Well, @SuzyQ7, to make that claim one would have to do an analysis of how many of the students on athletic scholarships are from poor families and how many from middle class and how many from wealthy. Certainly a lot of the students in D1 football and men’s basketball are from poor backgrounds, but I have no idea if the other sports break down similarly. Certainly from everything I hear sports like lacrosse and swimming skew middle to wealthy class.
Bottom line, the article is ridiculous as presented. Certainly one can have a discussion if schools that give a lot of merit scholarships, like Tulane, Miami, Alabama, and quite a few others are “doing as much good” as compared to funneling all that money to meeting all need of lower income students. But that is more of a personal values and how you see the world type question. If you are mainly socialist in your thinking, then of course you think it should be based strictly on need. Otherwise, and obviously this has been the traditional values of this country, merit can be recognized along with need. @mom2collegekids is 100% correct, it is the college’s money and, most pointedly in the case of private schools but I would argue the same for publics, it cannot be stealing or any other similar term you want to use.
Certainly the author, Levy, is very confused about merit scholarships versus need based grants, the latter being what he meant when he talked about them only being guaranteed for one year. Even then, most schools do not play bait and switch with this, if for no other reason than because the word gets out so easily these days. But I think he is also confused in that the scope of what he is talking about is really not that large, I don’t think. I don’t think stopping merit scholarships would have the uplifting effects he thinks it would, and the middle class would be in a bigger world of hurt.