Don't forget the following reduction from the 2009-2010 year.
"35,760 - family contribution"
Fortunately that is also missing.
financial aid ROTC policy
- Thread starter calimom
- Start date
"35,760 - family contribution"
Fortunately that is also missing.
Is the "subsistence allowance" actually the stipend? My son's school is trying to figure out whether or not the stipend must be excluded from the EFA.
ALL benifits from ROTC are excluded from income.
link here: Linky
A2: Amended section 480(c) of the HEA includes the words “. . . benefits under the following provisions of law . . .”. Therefore, the exclusion from EFA applies to all of the benefits provided under the designated program.
For example, all benefits provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are excluded regardless of whether the assistance was for tuition and fees, books and supplies, or as a monthly housing allowance.
A4: As noted earlier, the amended section 480(c) of the HEA includes, in addition to education benefit programs administered by the VA, two ROTC programs that are administered by the DOD. These are the scholarship benefits provided under the Senior Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) in chapter 103 of title 10 of the United States Code and the subsistence allowance benefits provided under the ROTC in chapter 3 of title 37 of the United States Code. Therefore, education benefits from these two ROTC programs must be excluded as EFA even though they are not VA programs and the recipients are not veterans.
link here: Linky
A2: Amended section 480(c) of the HEA includes the words “. . . benefits under the following provisions of law . . .”. Therefore, the exclusion from EFA applies to all of the benefits provided under the designated program.
For example, all benefits provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are excluded regardless of whether the assistance was for tuition and fees, books and supplies, or as a monthly housing allowance.
A4: As noted earlier, the amended section 480(c) of the HEA includes, in addition to education benefit programs administered by the VA, two ROTC programs that are administered by the DOD. These are the scholarship benefits provided under the Senior Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) in chapter 103 of title 10 of the United States Code and the subsistence allowance benefits provided under the ROTC in chapter 3 of title 37 of the United States Code. Therefore, education benefits from these two ROTC programs must be excluded as EFA even though they are not VA programs and the recipients are not veterans.
Last edited:
Nope. Unfortunately, you are not correct. In my son’s case by being a recipient of the ROTC Scholarship his need-based aid (9,440) was removed from his financial aid award, which increased his obligation to the school from 35,760 to 45,200. With the application of the ROTC funding of 38,000 we are left with a family contribution of 7,200. I guess the need-based aid that was awarded to my son in the amount of 9,440 goes back in the pot for the school to use for their non-ROTC and foreign student body?
http://568group.org/methodology/
calimom,
I am hoping it is correct that your son is at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
MIT uses a different system to determine financial aid, called the: 568 Consensus Approach Methodology
This system was put together by a group of universities LINKY with congressional approval.
It allows these universities to collaborate and to use the same system to determine and to award financial aid without getting into trouble for an anti-trust violation.
The details of this system are not public. But For federal student financial assistance for undergraduate and graduate students, MIT computes the Federal Aid using the Federal Methodology. And for Institutional Financial Aid and Family Contribution, they use this 568 Presidential Consensus Approach Methodology.
"Expected family contribution (EFC) LINKY
The amount that parents and students are expected to contribute toward the student’s college expenses. For undergraduate financial aid, MIT computes the family contribution using the 568 Consensus Approach. For federal student financial assistance for undergraduate and graduate students, MIT computes the family contribution using the Federal Methodology."
You can take two different approaches to your problem.
1)
This Consensus Approach Methodology clearly states that the Financial awards officer has control in individual cases.
"The exercise of “professional judgment by financial aid officers in assessing a family’s ability to pay should recognize unique or extenuating financial circumstances in individual cases; such professional judgment is not the proper mechanism for systematically treating groups of students differently in order to advance institutional objectives."
So you (or your son) may go visit/call a MIT financial aid officer with supporting evidence/paperwork on how you have financial need/hardship, and plead your case.
At the same time you could also make the case that the current Consensus Approach Methodology does not reflect the 'Spirit' of the new President Obama Regulation excluding ROTC from the calculation of financial aid. Since it looks like the "formula for determining a family's ability to support the expenses associated with college was updated most recently in 1999"LINKY
You can make the case That the 568 Consensus Approach Methodology needs to be updated, as the President Obama directive is law as of 2009.LINKY
2)
You could also write a letter to the 568 Presidents’ Group Technical board making the same argument about the 'Spirit' of President Obama's directive.
