school and S would have been happy. But we had no huge discrepancies in aid packages offered, and that’s twenty-twenty hindsight.</p>
<p>Well, I’m sincerely sorry to hear that.</p>
<p>berryberry61 (post #1185),
Colleges do place all sorts of qualifiers on the definition of “meets 100% of need,” but I don’t agree that the term is in any way clear. The reality is that an applicant will not know exactly what the aid will be until the moment the FA award is received. Plenty of intelligent parents misunderstand the term “100% of need” and what exactly the college is promising and are quite shocked by the the amount awarded. I think use of the term “100% of need” is deliberately misleading, and the phrase “financial need as determined by Student Financial Services” is too vague to be meaningful, but obviously you disagree.</p>
<p>Every college that I have bothered to read the FA blurbs all say that need is covered by an aid package as an amalgam of grants, loans, family contributions, and work-study; and it is the <em>college</em> that determines the aid package.</p>
<p>Parental and/or student ignorance and stupidity are not valid excuses. Just my opinion, of course.</p>
<p>fireandrain</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have listened to the other side - but IMO they have not made any valid points. They continue to try and twist the rules to fit their agenda and repeat the same things over and over</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, this is where you and I differ. I believe it is clear as long as people take the time to do the proper research themselves. The problem is lots of folks read that statement and stop there - thinking they do not have to pay anything or only what they feel they can pay. That is naive and irresponsible. Where else do they get to do this. Do they get to go into Best Buy and say - I can only pay $120 for that $1,300 HDTV - so you eat the rest of the cost? Do they go to the car dealer and say I calculated my need and I can only pay $4,000 for that brand new BMW - - so where do I sign? C’mon - people need to stop being so naive and take some personal responsibility for a change</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes - and I work at one as well. But there is a mix of very affluent families and families on FA here. Roughly 20% of our students receive FA. Our GC’s deal with financial issues for less affluent students all the time (we have 100% college admittance). i sit on our FA committee and see the applications and data. So I do know what I am talking about here. Yes, some folks can not afford to take out loans, I concur. But no one is forcing them to. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No - they do because they want the admissions advantage. And honestly, if they are naive and dumb enough not to have researched a potentially significant financial expenditure - and instead jump to the conclusion upon seeing the words “meet 100% need” - that it is the need they themsleves determine, I feel no sympathy for them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the post I said that - she stated 4 items as fact - whcih were indeed all wrong. Calmom is no FA expert but she was presenting herself as one. She presented wrong info and I called her on it. That is not an attack but a rebuttal to incorrect information presented as fact</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, no, Anneroku, the problem (and the reason why this thread goes on and on) is that there are a number of people determined to intrepret the existing rules to fit an agenda that is very clear. People who are part of this group are easily identifiable as they tend to repeat the same “evidence” over and over. This is the group of people who desperately want to establish that the ED is not a binding agreement … or in another twist an enforceable contract. This is a group that consider the ED application to be “crap” and do not hesitate to declare to hate “all that crap.” </p>
<p>Like it or not … this is your group. By now, most people have accepted or conceded that students CAN and should obtain RELEASES from their BINDING agreement if the offer of financial aid is not sufficient. But … no that is NOT enough for this group as its members want to establish that was NEVER a binding agreement in the first place. They WANT to establish that the students could either walk the agreement or drag the schools in “negotiations” and if those negotiations would permit to entertain multiples applications … that would be a brilliant use of a loophole! Does that sound familiar? </p>
<p>The bottom line is that students DO have certain rights when applying ED. Most logical people will be happy to acknwledge that the families have the right to REJECT a financial aid package that is not adequate. That is why there is a stated deadline … or is there one? </p>
<p>However, the same students have IMPORTANT obligations. It is obvious that a vocal group in this thread is determined to NEVER recognize that those obligations are well-founded and justified, and will continue to slice and dice factual information until its whimsical “viewpoint” becomes the sole opinion on this board. </p>
<p>And then you wonder why some “astute” student decides to game the system?</p>
<p>anneroku - I think EricL G said it best - Parental and/or student ignorance and stupidity are not valid excuses.</p>
<p>If a parent and/or student is not willing to do just a modicum of reading and research on how FA is determined, that is their problem - not the colleges</p>
<p>Vossron, I was running out the door, you are correct, my kids do have Staffords and I do support Staffords. To me, they are marginally aid, but I’ll give you the STafford’s in the aid pile LOL. I was thinking about H and myself and our position regarding loans. Note to self, never post in a hurry, you will get nailed.</p>
<p>
That’s exactly what I’m saying. I’ve seen GC’s at an incredibly prestigious high school say things that are factually wrong. And it’s happening at your school, though if it’s a private prep school they probably have little experience with ED applicants who need FA. They are absolutely giving the correct advice to full-pay applicants – those students are bound to the ED contract. But they are wrong about ED applicants who apply for FA – they can be released from their contract for financial reasons. Your GC’s are not interpreting the matter stringently because it’s the moral thing to do – they are quoting rules that don’t exist because they are simply misinformed; but in their defense, this particular issue probably never came up at your school.
No one is advocating breaking the rules!! The rules of the ED agreement explicitly state that there is a financial escape clause.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would anyone need an escape clause or a release of a non-binding agreement?</p>