<p>Man I can hardly keep up as I usually read at night. I think Midmo’s question does address a rare, but perhaps real, problem with ED. </p>
<p>Here is a scenario that played out on CC back in 2005-06. Poster applied to one ED school, but sent in his apps to a bunch of highly selective colleges, some EA as allowed and some RA before his ED decision was announced. </p>
<p>Poster accepted by ED school and top EA school, he posted his results on CC and lamented that he could not attend EA because he was bound by his ED results and his parents wanted him to go to the ED school (FWIW, he did post about his family’s wealth and the size of his house). </p>
<p>Then poster started getting early RA results in. Students started asking why he kept his RA apps open. He posted that he forgot and that he didn’t think he would get in to these schools. Besides, it didn’t matter anyways because he was bound to his ED school. As you can imagine, it made the students on CC crazy. Intentionally or not, he had the “perfect combination” of schools that didn’t pay attention to an ED list (which in my mind casts doubt on the whole list circulating thing). He used the ED as a safety admit until the very end.</p>
<p>That summer he started posting about signing up for orientation programs and dorm selection at a different top college than the ED or EA college. Some students called him on it, and he said that the RA college was his dream and that he always wanted to go there, so his parents cited a change in financial circumstances that allowed him to be released from ED school. He started a significant number of posts from his new campus. Later his posts were removed. But a couple of new posts responding to a few questions on threads for his original ED choice were added.</p>
<p>Make of it what you want, but some students were crazed by this poster. Until he started posting from his new campus, I thought he was a ■■■■■, but there was just too much information that was true and facebook confirmed it (my S was admitted to many of the same schools and they have accepted student groups). </p>
<p>This is the very scenario that Midmo is calling attention to, yet in this case, the student didn’t even apply for FA, he just declined due to a change in financial circumstances. Now that is driving a bulldozer through the whole ED thing.</p>
<p>"In the case of Penn, because Penn specifically advertises that it has eliminated loans from their financial aid packages. "</p>
<p>Oh come on now. Everyone knows that they are talking about the money that they, Penn the school is going to be giving you, not the loans that you may have to take out in addition to the amount that the school is giving you in aid or work study. Everyone knows that many of these well endowed schools are giving you money in grants as opposed to loans. I don’t know anyone who thinks that verbiage pertains to the money that the family may have to take out on their own.</p>
<p>That’s like saying the college does not ever expect anyone with need to take loans.</p>
<p>“Now that is driving a bulldozer through the whole ED thing”</p>
<p>I just really love that sentence.</p>
<p>So, we have discovered that one student and his parents have unethically used the finaid loophole while we have discovered many parents who needed finaid were loathe to apply ED for fear they would be ‘ethically’ forced to attend regardless of offer.</p>
<p>I don’t know what I think about this, to be honest. Is he in congress now? ;)</p>
<p>d’smom-- “everyone knows that they are talking about the money that they, Penn the school is going to be giving you, not the loans that you may have to take out in addition to the amount that the school is giving you in aid or work study.”</p>
<p>I think there are some of us who operate on a no debt policy, who have recently had this no debt policy seriously reinforced by the economic crash. If someone says to me, “no loans,” I will assume this to mean “no loans.” fwiw.</p>
<p>No loans. These policies eliminate loans from the financial aid package of low income students. In Princeton’s case, the loans are eliminated from the aid packages of all students, not just low income students. Other schools with no loan policies for low income students include Rice University, UNC Chapel Hill, University of Virginia, and the University of Pennsylvania.
Loan caps. These policies institute a low cap on student loans for low-income students. Examples of schools with such policies include Brown University.
No parental contribution. These policies eliminate the parental contribution, but retain the student contribution along with the standard self-help level. So these policies may still require some loans in the aid package, albeit a reduced amount. Examples of schools with such policies include Yale and Stanford.
Pell grant match. These policies match the student’s Federal Pell Grant. This significantly reduces but does not eliminate the self-help level. Examples of schools with such policies include the University of Minnesota system."</p>
<p>So if I am low income and I want to go to Princeton, I will have loans? The loans just won’t be administered by Princeton?</p>
<p>if I read your post correctly dstark, it seems Princeton is the only one that doesn’t limit the no loan to low income students. So families that aren’t considered low income aren’t afforded the no loan policy. Is low income the federal low income, or does the college determine low income?</p>
<p>DStark – I believe you can get the info from the common data set. I’ll try to pull up a link.</p>
<p>*** Sorry - I just checked – you can get the total number of students who applied and who were accepted under the CDS, but not the number who actually enrolled.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone can operate on a no debt policy when you are talking about receiving a service. What I mean by that is the school in this scenario is saying that the money they are giving you to apply towards your bill is grants, work study etc…The school is saying that the money that they are aiding(giving) you is not a loan. They never say anywhere that they do not expect you to take a loan if what they offer you in their package does not cover the full cost of tuition and fees, not even to a person with great need. </p>
<p>If a family has a family policy that they will not take any loans to pay for education, then in that case that parent should probably not do ED and should only do RD so they can shop packages.</p>
<p>“Typically low income is defined as the bottom quintile by family income, such as family incomes below about $40,000, by Pell Grant eligibility, or families with incomes below 200% of the poverty line.”</p>
<p>Thanks, dstark.
