Financial Aid and Admission: Tuition Diiscounting, Merit Aid, & Need-Aware Admission doc

The NACAC survey„ Distributed to all baccalaureate Distributed to all baccalaureate--grant institutions grant institutions n=1,916 „ 382 surveys returned, 20% response rate „ Representat

NACAC National Conference

Seattle, WA September 27, 2008

Financial Aid and Admission:

„ Existing grant aid

„ Comparisons by selectivity

„ Comparisons with 1994

„ Implications of the survey results p p y y

„ Questions and discussion

Grant aid to undergraduate students

2006‐2007  (total $51.8 billion)

Institutional merit

$11.1  22%

Private & employer

$7.3  14% 22%

State merit

State need

$5.3  10%

Institutional need

$9.5  18%

Federal

$16.5  32%

$2.1  4%

Changes in grant aid

State

State need

$5.30 10%

$7.30 14%

$2.40 14%

Institutional State

State need

$2.60

15%

$1.90 11%

106%

Institutional need

$9.50 18%

Federal

$16 50

State merit

$2.10 4%

Institutional need

$4.50 25%

$16.50 32%

$6.10 34%

170%

The NACAC survey

„ Distributed to all baccalaureate Distributed to all baccalaureate grant institutions grant institutions (n=1,916)

„ 382 surveys returned, 20% response rate

„ Representation: sample vs population

„ More private

„ Larger institutions (>10,000 undergraduates)

„ New England and Midwest

„ Higher SAT scores Lower yield

Lower yield

Control over financial aid policy?

Who has primary authority over financial aid policy?

PublicPrivate

Need assessment in admissions

Need blind until May 1

Currently under review

Reviewed in last year

7%

65%

9%

56%

Reviewed in last 3 years

Not reviewed recently

Aid packaging policies

Use of merit aid

PublicPrivate

Financial aid spending

Financial aid spending, cont.

Institutional selectivity (acceptance rate)

% of institutions in each selectivity quartile

Admissions selectivity and meeting full need100%

Institutional aid as % of all administered aid

Merit grant proportion of all institutional grants

Comparisons with 1994 NACAC survey

„ 2007

„ 44 year institutions only year institutions only

„ 28% public

„ 44 year and 2 year and 2 year year

„ 7% of total were 2 7% of total were 2 year year 31% f 4 i tit ti i tit ti bli bli

„ 31% of 4 31% of 4 year institutions were public year institutions were public

Key changes from 1994

„ Increased control over financial aid policy for CEM or

FinAid officer: increased from 35% to 44%

„ Public institutions meeting full need: increased from

19% to 32%

„ Growth in merit grants as % of all institutional grants

„ Growth in merit grants as % of all institutional grants

„ Merit aid grew from 27% in 1994 to 43% in 2007

„ Need aid has decreased from 66% in 1994 to 49% in 2007

Student aid as a % of E&G expenditures

„ While need While need blind admissions appears strong, less than 1/3 of all blind admissions appears strong, less than 1/3 of all

institutions meet full need

„ Differential packaging is heavily utilized by private institutions with

„ Differential packaging is heavily utilized by private institutions, with

a variety of criteria used

„ Institutional grants are consuming a larger proportion of budgets, g g g g g p p g p p g g

particularly in private institutions

„ Merit aid is growing at the expense of need Merit aid is growing at the expense of need based aid based aid

„ Financial aid policies are related to admissions selectivity

Just in case you thought that testing and merit ends in college

Questions and discussion

http://www.personal.psu.edu/deh29