<p>Since this is the topic.</p>
<p>Should we have applied for and taken the nonsolicited Governer's Full Ride scholarship to our state flagship schools plus keep the UGMA funds untouched? </p>
<p>I do have some ethics. A clams worth.</p>
<p>Whats new at the Alley?</p>
<p>Its,
Oh, I agree with you. I'm not bothered that colleges are doing this - As Aristhena points out, they have to pay the bills after all. But I am bothered by the fact that students and families are still laboring under the impression that financial aid and merit money is being doled out in some altruistic need-blind manner --- by doing that, they are surrendering all power to the schools themselves. Let the buyer beware --- knowledge really is power in this case... the more you can figure out about a particular school's strategies, the better your chances of either negotiating or at least making an informed decision. As I've said repeatedly, EVERY student has something to offer that a college SOMEWHERE will pay for. We should at least know what we're giving up when our kids decide on a list of colleges. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would like to hear Interesteddad's take on what the danger is for a college that has too big a proportion of high-IQ kids.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think we can see the answer to that right here on College Confidential. This forum self-selects the highest GPA/SAT high school students in the country. But, look at the number of kids who view the entire college experience purely as an outcome-driven endeavor. Which schools have grade inflation? Which have the best grad school acceptance rates? Which have the most corporate recruiters? Which place moderate workload demands? What's the party scene? That's the market, especially the full-fare market.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
look at the number of kids who view the entire college experience purely as an outcome-driven endeavor
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>ID,
I would argue it is this type of student that self selects here. By their nature, they also happen to have high stats.</p>
<p>"But I am bothered by the fact that students and families are still laboring under the impression that financial aid and merit money is being doled out in some altruistic need-blind manner --- by doing that, they are surrendering all power to the schools themselves."</p>
<p>Carolyn, do you think people really believe that colleges are altruistic? Any student/family bright enough to consider an elite college should be bright enough to figure out how this works. Are any of these families really that naive? Some of the kids S1 knew were probably more cognizant of the admissions game than we were. And it's my understanding that it is primarily elite colleges who even talk about need-blind admissions. It's not unlike any other business transaction -- each party must perform due diligence.</p>
<p>Experience of D#2 -- relevant though it's high school:
Two of the high schools applied to initially waitlisted her. For one of the h.s.'s we didn't get it: we knew that they did not have long waiting lists because they were still young, & that my D's chances should have been quite good.</p>
<p>I called. Protestations from the Admissions Office as to her outstanding qualifications. ("Not the reason," they said.) Obviously something wasn't being said. Within a week we received an acceptance letter with an attached note about the fin. aid we asked for not being available this year. Zero,zilch. Now I know a lot about the school, quite intimately, knew about their phenomenal growth since start-up & enormous capital expenditures. There really WASN'T money for scholarships. (Middle-class neighbor, not as needy, also got zero, zilch. Policy suddenly changed that admission year to zero aid for freshman year; possible re-evaluation subsequently as/if school budget allowed.)</p>
<p>In retrospect it was clear what had happened. During the week referred to above, a full or fuller-paying family had declined acceptance, opening the spot for my needy D. But the point is, they did not shine us on indefinitely. They were honest: 'We like you, we just can't afford you; you can come & pay.' That allowed us to gamble among that definite pricey acceptance, a possible opening at a desirable wait-listed school almost certain to give aid, or a free specialty public school where she had been accepted. (She eventually got in with FA to choice #2.)</p>
<p>It's respectful to be honest, because people can then make informed decisions or at least weigh probabilities & options. (Zero FA school was also honest about the possible-but-unlikely scenario of FA opening up over summer or during the yr.)</p>
<p>I've never understood why a college cannot do this, or why they choose not to, as an aspect of enrollment management & merit-driven "need" aid. If needy Student X is much more glorious & a much better fit than a non-needy Student Y, you do have the choice to admit Student X without aid & waitlist Student Y. In that case, it is not the $$ that the college is losing, nor is it the cerebral commodity. If Student X turns down the offer due to no FA, Student Y is waiting in the wings with a checkbook.</p>
<p>do you think people really believe that colleges are altruistic? Any student/family bright enough to consider an elite college should be bright enough to figure out how this works. Are any of these families really that naive? >></p>
<p>Sjmom, Yes, I think many families and students are naive. Every time Mini or I raise this issue there is a chorus of "no, no, it isn't true!" And the people here on this board are probably much much more well-informed than the general population.</p>
<p>This is such an interesting discussion -- many points of view that would probably be more fun to debate over coffee. I'm not defending elite colleges -- it's just that there are so many aspects of life that fall into the "not fair" category. In many ways, college financial aid policies just don't seem to be the most pressing problem. There is always a competitive aspect to life -- who makes the team, who gets the orchestra slot, who gets the promotion. </p>
<p>A couple of other thoughts --</p>
<p>As policies make the playing field more level (educational quality, college admissions, fin'l aid etc) what becomes the source of variation among people? In some ways, I think it makes life even more unfair, because then it becomes the result of innate/inherited aptitudes and abilities, some of which are more valued by society than others. For example, does the M.D. really deserve the income premium enjoyed over plumbers? What if we funnel bright kids so carefully that there are fewer and fewer good vocational workers? </p>
