<p>We applied for Financial Aid at Duke University for our youngest son. His brother (our middle son) attends a community college that has an Aviation Science program that provides the first two years toward an Associate Degree with the option to go on for two more years in a satellite program from Embry Riddle to recieve a four year bachelors degree. The most expensive part of this program is the flying part to become a commercial airline pilot. This is a degree program, and all the flying expenses ($34,000) are part of the requirements for the credit classes. Because of the cost of this program, we definitely included it with a special explanation on our financial aid application. </p>
<p>We really didn’t expect much in the way of financial aid this year, but we were appalled by the following message on our son’s financial aid letter.</p>
<p>It said: This award and the expected parental contribution included in this letter are based on your sibling(s) full-time enrollment as an undergraduate in a four year public or private college or university. Duke policy states that siblings enrolled in community colleges or similar technical programs, will not be considered when calculating the expected parental contribution.</p>
<p>Does anyone else find this outrageous? Why in the world would a respected institution such as Duke not see the value in education through a reputable community college program? This seems “elitist and snobby” as far as we’re concerned. </p>
<p>We’ve been so happy with our son’s Duke experience, but we are amazed they could have such an attitude. We will be writing them for an explanation of this policy that is an insult to community colleges - many of which provide a very wonderful stepping stone to the four year degree. </p>
<p>While I certainly don’t work for Duke, I do work for a college that has very similar needs analysis policies to Duke (MIT) and can address what I think is going on here.</p>
<p>First of all, my sense of the issue here is not one of snobbery, but rather one of cost. </p>
<p>Think about it this way – the way the Federal system works, if your total contribution is determined to be $15,000 and you have two in college, half is determined to be the EFC of each child (so approximately $7500). Well the problem comes into play when a student attends a college which costs, on average, less than the $7500 (like most community college programs). The Federal government for its funds would still have you paying Duke a $7500 EFC, but Duke is asking the question about the remainder of the contribution (the amount they assume is not paid to the community college).</p>
<p>The issue here is assumptions. Duke is making an assumption that the community college your son is attending has low costs; you need to be in touch with Duke (and possibly provide some documentation) showing that the program your son is in is not as inexpensive as they assumed.</p>
<p>As an aside, we would make the same argument about the service academies. Since no tuition is paid there, one could argue that there should be no split in the EFC (Expected Family Contribution) if a student attends there, but the Feds for their money allow it. </p>
<p>And I would say that a service academy (like a community college) education is of great value.</p>
<p>barkowitz - Thank you for your response. We did actually send an explanation to the Duke financial aid office explaining that this program actually costs $34,000 - all required costs of this particular community college Aviation Science degree program. Maybe this explanation went unnoticed. </p>
<p>It seems to me that this is still an unfair policy, as many state schools have lower costs very similar to community colleges and yet they would be considered into the formula. Doesn’t it seem that a better system would be for them to ask for the verification of costs, and not just make a blanket assumption about community colleges?</p>
<p>I don’t get this at all. It seems like a real insult to community colleges. Maybe you should get the college your son goes to involved. It seems that they may like a chance to defend the honor of their program and the way that is viewed in the financial aid game.</p>
<p>Barkowitz, I am a bit confused about your explanation. MIT, Duke and a number of colleges use PROFILE in addition to FAFSA, and then use their own methodology in coming up with the need, is my understanding. Would they not have the freedom to split the cost proportianally between the schools if the costs of the kids’ schools are not equal? I remember a friend of mine with 2 girls in college–1 at Pitt commuting and the other at Duke. The EFC went up sharply when the commuter finished school, not proportionally. As DAK brought up some state schools do have lower costs, in fact less than some community colleges.</p>
<p>But look at the time I posted it… Sorry if I was less than clear (I was also up MUCH too late last night reviewing files, so bear with me).</p>
<p>We do look at porportianate expense. And I am assuming that is what Duke has done here as well (although I can’t be sure, obviously).</p>
<p>There are many ways of handling this though, and it can be done by actual cost (taking the money for the lower cost school out of the income stream as an allowance), as a bottom line EFC adjustment, or as a proration depending upon the various costs of the schools.</p>
<p>Colleges are all over the map on this one. Even those of us who are 568 group schools (568group.org) have different practices here. Ideally (and ultimately) I hope we will come closer to common practice on this issue. </p>
<p>The example I used was meant to present the logic behind the fundamental question, not necessarily address the “how” question of the actual analysis.</p>
<p>In any event, I still think a call to Duke is appropriate. That (along with documentation of the extra cost) should be enough to make your case.</p>
<p>Hope that addresses your questions, jamimom.</p>
</p>