It is even possible that asking the MIT Financial Aid Officer how to appeal to the 568 group Board could have an impact.
Quotes and Notes:
MIT provides an Financial Aid Calculator for this system at: LINKY
568 Consensus Approach Methodology
A system of principles, practices, and procedures created by the 568 Presidents’ Group and used at approximately 35 colleges and universities, including MIT, to determine the ability of each student’s family to support the annual student expense budget.
http://568group.org/docs/cmmanual-non.pdf
6. The exercise of “professional judgment” by financial aid officers in assessing a family’s ability to pay should recognize unique or extenuating financial circumstances in individual cases; such professional judgment is not the proper mechanism for systematically treating groups of students differently in order to advance institutional objectives.
568 Presidents Group
Toward that end, I and the other 568 Group presidents support the following financial aid principles:
* Families should contribute to educational expenses according to their ability and those with similar financial profiles should contribute similar amounts.
* To the extent they are able, parents and students have the primary responsibility to contribute to educational expenses before an institution awards financial aid.
* Institutions should evaluate both income and assets as part of the assessment of the family's ability to pay.
* The exercise of "professional judgment" by financial aid officers in assessing a family's ability to pay should recognize unique or extenuating financial circumstances in individual cases; such judgment is not the proper mechanism for systematically treating groups of students differently to advance institutional objectives.
* Each institution should inform applicants about the policies and practices it applies when measuring a family's ability to pay, carry out its policies consistently, and support the awarding of need-based aid.
* An institution that allocates any financial assistance that is not based exclusively on need should inform all prospective applicants of the standards it applies in allocating that aid.
calimom,
I am hoping it is correct that your son is at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
MIT uses a different system to determine financial aid, called the: 568 Consensus Approach Methodology
This system was put together by a group of universities LINKY with congressional approval.
It allows these universities to collaborate and to use the same system to determine and to award financial aid without getting into trouble for an anti-trust violation.
The details of this system are not public. But For federal student financial assistance for undergraduate and graduate students, MIT computes the Federal Aid using the Federal Methodology. And for Institutional Financial Aid and Family Contribution, they use this 568 Presidential Consensus Approach Methodology.
"Expected family contribution (EFC) LINKY
The amount that parents and students are expected to contribute toward the student’s college expenses. For undergraduate financial aid, MIT computes the family contribution using the 568 Consensus Approach. For federal student financial assistance for undergraduate and graduate students, MIT computes the family contribution using the Federal Methodology."
You can take two different approaches to your problem.
1)
This Consensus Approach Methodology clearly states that the Financial awards officer has control in individual cases.
"The exercise of “professional judgment by financial aid officers in assessing a family’s ability to pay should recognize unique or extenuating financial circumstances in individual cases; such professional judgment is not the proper mechanism for systematically treating groups of students differently in order to advance institutional objectives."
So you (or your son) may go visit/call a MIT financial aid officer with supporting evidence/paperwork on how you have financial need/hardship, and plead your case.
At the same time you could also make the case that the current Consensus Approach Methodology does not reflect the 'Spirit' of the new President Obama Regulation excluding ROTC from the calculation of financial aid. Since it looks like the "formula for determining a family's ability to support the expenses associated with college was updated most recently in 1999"LINKY
You can make the case That the 568 Consensus Approach Methodology needs to be updated, as the President Obama directive is law as of 2009.LINKY
2)
You could also write a letter to the 568 Presidents’ Group Technical board making the same argument about the 'Spirit' of President Obama's directive.
It is even possible that asking the MIT Financial Aid Officer how to appeal to the 568 group Board could have an impact.
Quotes and Notes:
MIT provides an Financial Aid Calculator for this system at: LINKY
568 Consensus Approach Methodology
A system of principles, practices, and procedures created by the 568 Presidents’ Group and used at approximately 35 colleges and universities, including MIT, to determine the ability of each student’s family to support the annual student expense budget.
http://568group.org/docs/cmmanual-non.pdf
6. The exercise of “professional judgment” by financial aid officers in assessing a family’s ability to pay should recognize unique or extenuating financial circumstances in individual cases; such professional judgment is not the proper mechanism for systematically treating groups of students differently in order to advance institutional objectives.