<p>As a first-genner, I believe there is still incredible opportunity for movement between socio-economic levels in this country. I know of kids who ended up at seriously elite colleges, whose grandparents did not even graduate from high school. For motivated kids and families, there is usually a way to move up the ladder. It just may take more than one generation.</p>
<p>Naive may be too strong a term. As parents and comsumers what we are looking for is truth and honesty in the transaction. We have been brought up to view education as a right and the great equalizer. The schools say that they are need-blind and we want to believe it. It just turns out that their definition of need-blind does not match the plain word definition we expect. It is really a case of "Trust but Verify".</p>
<p>More and more of the schools are becoming uncomfortable because of this cognitive dissonance between perception and reality. Threats that congress may get involved also makes them uncomfortable.</p>
<p>Regardess, we are addressing this by casting a broader net amonst schools . . . we'll see how it turns out come April. I agree with Carolyn that a well educated consumer is better served in this process. Good luck to all as we work on this in our own ways.</p>
<p>"does the M.D. really deserve the income premium enjoyed over plumbers?"</p>
<p>They DO?? That's news to me. I know for a fact that my plumber makes at least twice what I do!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
because then it becomes the result of innate/inherited aptitudes and abilities, some of which are more valued by society than others. For example, does the M.D. really deserve the income premium enjoyed over plumbers?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>what, you never heard the old joke that goes something like this:
A doctor has to call a plumber to his house and fix something. When he gets the bill he says "wow, that's more than my office visits cost" and the plumber responds, "yeah, that's why I'm not a doctor anymore" ;)</p>
<p>OK, so not totally true, but I couldn't resist. :D Your post reminded me of something sort of funny that really happened to my dad. My parents were out to brunch with another (younger) couple and the wife was very upset to discover that my dad made more $$ per hour than she did, "and she went to college" (I'm sure she didn't mean to be insulting, but she was)
My dad, in his own smart alek style replied, "sounds like one of us made a bad career choice"</p>
<p>My dad kept a cartoon on his desk at work for years...my sister is an attorney and I'm a doc. It read:</p>
<p>And this is my daughter the doctor, and this is my daughter the lawyer....and this is the one who really made good. She's a plumber!" ;)</p>
<p>quiltguru, I'm sure you'd agree that if you had chosen to work in a different area of medicine, you'd probably earn more than your plumber. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I'm confident that the average income of M.D. is higher than plumbers, and many other trades, and the social status accorded is clearly different.</p>
<p>sjmom,</p>
<p>What you say is no doubt true, BUT, whose income is going up? Whose down? How many ex-MDs do you know? How many ex-plumbers?</p>
<p>I do agree with your social status comment, but can also tell you that I know of few skilled tradespeople that don't love their jobs. I know of many MDs that hate their jobs. Is that the price of social status?</p>
<p>I think everyone will agree that MD job dissatisfaction is at an all time high. Mostly has to do with insurance constraints and malpractice/liability issues. The profession is not what it used to be: decreasing income, increasing paperwork and pressure to see more & more patients. It is inevitable that the best & brightest will be drawn to other fields with potentially disastrous consequences.</p>
<p>"It is inevitable that the best & brightest will be drawn to other fields with potentially disastrous consequences."</p>
<p>Interesting. I saw a segment on the national news last night decrying the shortage of bright women in the big business world, especially at the highest echelons. It was noted that there only 7 women CEOs in the Fortune 500 companies. On the flip side it was noted that more women are going to medical school (almost all med schools are graduating >50% women), because they feel they have more control over their careers. I'm a salaried physician. How little do these ladies know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think many families and students are naive
[/quote]
Well, that was us. Exactly. If your overworked guidance office doesn't help you, and you don't find CC or a similar resource on your own, what's a family to do? Colleges certainly don't readily share the details of their systems. I'm embarassed to say that we thought that colleges actually were need blind and that merit scholarships meant exactly that. We had never heard of enrollment management before and were definitely naive about the process. We not only didn't play the game well, we didn't even know that a game was going on!</p>
<p>lkf725 -- you DID actually find CC, though. And most of the books I've read about the subject of college admissions/financial aid I got through the public library. To some extent, I think there is a gate-keeping mechanism when it comes to admissions/aid -- the willingness and desire of the particpants to learn about the subject and apply the principles to their own effort. So, those who learn how the process works benefit more than those who are ignorant, and I think that there is an element of fairness to that. Effor should be rewarded.</p>
<p>Too bad for us that I found CC only in January when the list making, visiting and application process was over. Before that, we were operating under the assumption that information offered by the colleges was complete and accurate. None of us realized that we had to ferret out facts that were guarded. I don't think, however, that anyone's children deserve the short end of the stick because their parents didn't know how the game was played. That's pretty harsh.</p>
<p>lkf, I certainly didn't mean to sound harsh -- that's really not my style. </p>
<p>What I AM saying is that information is available, if someone wants to find it. For such an important, and expensive, family decision it seems irresponsible for people not to at least pick up a magazine at the grocery store or go to the library for some books. Neither of these options requires much in the way of resources, and the kids that go to the trouble of finding stuff out benefit.</p>
<p>I also don't view the college process as a game, where colleges are trying to dupe kids and families. I imagine that most people who work in Admissions or Financial Aid are doing their best to meet the needs of as many people as possible. I don't think anyone is entitled to attend a selective college, or to earn a degree without any sacrifice at all. I will probably always think that effort should be rewarded in some way.</p>