Echoing the post about schools wanting all families to have some degree of financial investment. BUT this is also a position easily adopted by schools that are full, with plenty of qualified waiting list kids to fill seats. That's about 30% of schools nationally, with some markets with more of those types of schools than others (the difference between a market like DC and say Cleveland). The remaining schools operate as another PP suggested, like selling seats on an airplane: we're flying the plane anyway, so might as well gets some money for those empty seats than nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard a past President say that it is important for every family to have some skin in the game, so they will never give a full ride. That's why there is a cap.

I worked at a school that had a 95% maximum award for this reason. A 95% cap seems fair enough.

Haha no. 30% seems fair.

I wouldn't enroll in a school like that unless it was really cheap. I don't want my kids in a school where everyone can afford $35,000 or more in tuition.

Why? That isn’t a lot of money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard a past President say that it is important for every family to have some skin in the game, so they will never give a full ride. That's why there is a cap.

I worked at a school that had a 95% maximum award for this reason. A 95% cap seems fair enough.

Haha no. 30% seems fair.

I wouldn't enroll in a school like that unless it was really cheap. I don't want my kids in a school where everyone can afford $35,000 or more in tuition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard a past President say that it is important for every family to have some skin in the game, so they will never give a full ride. That's why there is a cap.

I worked at a school that had a 95% maximum award for this reason. A 95% cap seems fair enough.

Haha no. 30% seems fair.

Anonymous wrote:I have heard a past President say that it is important for every family to have some skin in the game, so they will never give a full ride. That's why there is a cap.

I worked at a school that had a 95% maximum award for this reason. A 95% cap seems fair enough.

I have heard a past President say that it is important for every family to have some skin in the game, so they will never give a full ride. That's why there is a cap.

Very simple. Posting that the school helps 100 kids with partial aid looks better than helping 10 kids with full aid.

The school also wants to look good, not only doing the right thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to give 10 families $5k than giving all that to one family. Common sense.

It also effectively bars any student who is truly low income, which is what the other families want.

These schools are a business and shouldn’t be giving away their product for free. They have a budget and their own finances to manage.

Anonymous wrote:Better to give 10 families $5k than giving all that to one family. Common sense.

It also effectively bars any student who is truly low income, which is what the other families want.

From the school’s viewpoint, Financial Aid is an enrollment management tool.

25% - 35% of the families of kids the school would like to have as students need some level of financial help to make it work.

The mean average FA package appears to be 50% of tuition.

Understanding that this program has much in common with how airlines fill all their seats will clear up the confusion that exists around FA.

The students that the schools would like to have includes some athletes, diversity admits and special situations.

Better to give 10 families $5k than giving all that to one family. Common sense.

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what the exact level is at our school, but I think the policy makes sense. 3 partial scholarships benefits more people than one full scholarship. It would not take very many full scholarships to blow through the entire financial aid budget.

I get it, yes. Wanting to help more families is good. But you do cut out the families who qualify for more aid than the cap, if they can’t find a way to add the difference. I get that maybe it’s more fair to apply the same scale to everyone and have a cap, but it’s not impossible to do it a different way, with budgets for income level buckets or idk what. X need based full rides a year. Whatever.

Financial aid should be reserved for children of faculty and staff only.

Financial aid families, outside of faculty and staff, contribute less to the school community, $$$, so this policy would be smart to use the funds strategically where they will do more good with faculty/staff recruitment and retention.

I am not sure what the exact level is at our school, but I think the policy makes sense. 3 partial scholarships benefits more people than one full scholarship. It would not take very many full scholarships to blow through the entire financial aid budget.

Our K12 has a cap on financial aid. I know they spent a lot of time deliberating and arriving at that policy. I genuinely respect that.

But.

I hate it! It just feels like an income floor?

Does your school cap financial aid? At what level?