568 Presidents Group
Toward that end, I and the other 568 Group presidents support the following financial aid principles:
* Families should contribute to educational expenses according to their ability and those with similar financial profiles should contribute similar amounts.
* To the extent they are able, parents and students have the primary responsibility to contribute to educational expenses before an institution awards financial aid.
* Institutions should evaluate both income and assets as part of the assessment of the family's ability to pay.
* The exercise of "professional judgment" by financial aid officers in assessing a family's ability to pay should recognize unique or extenuating financial circumstances in individual cases; such judgment is not the proper mechanism for systematically treating groups of students differently to advance institutional objectives.
* Each institution should inform applicants about the policies and practices it applies when measuring a family's ability to pay, carry out its policies consistently, and support the awarding of need-based aid.
* An institution that allocates any financial assistance that is not based exclusively on need should inform all prospective applicants of the standards it applies in allocating that aid.
Last edited:
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
Hmmmmm. Your son's obligation is not $45200. MIT does not and never will expect your son to pay that. Frankly, I would be more perturbed about qualifying for a Pell grant and still have to pay 35,760.
You forget that your son will earn about 3500 of that 7200 with his stipend, making the family contribution 3700.
Correct that the 9440 goes back into the pot for those who NEED it. That is what it is for NEED based aid. Your son no longer NEEDS it, hence he doesn't get it.
Has your son actually gone to Financial aid and spoken with them?
I know your son feels like he is getting ripped off but it sounds from your situation that without his ROTC scholarship he would not be able to afford MIT at all. There are other worthy students who would like to attend MIT and can't afford it either. Now MIT will have more need based aid to help them. The money pot is not infinite for even MIT.
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
The Dept of the Navy, of course, is paying the tuition. MIT expected the family to pay some $35,000 prior to the scholarship. Fortunately now you are expected to pay far less.
Let me run this scenario. Pretend your son has a Federal and MIT efc of zero. Prior to his scholarship MIT awarded him $39000 in federal and institutional grants. (At MIT poor students are lucky because they don't have to pay tuition). He uses his work study, student loans and savings to cover $12000 in room, board etc.
Now, he wins a full tuition scholarship - MIT is not going to allow him to put $12000 of hiis $39000 scholarship to room and board and pocket $27000.
They are going to throw out the original award and repackage a new award based on his resources.
Fair or not that is how the game is played.
Let me run this scenario. Pretend your son has a Federal and MIT efc of zero. Prior to his scholarship MIT awarded him $39000 in federal and institutional grants. (At MIT poor students are lucky because they don't have to pay tuition). He uses his work study, student loans and savings to cover $12000 in room, board etc.
Now, he wins a full tuition scholarship - MIT is not going to allow him to put $12000 of hiis $39000 scholarship to room and board and pocket $27000.
They are going to throw out the original award and repackage a new award based on his resources.
Fair or not that is how the game is played.
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
Pima - it was. That is how he got the first financial aid award that was pre-scholarship.
I never mentioned going outside the budgeted amount of 52,800 and I’m not sure why your calculation goes beyond the budged amount. It all has to do with how the pie is sliced within that 52,800 figure. By the way, he qualified for the ROTC Scholarship he didn’t win it. The ROTC Scholarship comes with an obligation to serve. While other students get to enjoy a portion ($9440) of my son’s pie, compliments of the ROTC Scholarship funding, he will stand alone paying for it with 8 years of service.
I didn’t realize it is ridiculous to give room and board assistance to a student that brings 38,000 worth of funding to his school , thanks for pointing that out to me.
Thanks for explaining the financial aid system. My original question pertained to HR 1777. I have the answer and thanks for your help.
The Navy rewards some fortunate students that are interested in becoming professional Naval officers a college tuition scholarship to help with expenses. The opportunity to become a Naval officer comes with a commitment to serve. Many people choose to join NROTC without receiving $38K a year + book allowance + stipend.
