<p>The very first sentence is false!
[quote]
There was a time when the term "need-based student aid" was redundant.
[/quote]
This author deserves a loud, sloppy Bronx cheer.</p>
<p>As the president of Tufts says, "It is far from clear to me how society is better off when scarce financial aid resources are diverted from the neediest students to those who are not needy by any measure, simply to redistribute high scoring students among our institutions."</p>
<p>The only type of aid should be MERIT-AID. People should get scholarships for what they have done, not how much money their parents make.</p>
<p>The only problem with the concept that merit aid goes to "rich" kids is the definition of "rich". There are many, many of us squarely in the middle class who don't qualify for need-based aid based on the screwy formulae used, but who cannot afford to pay full freight to private schools such as Tufts. Do away with all "merit aid" and you will have private schools consisting of the rich and the lower class, with the middle class AWOL. State schools will then become the only place that the middle class student can go (not knocking state schools; there are some that are a great option, but it shouldn't be that the middle class kid is the only one without choices.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
...it shouldn't be that the middle class kid is the only one without choices.
[/quote]
Great point.</p>
<p>Chedva, exactly. I could not agree more.</p>
<p>Chedva, I agree with your sentiment, but you are mistaken that the middle class would be the "only" one without choices. The lower class/poor kids would first still have to get admitted to colleges that guaranteed to meet full need -- for the most part those are the most selective colleges. There is no particular reason to believe that the colleges which now do not guarantee to meet full need would somehow change. </p>
<p>So you would simply have about the same demographic as you have right now at the well-endowed, full-need schools -- like the Ivies -- or perhaps a slight increase in upper middle class families who would opt for greater debt given that they might be deprived of the opportunity to opt for a high quality, merit-giving private college. (Think of Curmudgeon with his spare kidney, looking at Yale without the full ride Rhodes option).</p>
<p>What would really happen is that quality of a lot of the non-elite colleges would deteriorate. Without merit aid, many of the best students would be unwilling to attend -- and among the rest, only the rich could afford the full tuition. Since the colleges aren't funded to provide full need to students, they would probably simply add a "need" component to their merit aid and continue to do the same thing: offer money based on perceived merit. </p>
<p>I agree with the move to abolish or cut back severely on merit aid at public universities -- I don't think upper income families should be given a break on tuition at state subsidized institutions, especially to the extent that those funds derive from public money or the university's operating budget. In other words, I don't want my tax dollars going to subsidize some rich kid to attend Berkeley. </p>
<p>But as to private colleges.... I think that the Boston Globe article was one of the most ignorant and misinformed article about college issues that I have seen in a long time. The author pretty much got everything wrong: The top-tier outfits are often need-blind -- they provide whatever is necessary to a needy applicant they want. That's two big mistakes: (1) concept of "need-blind" admissions with the very different policy of meeting full need of all applicants, and (2) makes the very erroneous assumption that colleges provide "whatever is necessary" as opposed to even the barest understanding of how need calculation is actually done by the colleges.</p>
<p>calmom, since the article was about merit aid, I took admissions to the particular schools under discussion as a given.</p>
<p>(And of course in a short response on the Internet, one usually overstates one's case to some degree.)</p>
<p>Colleges pay more to get better professors and better administrators, why not pay more (charge less) for better students? Newspapers pay more for better reporters, don't they?</p>
<p>Div. I public colleges provide athletic scholarships for students with athletic talent regardless of inocme. By what twisted set of ethics is this OK and merit aid to kids with academic talent immoral?</p>
<p>I agree with Chedva. I think people have a very skewed perception of "rich".
I'm not sure how you can afford college when you fall into the middle class area and are expected to pay 40,000 - 43,000 a year with no help. That is a lot of money and if you have more than one well....Ivy Leagues are completely out for these people. No matter how hard your child has worked if you fall into that grey area forget it. Kids there are either lower income or very very rich or high debt load is what you have to look forward too! Merit Scholarships help those that fall in this grey area. College would be unaffordable without the help of some discount on tuition that wouldn't otherwise be available.</p>
<p>I think people are skewed in how "middle class" is defined, and who can afford 43,000 a year without any help.</p>
<p>Pompous a$$. I bet he has no kids in college.</p>
<p>I love hearing from the president of Tufts. I wonder what the basis of diverting money to a large house and large salary for the president is? Come to think of it I love Tufts, a university whose biggest claim to fame is that they had the first college golf course in the country which no doubt greatly enhanced the learning environment.</p>
<p>If the primary purpose of a university is to acquire, preserve and transmit knowledge than merit aid makes sense. If the primary purpose is to promote social mobility then need only aid makes sense. They are private schools so get to decide that one for themselves but he can drop the holier than thou cr*p as far as I am concerned.</p>
<p>I don't understand how you can end up with an EFC of $40,000-$45,000 a year and still be able to call yourself "squarely middle class" - I'm looking at an EFC approximation chart and $40,000 starts showing up around $150,000+ income - but apparently that's just me.</p>
<p>The middle class AWOLING thing is happening at Princeton Upper Class eating clubs. Kids who are very rich and kids whose EFC is less than the sticker price are joining the clubs.</p>
<p>blahdeblah:
