<p>Lizzardfire writes: Honestly, I'm glad they are getting rid of freshman scholarships. The scholarships are based on high school performance, which in no way translates to performance at Tech. Reward those who actually do well, not those who you think might.</p>
<p>Boy, I can't agree with this. With the cost of Caltech, merit scholarships are the only way for some families to be able to send their son or daughter to the Institute. There are deserving admitted students whose families will not qualify for need-based aid, but still cannot really afford to cash it all in for their kid's education (they may be close to retirement for instance) and the financial climate right now is so very iffy. And no offense but it is pretty easy for a student who is already there to say that. I think this decision will close out a segment of the applicants that Caltech perhaps should not. These folks (the parents of the students) are those that might end up being some of the school's bigger financial supporters down the road.
That said, this segment is probably a fairly small % of their admitted students, and need for very deserving students may trump merit for a few.</p>
<p>Caltech holds the philosophy that everyone who gets in is "deserving". That is why we focus so much on need-based financial aid. You'll notice that Caltech has pretty much the lowest average graduating debt of any top university--this is no accident. Are you arguing that those students who receive Axlines are "more deserving" than those who do not but may be in the same financial situation you described? As I said, Axline has no real bearing on how well students perform here. I think the most deserving students are those who come here, like everyone else, and then manage to distinguish themselves (on the basis of real work) from a group of already incredibly distinguished individuals. Most of the people I knew who were Axline weren't necessarily smarter or harder working than the average Techer, they just had more opportunities (to do research, to go to competitions, etc) than their peers in high school. Is that fair? No, not really. It's certainly not fitting with the Caltech philosophy.</p>
<p>So why did we allow it then? I never saw Axline as you do, for the reasons I stated above. I saw Axline as a recruiting tool, and it's a poor one at that. Did you know that in our most recent batch of 25 Axlines, only 5 accepted the scholarship and came to Tech? (By the way, that puts the odds on getting an axline at Even in this financial climate, 4/5 of those offered a full ride at Caltech turned it down for (in almost every case) full tuition (well, with need-based aid) at another institution. </p>
<p>So if Axline is a recruiting tool and an incentive for good work, it fails on both counts and should be nixed. If Axline is just a way to help "deserving families", then it shouldn't be merit-based, it should be part of need-based financial aid.</p>
<p>Edit: By the way the percentage of admitted students who got axlines was <5%. The number of admitted students who accept axlines is <1%. We ARE talking about a tiny group of people here.</p>
<p>IMSAgeek, I think Theorymom is referring to parents who, according to the financial aid metrics, can afford to pay for Caltech but for one reason or another cannot pay / are not willing to pay the full tuition. For example, my mom set aside a certain amount of money for my college far less than the expense of Caltech, and despite being "able to pay" by the metrics of the FAFSA/CSS does not want to pay more than that. She probably theoretically could, but it would mean not saving for retirement and other things. I'm grateful that I'm getting any money at all--it's not like it's a requirement that parents pay for their children's education.</p>
<p>So yeah, loans and scholarships are my only choice (and I'm still glad axline is gone).</p>
<p>to be honest I don't know what Axline is or its machinations, so I am not arguing anything about something I know nothing about. What I am saying is, if a (just as) deserving student (deserving of a Caltech education - since all admits are equal as you say) has parents who, on paper, can afford it, but in reality cannot, or will not, these students cannot attend. I don't know where I could have come off as saying I thought any one admit is MORE deserving than another. I did question the wisdom of shutting those students (described above) out, but also said I could understand where they (Caltech) are coming from, whether or not I agree with it. </p>
<p>Is Axline the only merit aid they are curtailing? Are there other forms of merit aid available to entering students who do not qualify for need based assistance? The e-mail we got from admissions implied that there would be no merit aid for entering freshmen.</p>
<p>lizzardfire - fair enough. What I am trying to get across is that for the average Caltech student, this change will have no effect (or a positive effect on need-based aid). I find it highly unlikely that someone in a position to get an Axline would also be in the position of not being able to afford Caltech without it. The chances of getting an Axline are <5%. Combine that with the chances of a student not being able to come to Caltech even with need-based aid, and I can't imagine that group includes a lot of students, especially judging by the low matriculation of Axliners. </p>
<h1>theorymom - The Axline and President's scholarships (and maybe one or two others) were the only type of merit aid that existed as far as I know. I didn't know Caltech gave merit aid at all until I was already a freshman.</h1>
<p>My essential point is that funneling Axline money into need-based aid is <em>more</em> likely to help your average Caltech admit be able to afford attending, rather than less.</p>
<p>I agree with IMSAgeek. The point I was trying to make #theorymom is that if we're giving axlines for the reason you suggest (basically to help parents who have trouble affording the school despite having high EFCs) then we should be attempting to raise the amount of aid given (i.e. lowering EFCs across the board). This helps EVERYONE. This is much better than just giving five students full rides and leaving the rest with nothing, don't you think? I feel that if you do this you ARE assigning some students as more deserving than others (else, how do you determine who gets the money??)</p>
<p>Reread the last line of my original post - "That said, this segment (referring to the students who do not qualify for need-based aid) is probably a fairly small % of their (Caltech's) admitted students, and need (based aid) for (a greater number of) deserving students may trump merit (aid) for a few(-er number of deserving students)." edits to make it more clear</p>
<p>So as I said, I can see why they are doing it when funds are tight for most applicants, however it will leave a segment of students out, that are, as you point out, just as deserving (having been admitted)</p>
<p>That's true, but as I've been saying, Axliners are a very small percentage of the applicant pool, and will not necessarily overlap with the segment of students who do not qualify for need based aid yet still need aid to attend Caltech. Also, considering that the Axliner matriculation rate is not high, it seems that the top concern for Axliners is not money.</p>
