<p>No, Bigbrother, you admitted it yourself, not every college would admit that sort of superstar that you described. At the very least, Tufts might not. That is, after all, why it's called "Tufts" Syndrome. And you have also conceded to ubermensch that UCLA might not either. Would Berkeley? That's unclear. But there are at least some schools that won't. </p>
<p>And since you've played the 'scholarship' card, I feel entitled to do the same. Other elite schools, most notably, Caltech, are highly explicit in their use of merit scholarships to attract top students. Happened to 2 guys I know - they ended up paying far less to attend Caltech than Berkeley despite being California state residents. Furthermore, the notion of the Ivies, MIT, and Stanford being truly 'merit-scholarship' free is generally a misnomer unless you really are honest-to-God rich, in which you don't care anyway. Those schools are well known for being highly aggressive when it comes to shifting financial aid packages from loans/work-study to grants, such that it basically becomes merit-aid. They're not going to call it merit-aid, but that's what it effectively is. Consider the following quote on their 'under-the-table awards'</p>
<p>""Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth and Williams don't give merit-based awards.... Well, at least I wasn't one of the few under-the-table recipients," said a Trinity junior and scholarship winner who did not wish to be identified. </p>
<p>These "under-the-table" awards often come through increased research opportunities or "the tweaking of financial aid packages," said Guttentag. He added that Harvard has such a program, which gives students "less loan, and more grant," in their financial aid offers. </p>
<p>"They don't call it merit scholarships, but in a sense it is the same thing," said Melissa Malouf, director of Duke's Office of Undergraduate Scholars and Fellows. "They are going after the same students that we are." </p>
<p>The Harvard University financial aid web site states that the school does not adjust awards solely to compete with other universities. </p>
<p>"But, of course," the site reads, "we would be happy to review your award and perhaps make an adjustment if your financial situation or new information warrants it. We hope you will call to give us an opportunity to review your situation." </p>
<p>Stanford admitted that under such circumstances, financial aid awards can be reviewed to compete for students. "We will always be willing to review an application.... If there are no changes in the needs analysis, we don't change a package unless it is to add additional loan," said Hartley. </p>
<p>Berg, the President's Research Fellowship winner, went so far as to refer to Harvard's financial aid as a merit scholarship itself. "The schools that also attract the most truly outstanding students are not Stanford, Cornell, etc... but the ones that offer similar scholarships like Harvard's need-based aid. It's well known that they give much higher amounts to super-high achievers...." he wrote in an e-mail. "</p>
<p><a href="http://www.duke.edu/web/abduke/archive/Chronicle09-10-99MeritScholarships.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.duke.edu/web/abduke/archive/Chronicle09-10-99MeritScholarships.htm</a></p>
<p>Now, again, if you are clearly super-rich to not be able to get any aid, then you won't be eligible for these under-the-table awards. But again, if you really are super-rich, then you probably don't really care about aid anyway.</p>
<p>Finally, I would argue that you're not really necessarily making the student body better by just admitting lots of the superstars. In fact, you might be making it worse. That's why I emphasized the point that those who end up paying are those less-strong students who end up denied or wait-listed because you have extended an offer to a superstar. True, that superstar probably isn't going to take your offer, but the fact that there is a slight chance that he might means that you have to hold the spot open for him until he declines the offer, and then (and only then) will you be able to offer the spot to that other candidate, and by that time, that candidate may have already committed elsewhere. So you end up losing both candidates. So Berkeley either ends up with a smaller entering student body (which might be a good thing, but I digress) or has to go even further down the wait-list to the more marginal candidates before finding one that will come. </p>
<p>The point is, it's the case of a bird in the hand versus 2 birds in the bush. You can extend an offer to a 'sure-thing' candidate who is good, but perhaps not great. Or you can try to get the great candidate, but then risk not getting anything at all. </p>
<p>Like I said, the REAL issue at hand is why is it that those superstar candidates prefer to go somewhere else. If Berkeley can fix that (and I'm not holding my breath), then this whole problem becomes moot.</p>