In Penn’s case, when they say “no loan” they don’t restrict it to low income, but clearly if they say the EFC is beyond what the parents/student thought it would be, and they can’t pay that, that is when loans come in.</p>
<p>Ok thanks…3321 so how do you explain…post #1253</p>
<p>“I called today and they said all i’m eligible for is the $5,500 loan… (this person’s family income is in) the 125,000-139,999 bracket…93% of applicants receive aid in that bracket. The person said that there’s a letter of ineligibility in the mail so maybe that will explain it more? I really have no idea why I wouldn’t get anything”</p>
<p>“I think there are some of us who operate on a no debt policy, who have recently had this no debt policy seriously reinforced by the economic crash. If someone says to me, “no loans,” I will assume this to mean “no loans.” fwiw.”</p>
<p>So are you saying that you really believe that outside of the financial aid package that you would receive from lets say a school like Penn, that you truly believe they are also saying that you should not have to under any circumstances take out a loan to meet any of the costs of your education if what we give you does not cover every penny of the entire bill??? Just trying to understand this position.</p>
<p>“I called today and they said all i’m eligible for is the $5,500 loan… (this person’s family income is in) the 125,000-139,999 bracket…93% of applicants receive aid in that bracket. The person said that there’s a letter of ineligibility in the mail so maybe that will explain it more? I really have no idea why I wouldn’t get anything” </p>
<p>dstark,
My first thought is that “receiving aid” doesn’t mean a particular amount and certainly not full aid. Receiving aid could mean $500, and the EFC is the rest of tuition/room and board etc.</p>
<p>In this particular case he is awaiting a letter that will state why. He can then appeal if the letter has faulty data or something.</p>
<p>My first son is in college now, and when he applied and I did a quick look at financial aid via an on-line calculator it was clear that we wouldn’t get FA for the particular Univ he was going to attend. So, despite hearing that I should, I didn’t bother with the FAFSA. Using that calculator’s estimate, at other schools we would have received aid, but our EFC was still too high, in my opinion, and we would have had to take significant loans. Need is the difference between tuition and EFC, at least that was my understanding until I came to this thread:-)</p>
<p>dstark, re your post #1272 – from what I can gather on the Penn thread, it looks like Penn may be doing some fudging with the numbers. The Federal system allows students who do not have financial need to take a $5500 unsubsidized Stafford, and that is essentially a federal right – everyone gets that loan. It looks like Penn is telling students that when they package aid for students with need, they don’t include loans – but Penn is also advising the ineligible students about that $5500 unsub loan – hence the expected arrival of an “ineligibility” letter – and this is something that they should do. It’s possible that they are even mandated to do it by federal law (I don’t know, but a law that requires financial aid offices to tell students about all available federally backed loans makes sense – if there isn’t such a law, there ought to be one). </p>
<p>Where the fudging comes in is that it looks like the Penn web site where they talk about 93% of applicants getting aid in the $125K+ bracket – Penn is talking about that unsub loan. That is, looks like Penn is tracking who takes out the unsubsidized loans and throwing them right into their “get aid” chart – I wouldn’t be surprised if they are also including parents who take PLUS loans in that figure.</p>
<p>dstark…assets, I’m guessing assets. This kid’s family probably has assets. The income + the assets are too much for the college to justify giving the family any grant money. Another problem I have with the blanket statements about income levels is that they use the word income and don’t say anything about assets. Kid’s are constantly posting about their family income but everything including FASA is predicated on income and assets. I’m hard pressed to imagine that a family with income in 6 figures or even high 5 figures doesn’t have any assets, even if that income is relatively newly achieved.</p>
<p>I want to add that when they write a certain income bracket receives aid, while yes it can and probably does mean what calmom states (and it neglects assests as momof3 points out) it doesn’t mention how much aid, and to me that is the kicker.</p>
<p>It induces applicants to think it will mean significant aid, when it could be quite slight.</p>