Another Nail in the "Need-Blind" Coffin

Parents Forum
61

<p>Newmassdad, I think you are making a very important point. There is a myth that universities and colleges are purely altruistic and benevolent organizations somehow above dirtying their hands with financial issues.
This is a myth partially perpetrated by the institutions themselves, but also by the public at large. I think it is tied to the concept of "free" education being provided at lower levels to "everyone." </p>

<p>Not a bad concept, but of course, the money to pay for higher education has to come from somewhere. I personally am not at all upset at the idea that colleges and universities --- including public ones --- are managing their enrollments in order to be economically viable but I believe that this really does make many people uncomfortable because it goes against the basic American principle that education should be available to all equally. There's also the basic American principle that people are rewarded based on their own merit. Thus, we all want to believe that if you work hard you should be able to get into and afford to attend the college or university of your choice as a reward for all of your hard work.</p>

<p>The end result of all of this is to create a climate where no one really wants to be open about what is going on behind closed doors because it would topple the apple cart of "educational idealism" that permeates the U.S. In the process, unfortunately, we're actually making higher education less accessible, not more, because consumers (applicants and their families) aren't receiving the full facts about how admissions and financial aid decisions are actually being made.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
It holds itself out as a place of high integrity. Then it engages in marketing practices that would make our local car dealer or real estate agents blush.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In the end this quote from NMD's post summarizes my perspective on the whole process. Carolyn goes on to explain why it bothers me (and others).</p>

63

<p>Let me add that I am further surprised at the lack of integrity by admissions offices who tell kids they are perfect and exactly what the school is looking for and OH, please do apply here. The kids (and parents) allow themselves to believe this. Then comes the rejection, or deferral letter, or an impossible financial aid package. I'd rather hear up front that my kid has little chance of admission or financial aid, rather than waiting for months to hear the bad news.</p>

64

<p>Lkf, I had to sit my daughter down this weekend and explain to her that all of those "priority applications" she's been receiving in the mail don't mean diddly-squat about her chances in and of themselves. She was beginning to think she was some kind of wunderkid because of all of the mail that's been filling our box. She was thinking that maybe the schools on her list were too "easy" for her because so many other schools seem to want her so badly. Luckily, she has me to tell her that, no XYZ is not a safety school just because they keep telling her she can apply for free with no essay. Just think of all of the kids out there who don't have anyone to tell them this.</p>

65

<p>carolyn,</p>

<p>I was also very impressed by all the mail my daughter was getting until I started reading CC. I definitely would have bought into it all if I didn't research further.</p>

66

<p>"Sorry Xiggi, I disagree with you on the need to patiently repeat information about "Need Blind".</p>

<p>I would not mind the "repeated" discussions about need blind, if they would remain free of obvious agendas that have little to do with the subject.</p>

67

<p>I am a high school counselor with a Senior daughter who should be competitive for non-need Merit aid. I am very interested in any research you have discovered. Thanking you in advance.</p>

68

<p>londondb,</p>

<p>See the November Atlantic monthly for some good background: Here's a link to the start of one good article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200511/financial-aid-leveraging%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200511/financial-aid-leveraging&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Bottom line:</p>

<p>Merit Aid is NOT about Merit. It is one of the many cute euphemisms used by higher ed. Merit Aid is really about financial revenue management. </p>

<p>Who's competitive for Merit aid? Those parents who don't qualify for much need based aid, but can't quite afford full boat. (better to have a good class paying, on average, 3/4 of tuition than to have a class of stars paying on average 1/2.)</p>

69

<p>newmassdad, while there is certainly the issue of merit aid being linked to financial revenue, there are still some schools where the merit aid is clearly linked to a student's stats. I'm mostly thinking of schools like Case Western and University of Rochester, but I'm sure there are others.</p>

70

<p>Brown most definitely does look at Fin aid. They preach socio-economic diversity--like that's one of their biggest points. Nevertheless, how does one create such diversity. This either means two things, in which Brown has caught itself in a fallacy. ONE-- that they are not need-blind. TWO-- they make stereotypical geographical assumptions. I for one, live in an affluent community on Long Island. But I am most definitely not rich. In fact... i will depend heavily on financial aid. While ther are obviously other factors involved in their decisions to achieve supposed "socioeconomic" diversity--there is most definitely a problem.</p>