Well, people's opinions of middle class vary. Granted, if you want to go by median income "middle class" is around $50,000/year. Anything $150,000 and over is in the top 3%. (Those figures are just off the top of my head.)</p>
<p>Of course, the calculation does not take into account cost of living differences. That alone can cause about 15 pages of CC arguments.</p>
<p>But I'll tell you one other quirk. If you have saved for your kids' educations it can make your EFC very high - as well it should. The problem is, even if you have one or two years saved (which would be a considerable amount of savings and can bump your EFC up very high) how can you plan to pay for years 3 and 4? It becomes the great unknown. Hence the comfort of merit aid. If the student performs well it is nearly always renewable.</p>
<p>Of course the bottom line is that even on $150,000 of income it's pretty hard to save enough money to send 2 or 3 kids to private school at full price. Maybe if you've been earning that much for a LONG time...But, really, it's pretty much impossible. (Especially if you have to fund your own retirement and pay your own health insurance.)</p>
<p>I think that it is important to understand what is and is not at stake here. The question is not, as some on this thread have suggested, whether a person (and his parents) can afford "college." The question is whether that person can afford the college of his choice, which may be a luxury item.</p>
<p>Nor is the question whether a person can choose a private college, or must attend a public college (like most of the world). Even under a pure merit aid system, any person who could be admitted to, for example Tufts, would be able to receive substantial assistance simply by choosing a less selective private school (for example, Boston University or Northeastern).</p>
<p>Nor is the question whether a person will probably? almost certainly? receive a better education if he receives financial aid. News flash: professors at elite and semi-elite schools are not chosen for their teaching ability. Now, one might argue that, by being exposed to better students, a person would receive a better education. But that actually argues in favor of merit aid at all but the most selective schools; by attracting a few better students through merit aid, a school will improve the educational experience of all students.</p>
<p>So really the question is: who should get the benefit of the prestige that one acquires by attending a "name" school (for what that is worth). On that point, I am an agnostic.</p>
<p>The language of the author betrays any objectivity he might have on the subject. His point of view is, merit aid, bad, very bad; need-based aid, good.</p>
<p>"While some merit money is mixed with need, the trend is clear and results scandalous."</p>
<p>"College rankings exacerbate this noxious development."</p>
<p>"It is far from clear to me how society is better off.." Bacow</p>
<p>"I'm very upset by this trend to merit aid," Baum</p>
<p>"Washington U. would not give me numbers on its student aid, which, in my book, is akin to refusing a breathalyzer." Boo-hoo. I can see why.</p>
<p>"One merit aid addict is in recovery."</p>
<p>"Maybe the scales fell from their eyes and they saw the unfairness of it all"</p>
<p>"The dirty truth is that the merit-based aid strategy often works"</p>
<p>"The cry at merit-addicted schools is"</p>
<p>"All of the merit aid addicts should enter a 12-step program to get morally clean and sober."</p>
<p>scandalous? noxious? breathalyzer? recovery? unfairness? dirty truth? addicted? 12-step program?</p>
<p>This is the wrong approach, even for a socialist liberal. He should be arguing that all aid be called "merit aid". I mean, doesn't the term "need-based aid" reduce self esteem? These kids should not have to go off to college feeling that they are needy and would not be there if not for a handout. Need-based aid focuses on the negative. Wouldn't it be much better to boost self esteem and show these students that they belong by giving them "merit aid" in proportion to their ability to have overcome their circumstances? I think this is a better approach and would allow proper attention to be given to what really matters: eliminating dodgeball.</p>
<p>What the author of the article conveniently forgot is that "merit" is also built into need-based aid at most schools. Students who are more desirable to the school tend to get the best need-based financial aid packages -- lower loans, higher grants and even, in some case, more money. In short, schools use need-based financial aid to "recruit" students too.</p>
<p>So, in order to totally do away with "merit" money, institutions would need to agree to divide the need-based financial aid pot equally among all admitted students.</p>
<p>I've long thought that the US should have a system like Canada's. When a child is born in Canada, the parents are given the option of starting an educational savings account. Based on the family's income, the government matches a percentage of what the family saves. Lower income families get a higher match, higher income families a smaller match, but the message is clear: Every family is responsible for saving for their children's education. The more you save, the more you get from the government. The less you save, the less you get, and the fewer options your child will have. </p>
<p>This, to me, would make FAR more sense than our current system here in the U.S. which in a sense rewards families who do not save for their children's education and punishes those who do. Additionally, there are some families who seem almost miffed that they are expected to pay anything for their children's education. It's SUPPOSED to require some sacrifice - whether it be saving over a number of years, paying out of pocket as you go, or taking out student loans - especially if you prefer that your child attend a private, high cost college. And, since every family will have equal opportunity to save a certain amount for their child's education -regardless of income - it might also potentially reduce the inequalities in the way need-based aid is doled out.</p>
<p>The system would need to be set up as a trust for each student, not a pool like social security, but it could work, and work well. Unfortunately, won't be around for our kids, but maybe it could be for our grandchildren.</p>
<p>I am not saying that there shouldn't be Federal financial aid - obviously it is necessary - but I do think that the way it is given out needs to be changed to make it clear that all families must contribute in some way, and to reward those families who do save for their children.</p>