<p>They decline the offer because they were accepted at colleges they prefer and either a) got some sort of aid there or b) money was not the issue. Anyone getting offered full tuition at Caltech is a stand-out student and it is not surprising that they would get many other acceptances. They obviously didn't think Caltech was their best fit if they declined the offer. I wonder if the scholarship turn-down rate is any different than the over-all yield rate.</p>
<p>From my understanding, other colleges offer merit aid in order to attract students that would not otherwise choose to attend their institution (usually because of acceptances at higher ranked institutions). Which is why the Ivies never offer any. But Caltech is a unique college, and I think more students choose to accept here based on fit. For most students who would prefer an Ivy education or MIT education, Caltech is probably not the right fit. </p>
<p>So instead, the Axline scholarship is found appealing by the students for whom Caltech is already the first choice, but might otherwise choose a lower choice college that happens to offer merit aid.</p>
<p>"So instead, the Axline scholarship is found appealing by the students for whom Caltech is already the first choice, but might otherwise choose a lower choice college that happens to offer merit aid."</p>
<p>Exactly. And this is the segment, albeit small, who will be left out. Too bad, since they would be students who are just as deserving (having been accepted) and who also feel Caltech is their top choice/best fit. My point still being, this will be a loss for the college. </p>
<p>I am not arguing about whether there will be enough gain to offset the loss, I am simply making an observation, that some good students will be closed out of Caltech.</p>
<p>But then what about the just-as-deserving students who don't get the axlines but would be closed out by receiving a lower financial aid than would be possible if axline aid were devoted to need-based aid?</p>
<p>I have a lot of trouble accepting your point because despite being theoretically possible it implies something that isn't true--that we're doing a disservice to students by eliminating axlines. It's quite the opposite: those people who are on the border? We help more of them by giving 9 people $5000 than 1 person $45,000. If your EFC is over 45k you obviously can pay some of the education, so giving you a full ride is just taking away money from other "deserving" students. It just doesn't make sense to defend a merit scholarship solely by stating financial need. </p>
<p>If you want to help people because they need money, then it needs to be need-based aid. If you want to help people because of their ability, then it should be routed through upper-class merit.</p>
<p>In a situation where all students are equally deserving, should we help them equally or should we lump our money with regards to a meaningless metric?</p>
<p>I am not talking about giving a full ride to a student who can afford a portion of his tuition. I was not aware an Axline was that generous.</p>
<p>My point was, as I said, a mere observation: that a segment of deserving students will not be able to attend Caltech. I have not said that things ultimately will be better or will be worse for it. But any time an accepted student, who feels the school is his top choice AND can pay a good portion of his own way, is shut out because he gets zero help, is probably a loss for the school. </p>
<p>And I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on it, nor do I expect you to accept my point, so let's leave it at that.</p>
<p>If the Axline wasn't important to at least some students, Caltech would have been stupid to have ever offered it. Probably a point that has been missed in all of this argument is that we don't know the financial need of those offered the Axline. Even if a student has a low EFC, Caltech does not necessarily meet the need of a student with very desirable aid. My son had much of his need "met' with some crappy loans when we were already taking out considerable loans to meet our EFC. Just because Axline was merit based does not mean it was not offered to people who qualified for financial aid. I agree with #theorymom that this does hurt at least some applicants. In my case, I hope this means my son will get a better package next year so we are not having to apply for every outside scholarship under the sun to replace some of the crappy aid offered to meet his determined need.</p>
<p>Information on the loans offered at Caltech is here Caltech:</a> Loans.
I would imagine these loans are the same kind of loans offered at any other university. </p>
<p>I believe Caltech is still offering great aid with no loans for families with incomes under $60,000. </p>
<p>I do hope that students considering Caltech truly understand their families financial situation. And parents, be honest with your children about your financial situation. If your family can't afford Caltech, then its not a good fit unless, of course, you find lots of outside scholarship money. If you think the financial aid offered at Caltech is crappy and another university offered good financial aid, why Caltech?<br>
As has been said before, Axelines were great for very few students, but no one could count on an Axeline.</p>
<p>"I believe Caltech is still offering great aid with no loans for families with incomes under $60,000"</p>
<p>Income is not the entire picture. We are retired and have less income than that. However, we have investments that are factored into the equation of EFC. A retired couple is not wise to cash in their retirement (not to mention it is not liquid) to pay $50,000 a year in college costs. So we count on "some" aid, not all, but some, to make it possible. </p>
<p>I think Caltech is following the lead of many Ivies in trying to make sure all those accepted and in financial need will get a shot - but it is how the need is determined that will leave people like us out. Merit scholarships are the only chance we have. Luckily our son has received good merit aid at his safeties and our family contribution there will be more doable ~ $15,000 - $20,000 a year. Being out $80,000 is a far cry from being out $200,000. </p>
<p>Also when our son applied to Caltech, they had not yet announced their restructuring of merit aid. It might have made a difference in whether he applied or not.</p>
<p>"Also when our son applied to Caltech, they had not yet announced their restructuring of merit aid. It might have made a difference in whether he applied or not."</p>
<p>Agreed, although most applicants would not be affected to this degree, it's really not right or fair to change the rules once the application season has started. From the other perspective, someone with a moderate amount of need might now want apply, given that the aid prospects are supposed to be better, but it would be too late. They should have announced this last year, or made the change apply not to 2009 freshmen, but 2010 freshmen.</p>