71

<p>London, I just replied to your PM. I'd be happy to add you to the list of folks who have asked me for some information and I'll be sending it out in the next day or so. (Sorry to everyone else for not getting it out today but it's been very hectic around here)</p>

72

<p>First of all, a school has to remain financially solvent in order to do any good to students. Let's forget Harvard, because it is an anomoly - one of thousands of schools. </p>

<p>Second - no school has to offer financial aid. While it might help them get the students they want, they are under zero obligation to be a charity. A top school could probably reduce its COA to be equal for everyone and fill its class with academically gifted kids. As such, I'm with Xiggi - lay off the Ivies. They all have limited resources - funding, slots in the class, seats in a lab for intro chemistry. I don't take issue with how they allocate those resources; however, I do take issue when they aren't honest about it. </p>

<p>To be completely politically incorrect: on the average, rich kids are more qualified than poor kids for elite education. Yes, there are exceptions - and this is just an average. But let's consider. SAT scores are a function of parent's level of education and income. Parental level of education is a huge, huge factor in children's development: will the parents, when Son struggles, hire a tutor, or will they tell him that it's only school and a B- is fine? Educated parents are probably more articulate, which a child will pick up. There is a genetic component to intelligence. This certainly does not mean that children of poor parents cannot be stellar - but we're talking about an aggregate data set. Most of the poorer kids I know who went to top schools are the children of immigrants. </p>

<p>Finally, to expand on Jonri's post, children of lower-income families are handicapped in that they often have to work instead of playing a sport. Some sports (such as track) are cheap; others, like squash, tennis, and skiing, are expensive. Lower-income families just cannot afford all of the EC primping that upper-income kids have. Working long hours at a job and maintaining high grades is impressive, but impressive doesn't fill the orchestra. </p>

<p>Adding to icedkiwis' post... I probably looked like a solid middle-class kid on paper. Scooped ice cream during the summer. Had a lot of extracurriculars - but they weren't rich kid ECs. I ran cross country and track, edited a lit magazine, was on science team, and did GSA. No horseback riding, ballet, or cello. Middle-class town. Divorced parents. My mom didn't finish college; she was a secretary at the time. My dad finished (at a good school that most CCers would turn their nose up at) and does sales. One of three kids. The only indicia of wealth would be the SAT score - but that was a single sitting - no prep courses for that. You wouldn't know that my parents are living proof that you don't have to go to an Ivy and graduate with a 4.0 to be successful. Just a thought.</p>

73

<p>"while there is certainly the issue of merit aid being linked to financial revenue, there are still some schools where the merit aid is clearly linked to a student's stats. I'm mostly thinking of schools like Case Western and University of Rochester, but I'm sure there are others."</p>

<p>Agreed. This is also the case at some state Unis like Pitt. These places, though, are pretty blunt in their materials, and the decisions are quite formulaic. Contrast them, however, with Chicago or CMU for example, where the actual criteria for awards is unpublished. CMU, for one, even REQUIRES a financial aid application for merit award consideration. Pretty clever, no?</p>

74

<p>NMD,</p>

<p>I agree with your post . . . except the University of Pittburgh is a private university.</p>

75

<p>"while there is certainly the issue of merit aid being linked to financial revenue, there are still some schools where the merit aid is clearly linked to a student's stats. I'm mostly thinking of schools like Case Western and University of Rochester, but I'm sure there are others."</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Sjmom, I had a good chuckle over this. Can you show me where on either Case's or Rochester's website it says that ALL kids with stats over a certain point are awarded EQUAL amounts of merit money?</p>

<p>Here's what Case says about its merit awards:</p>

<p>"Last year, the median SAT for the entering class was 1320, and 71% of students scoring above the median received a scholarship, with an average amount of about $16,000. However, since SAT is not the only measure, 38% of students scoring below the median also received a scholarship, with an average amount of about $13,000."</p>

<p>If merit scholarships are truly linked to stats, then why are 29% of kids above the median SAT NOT receiving them, while 38% under the median are? Simple: enrollment management. Case is allowing "wiggle room" to offer merit based on other factors...in short, it's awarding merit strategically not equally. </p>

<p>I'm not picking on Rochester or Case - they do both offer some fine merit scholarships, but neither awards merit money equally to all qualified applicants and in that they are no different from most other schools out there. They are using it as a strategic tool to manage enrollment. </p>

