My understanding was that the Unsubsidized part of the student Direct Loans, because they are available to nearly anyone, whether there is need or not, do not count as part of the financial aid packages as defined by the Common Data Sets. In other words schools that use that as part of the financial aid package do not have that counted as part of the aid that they award so that in Common Data, it doesn’t count towards % of need met. I;ve noticed that is not the case, in that USC seems to actively use these unsub loans as does BC, as I was told, and they still are down there as meeting 100% of need. Anyone know anything about this?
For schools that use Direct Loans, some will include them in the financial aid award. These are stusent loans, not parent loans. They are always broken into unsubsidized and subsidized portions if the student is eligible for both.
Whether they are part of the aid package depends on the school. In my experiences…they are included.
Parent Plus loans are listed as an option, but they are not part of the student need based aid package…because they are parent loans.
My issue is on the way they are treated on the common data stats. My understanding was that unsub Student Direct loans were not considered as financial aid by Common Data, much like PLUS is. But I have just seen two 100% need met schools (as so defined by Common Data) use the unsub Direct loans as part of the need package. So my question is in context of what Common Data uses, not what schools do. We’ve all seen schools even package Parent loans in the aid package as though they are awards, but that gets thrown out when the stats for the Common Data sets are compiled. My understanding was that the unsub Direct loans were also so treated. Maybe not. Want to know from someone who knows what the rules are for the CD sets.
It does seem that if colleges are using unsub loans to meet need that is a foul. From the CDS:
Line H2 h) Number of students in line d whose need was fully met (exclude PLUS loans,unsubsidized loans, and private alternative loans )
But even if colleges include those in the FA package, it just means that need was not met. That’s the only place where it’s noted. As a matter of fact under Self Help (line H1), it specifically states: Student loans from all sources (excluding parent loans) which would include unsub loans.
The problem is that schools like BC and USC are showing as need fully met in their stats when they are doing this to meet need. that’s what’s getting to me.
BC and USC still provide a good amount of need based aid. I personally do not think its unreasonable to have students take the $3500 unsubsidized loan when the schools are giving very substantial need based aid.
But that is my opinion.
They do. But I am looking at the accuracy of what is reported in the common data going by their rules. If any school is claiming that they meet 100% of need and is so reporting it on CD sets they should be abiding by the conditions. The rules as I read them and as set out above, clearly do not include unsub DIrect Loans. Yet, I know of two examples where need is fully met by using those funds in the aid packages. Something is not right here.
A student with zero need or a negative million dollars of need can take out the full $5500 in student loans to bring down cost of the EFC. A student whose EFC is low, shoud get the same advantage, IMO. It’s harder for that student to come up with the EFC than someone way up there and that unsub loan might be one of very few alternatives.
But it’s more the case that the CD is being corrupted when schools are not reporting by the rules set out that is bothering me.
This kind of thing is why I think it is critically important that families only use the CD as a general guideline, and then run their numbers through a calculator like the ones at Finaid.org once they do have the aid letters.
The CD has very clear rules. That colleges are reporting info that don’t go by them is troubling. The NPCs are not at all accurate when it comes to many schools that do not meet full need unless those schools have a guaranteed process for most everyone. Any school using holistic and other methods not in their calculators to give financial aid that can differ widely is not going to be predictable.
Remember that awarding unsub loans has nothing to do with need being met. Unsub loans are awarded ON TOP OF aid that meets need, even if a school meets 100% of need. In that case, the unsub can be used to offset the EFC. The CDS worksheet does indeed instruct schools to include unsub loans to the amount they report as aid awarded (see http://www.commondataset.org/docs/2014-2015/CDS_2014-2015.pdf). They report it as either Need-based (Include non-need-based aid use to meet need.) or Non-need-based (Exclude non-need-based aid use to meet need.) Remember, if the school is using IM to award aid, it might compute a higher EFC than FM.