Your son does not have a pie. The Federal Government is not obligated to GIVE your son any money for college. If you meet certain Federal income guidelines you may qualify for a Pell grant. If you file FAFSA your son is eligible for a Stafford loan. That's it.
MIT is not required to GIVE your son any of it's institutional funds for college. Nothing.
So legally, you (and your son) should be responsible to pay for EVERYTHING other than the Pell grant ($3800) and the ROTC Scholarship ($38,000) which totals 41,800. The remaining $11K is your responsibility. Evidently, despite not be required to give you ANY money, MIT out of the kindness of their hearts and from their own funds, decided to GIVE you another grant ($3800). Reducing YOUR financial obligation to only $7200. If you need help with YOUR $7200 obligation, take advantage of the Stafford loan program. I'm sure the FA office at MIT can help you with that loan.
While it may be unacceptable for me to voice this opinion on this site; I must say that IMHO your posts in this thread come across as non-appreciative and money-grubbing. I can only hope that your opinions are not really those of your son.
The OC Josh
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 478
Just as a lurker on this thread, I have to agree with aglages.
With all due respect, that money wasn't your sons if he didn't need it and frankly, with a full tuition scholarship, it doesn't seem like he did.
Some people with ROTC scholarships specifically turn down government loans and financial institutional aid because they want for it to help the greatest amount of people possible.
With all due respect, that money wasn't your sons if he didn't need it and frankly, with a full tuition scholarship, it doesn't seem like he did.
Some people with ROTC scholarships specifically turn down government loans and financial institutional aid because they want for it to help the greatest amount of people possible.
I suspect that you haven't walked a mile in the shoes of someone whose income qualifies them for a full Pell Grant - especially someone who lives in a high cost of living place like California.
What you may perceive as money-grubbing is probably colored by your personal experience. A $0 FAFSA EFC means that even at the local public university the "family" would be expected to contribute nothing out of their income or assets. Yes, their aid package would have work-study (a form of income) to offset some of the cost, but the parental contribution would still be $0.
I don't remember if MIT is on the list of schools that have a full-need met with zero-loan policy for students with families under a certain income and I don't know if they qualified last year (with the cooperation of the father I guess who is not cooperating now), but to have your FA award change so much because of 2 life events would cause most people of this financial stature to question what is happening.
I'm not characterizing it as money-grubbing but more of the desperation of a family whose fortunes have changed and are confused as to how the landscape is supposed to be.
OP is in the unenviable position of too many single parents who do not get the cooperation of the non-custodial parent. Colleges can't really give FA freely to every family where the non-custodial parent refuses to cooperate or all of them will act that way.
That being said, I can't say as I'm too happy with MIT's policy. There are many fine schools that have far smaller endowments that are happy to give full room and board scholarships to recipients of ROTC scholarships. MIT's philosophy seems more money-grubbing (OP's FA awared is a drop in the bucket to MIT) than interested in student who commit themselves to the defense of our country. MIT has the resources to fund this, but seems so stuck on the need-only concept of awarding aid that they forget that there are other more important missions that deserve support - like putting one's country first.
1st - Why do you think that the OP has an EFC of 0? While she seems to be reluctant to provide the actual number, we do know that during her son's first year at MIT her expected family contribution was about $35K, and her appeal to MIT of that assessment was denied.goaliedad said:
2nd - While a family with an EFC of 0 might be "expected" to contribute nothing according to the FAFSA methodology, it does not mean that ANY college (private or public) is expected to cover 100% of their need. Many poor students with EFCs of 0 are unable to attend the colleges of their choice because the VAST majority of colleges do not meet 100% of need. The government does not consider attending college a "right" and is clearly NOT interested in funding that attendance.
