<p>How many of us remember in the early 90s articles stating that the cost of higher education would exponentially increase. Voila! We here and this is what it’s come down too. My personal observation is that as cost escalated so does the opportunity to obtain funding also had to escalate.
I went to school in the late 80s. I remember it just being called financial aid period. That’s it. And scholarships were just that “scholarships”.
It was pretty simple back in the day, if you didn’t qualify for financial aid, aka need based aid - the the school would provide additional aid at their discretion. Pretty basic.</p>
<p>In those days, honestly student loans were common and higher education was more affordable as well. My private school education was 40K for four years.</p>
<p>Well, so now the costs are outrageous, justified or not it’s still outrageous, even for state public schools. So, what does a school do.</p>
<p>Now schools have to attract students. </p>
<p>The’ve got to lure students in - using their discretionary funding/merit scholarships. Schools advertise their merit scholarships… </p>
<p>Higher education is a business. I am not trying to discredit higher education, I am just saying it’s also a business. Merit scholarships are to students as bait is to a fish.</p>
<p>matthewjohnson:“What a shame! To think that in the 21st century there is still not equal opportunity for all to succeed. Such a contrast between Horatio Alger and his call to the American Dream”</p>
<p>The Horatio Alger story was one of what an individual could do in America with work and determination. It was never a story of equal opportunities. Up until the early 1900’s most societies were based on some kind of a class system. Regardless of one’s determination, often because of a real or perceived class distinction, they would not be allowed to be successful. There will always be income disparities, however, that does not mean a poor person will be unable to work hard and pursue their dreams. They may not get there the same way a more financially well off person would. But they are allowed and encouraged to do so.</p>
<p>@lopezam - You stated, “My personal observation is that as cost escalated so does the opportunity to obtain funding also had to escalate.” I would aruge that you have causality reversed.</p>
<p>Government makes more tax credits and dedutions available and colleges simply increase their costs to soak up these new funds. Student loans become easier to obtain and college increase their costs to take advantage.</p>
<p>Families, in aggregate, have a level of pain and sacrifice that they are willing to make to fund their children’s education. That level does not decrease as more money becomes availabe, it simply gets absorbed by the higher education industrial complex.</p>
<p>This is true whenever the Government gets involved. In housing, the Government supported cheap no-money down loans so people could afford higher prices and guess what? They paid higher prices and we had a bubble. Now the same things happening with the Fed zero-interest policy. Healthcare - same thing.</p>
<p>The interesting question is how the Higher Ed bubble will end. Already the Government has agreed to absorb massive loses on student debt. That will stave off the crash but for how much longer? Schools are getting squeezed and are giving more merit aid in hopes of retaining their rankinhs and avoiding a downward spiral leading to closure.</p>
<p>Please do not turn this thread into a political or AA debate. Doing so will shut this thread down and issue warnings to those who do not abide by CC TOS.</p>
<p>When there is so much money to spend, and you need so many students to keep the college wheels running, yes, where you direct the dollars is going to mean that some other cause is not going to get them I know a number of schools that felt they HAD to start giving merit aid in order to stay competitive much as they hated to do so. Oberlin, for one. The fact of the matter is that those students who can pay most of the bill and have the stats so that they have a number of choices for college, may cross a school off the list without an discount.</p>
<p>I don’t get this viewpoint that needs-based aid is good while merit aid is something “hated” but must be done. Don’t students who have top scores and GPAs deserve as much aid as anyone else? That’s like have a “needs-based” salary at work. “Oh, I see you have a lot in the bank so I’ll pay you half what I pay Mr. spenf-thrift.”</p>
<p>“Don’t students who have top scores and GPAs deserve as much aid as anyone else?”</p>
<p>The problem is that those getting merit money are taking aid away from poor students with those same top scores and GPAs. The better-off students get money they don’t need (according to standard financial aid formulas) which shuts the poor students out.</p>
<p>Most colleges I’ve seen selectively offer merit aid to only the top 10-20% of the students at the school. The lower 80% either get needs-aid or pay full freight, with some overlapping in the top group. Schools don’t offer merit aid to those in the lower part of the class. This allows schools to attract better talent who otherwise would go to a higher ranked school.</p>
<p>That’s your opinion. I could also say that * any * money spent on building maintenance, research support, faculty salaries, etc. takes funds from the financial aid budget, to the detriment of poor students. Schools decide how to spend their money and spending on merit aid is a wise choice for schools that want better qualified students.</p>
<p>Who says we don’t need it? I’m not expecting FA, but we surely cannot afford to pay $60,000 a year for each of my three kids. This is what I was talking about earlier. Wealth is relative. A certain salary in NY is struggling. The same salary in the midwest might be rich. A two bedroom apartment in NY can cost a million dollars. One can buy a 5000 square foot home for the same price in other parts of the country. Money is relative and the FASFA is not. Plus, people have circumstances that the FASFA doesn’t consider . . other children with special needs, taking care of elderly relatives, debts, etc. For goodness sake.</p>
<p>Let’s try another approach: an across the board salary cut for faculty that will then be used to pay more needs-based financial aid. Seems as fair to me as penalizing high achieving students.</p>
<p>When applying for financial aid and receiving none, it’s the college that says you don’t need it, applying standard rules. The school may, of course, be wrong, and that’s often why such offers are declined.</p>
<p>PROFILE considers more factors than FAFSA, in an attempt to more fairly distribute aid.</p>
<p>Also, if a family’s EFC is paid fully by the first child, the effective EFC for other children is zero (this is most helpful when the schools all meet full need, which is sadly not so common).</p>
<p>Schools don’t want “an across the board salary cut for faculty” for fear of losing their best teachers to schools that don’t cut salaries.</p>
<p>There is no good solution when resources are limited. Does anyone deserve to be penalized? Poor students? :(</p>
<p>There are many posts with good suggestions here. However this is a classic example of a ill informed family. The real problem is that the family was too picky. The girl certainly can get in a good school with probably very good merit aid. But she did not even want to apply. I really believe that a decent student can get affordable education somewhere. This maybe a good life lesson. </p>
<p>Regarding the merit aid, some merit awards are dispensed according to the donor’s wish. DS3’s full ride comes from a donor trust fund. He will have to report his progress every year. It is the goal of the trust to attract the best students to the school. There is no need to criticize the students or the schools for taking funds away from other students.</p>