<p>Now, both Rochester and Case have a hard time convincing students with top scores to pick Rochester or Cleveland over New Haven or Cambridge so one of their "strategic goals" is obviously enticing students who may be sitting on the fence. But that's not their only goal --- I don't have time to do so now, but I bet if you research the strategic plans of both schools, you'd start getting a pretty good idea of what those goals are and why merit isn't being awarded based solely on stats. </p>

<p>I thought it was very telling that Case makes a point of saying on its page about merit scholarships that "Even Bill Gates' kids could get a merit scholarship" at Case. That line was put in there for a reason, methinks, and the reason is to get "full pay" families thinking that they just might get a discount deal. :)</p>

76

<p>Eagle, although Pitt was private for much of its history, it became a state institution in 1966.</p>

77

<p>I guess that'll teach me to read the first page of their history! Sorry NMD. For some reason I had it in my head that they were private. Though I would like to understand this statement from their web-site better:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Private through much of its history, Pitt became a state-related university in 1966.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is a "state-related" university? Is it like Cornell?</p>

78

<p>Newsdad: Well, CMU, did publish in widely read publications that they will offer competitive merit awards (not "aid") to those students who got awards from schools of their peer group. We didn''t find out until bro in NYC sent us NYT/WSJ articles(2002). CMU even more open about it now. CMU also required that we supply documentary proof of awards otherwise they would not consider "institutional grant." Smart and Elegant. </p>

<p>If the school has $$$$ and tops: School can choose anybody it wants.
If the school has $$$ and tops: School does a onesided Indian Poker exercise.
If the school has $$ and 2nd tier: School offers $$ to buy talent (carolyn)</p>

<p>They do get the cohort that they want and companies know it.</p>

79

<p>Carnegie Mellon may be "open" about merit awards, but I suspect that is mainly because they are not all that open about how they leverage financial aid packages based on factors like admission to popular majors, statistics, family ability to contribute to university revenues. They have received some bad PR about their financial aid leveraging strategies, as detailed in these (admittedly older) articles below. </p>

<p>Although the articles are dated, CMU is still using the same tools, according to other sources I've seen. </p>

<p>Here's a quote from the first link below:
"Carnegie Mellon, a pioneer in these techniques, uses an econometric model for its coveted computer science admissions that suggests that top admits should be offered cash grants four times any demonstrated need less than $4000 . For those top-ranked admits with a demonstrated need over $20,000, however, the model recommends offering only 75 percent in grants. The news is even worse for the 142 students ranked at the bottom: these admits--60 percent of the accepted students--should receive no grants according to the model, regardless of need. "</p>

<p>Yep, smart and elegant that is.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/%7Eperspy/old/issues/1996/nov/need.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/old/issues/1996/nov/need.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="https://subscribe.wsj.com/microexamples/articlefiles/ExpensiveLessonCollegesManipulateFinancialAidOffersShortchangingMany.doc%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://subscribe.wsj.com/microexamples/articlefiles/ExpensiveLessonCollegesManipulateFinancialAidOffersShortchangingMany.doc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

80

<p>Carolyn, its still early out west and I almost closed down the box for some SF reading. </p>

<p>I'd say the PR could be viewed either way. If CMU is the school you want, wouldn't you want a school careful with its money and student selection? Its a tech school, you'd expect a formulaic method of selection and allocation. Perhaps we get Theresa off the farm and into the classrooms and admit office? Or wake Carnegie, Mellon, and JP and inform them that its not working. </p>

<p>One of the schools that you mentioned above offered DS a lot of $$, even though we didn't qualify for aid. CMU offered $0 initially but did counter @ 30% of other school's offer. We can look at this negatively in that we took money from a possible or "more" economically deserving CMU student. Or we can look at this positively in that we gave up 3x +, amount of money to the first school. I would like to believe that ALL parties came out positively in kid's decision. Perhaps this is call "econometrics?" or "equilibrium?"</p>

<p>Don't know the answers or solutions but I do know that each school, government program or company, private or public, has this same issue of resource allocation. Those that do it better, live to see tomorrow and are even stronger than before. Being too strong (HYP, USA) also has its problems that also cannot be so easily solved. </p>

<p>oh, well.</p>