I didn't characterize it as money-grubbing either...until 3 pages of posts later and after numerous attempts by people to explain the process only netted an entitled air of "While other students get to enjoy a portion ($9440) of my son’s pie, compliments of the ROTC Scholarship funding, he will stand alone paying for it with 8 years of service"goaliedad said:
I agree that "colleges can't really give FA freely to every family where the non-custodial parent refuses to cooperate or all of them will act that way". I will say that IMHO the OP is responsible for her own decisions in life.goaliedad said:
We disagree. I think the fact that MIT is offering a matching Pell grant despite the OPs "apparent" EFC is generous.goaliedad said:
And the OPs son is free to attend any of them. IMHO, if you are bright enough to be accepted at MIT then you probably had MANY opportunities of completely free rides at other schools BEFORE being awarded a NROTC scholarship. Many, many students do choose less prestigious schools for money reasons.goaliedad said:
Your sentiments concerning MIT could be applied to most colleges in the US. While some offer free R&B, or discounted R&B, the vast majority do not. Would you have a different view of MIT if they called the Pell Matching Grant an ROTC Incentive Grant?goaliedad said:
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
Okay, clearly I have offended you. I was simply trying to pull some hypothetical numbers to show you how/why MIT re-packages a new award - instead of paying out cash.
Your son "won" a NROTC scholarship in a National Competition. Congratulations to him!!! This is a win/win. He is fortunate because now he can attend MIT and also the Navy is fortunate because he is committed to becoming a Commissioned officer.
I have suggested and asked several times if your son - who you claim is upset by this - has spoken with the folks in Financial Aid at MIT. You have evaded this everytime and I am concluding that he has not.
Again - this is where your answers lie, not here on a forum. We here can only speculate from our own personal experience what MIT is thinking.
I agree with aglages that your tone appears to be self-righteous. There are kids out there who are only attending college because of their scholarship and kids out there who are struggling financially even though they are on scholarship. With that respect your son is very lucky indeed. He not only has this opportunity to attend MIT but to graduate without being deeply in debt in private loans.
Above and beyond this NROTC scholarship - there is a difference between the institutional EFC and the Federal EFC. In this case, because of a non-cooperative parent the gap is huge - over $30000.
Let me explain a few things -
Federal EFC - means nothing other than determining a students qualification for Federal Loans and Grants. This will NOT changes because of his NROTC scholarship and he should (fortunately) continue to qualify. This is NEVER used to qualify for an Institutional grant.
In calimom's son's case he lost his SEOG grant but who knows why? He needs to ask the school. Perhaps he filed the FAFSA one day late. Perhaps MIT decided to free that money for other worthy students and offer him the LARGER matching Pell Grant.
Institutional EFC - this is determined by the Profile and sometimes a colleges own financial aid forms. The criteria are different since colleges who use the profile typically have more money to offer candidates and there is more competition for the dollars. Some colleges, like MIT, have policies where if your family income is below a certain threshold they will meet all of the "Need". In order to be this generous, they need to determine the neediest of the neediest. An uncooperative parent is not enought otherwise no parent would cooperate.
My primary point in the previous post was that if MIT is generous enough (and is clearly well-endowed enough) to grant a generous grant-based FA package (pretty much to cover full COA) to student whose family income qualify them for a full Pell Grant (like OP' situation dictated), should not be financially hurt because the student accepts an ROTC scholarship.
Someplace along the way, I lost track of the numbers, but in any event, MIT's policy is that any student with a family income under $75K will have no loans assigned as part of their financial aid package (in addition to having a full-tuition coverage).
And since the stipend amounts (and books for that matter) on an ROTC scholarship are not guaranteed (you must past PFT to qualify and could be injured until the end of the term negating some of those dollars), those amounts should not be used against the student in calculating FA, as by taking the scholarship, the student assumes financial risk that s/he would not have otherwise.
Bottom line with regards to the policy at MIT - they need to make sure that ROTC scholarship recipients are guaranteed to be as well funded (if not better) than an equivalent student without the scholarship. And quite frankly, with the cost of R&B, they have the resources to make it free to anyone qualifying for a full Pell Grant.
BTW, there is a high correleation between qualifying for a "full Pell Grant" and having a $0 EFC. Perhaps I was jumping a bit far, but in any case, OP's family income definitely would have fallen under the $75K number that triggers the full-tuition and zero loan policies at MIT, had the father cooperated (based upon the fact that the previous year they got large FA package and must have had the cooperation of the father or they would have been in the same boat).
Perhaps the OP should ask the FA office if they would give them a better overall package if they turned down the ROTC scholarship? I doubt it given the missing father, which I think is the critical element here.