And that larger amount is obviously a need based component, not merit based, which is the point being made.</p>
<p>At the end of the day it’d be nice if the colleges were more straightforward in this area so parents can know whether there’s a point in even submitting all of the financial info depending on income/assets or whether there’s a reasonable chance at the merit award based on the student’s merit alone. For example, if the college has a cutoff income level above which they won’t give what they’re calling a merit award then they should state that - i.e. state that there’s a financial need component to the award. If a college doesn’t require financial info in order to give the merit award then it’s straightforward that it’s a true merit only award.</p>
<p>The above is a general statement - I haven’t read what Rochester states as their criteria.</p>
<p>The approach I mentioned has been practiced for years on the admissions side. Just read Jerome Karabel’s “The Chosen” for a good description of some of the techniques that have been used as proxies for income, social class and so forth. </p>
<p>The sad truth is that college admissions and financial aid practices are subject to massive disinformation campaigns on the part of colleges. In case after case, practices described one way by adcoms turn out entirely different under rigorous scrutiny. Early admission is a good example from a few years back. More recently, it has been shown that first time college attendees and lower SES kids get NO break at all in admissions at elite universities. To the contrary, they seem to have a harder time. URM? Turns out at the elites (elite = HYP, Stanford, Williams etc.) they mostly recruit from upper SES URM. Since there’s not enough of those to go around in the US, they tend to hunt for URM outside US, so they end up with folks like a grad school classmate of mine from years past. He was from Mexico - from an upper class Mexico City family of european ancestry - light brown hair, blue eyes…</p>
<p>No, he didn’t say that merit reviewers “use certain information” like zip code or attendance at a certain school as a proxy for income. He said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I expect this result reflects the sympathy most reviewers might have for students whose essays and letters of recommendation describe tougher life circumstances.<a href=“Emphasis%20added.”>/quote</a></p>
<p>See the difference?</p>
<p>I’m done with this thread. It was nonsense from post 1, and has done downhill from there. You and the other conspiracy theorists are welcome to the last word.</p>
<p>“conspiracy theorist”? I like that term. If one feels that admissions folks are all perfectly honest regarding what they do, transparent in their policies and fair to everyone, then heck, more power to you. If folks who think otherwise are conspiracy theorists, then I accept the title. And I have good company among a range of academics and former university presidents like William Bowen, Princeton and Derek Bok, Harvard, who have studied these things. </p>
<p>you really should read the writings of all these conspiracy theorists sometime. There’s some interesting material out there.</p>
<p>I know that correlation does not always equal causation. Still, I don’t believe posters are disregarding this fundamental truth when they conclude that income is a factor in awarding merit aid, given the numbers and the associated remarks. At the same time, I realize there’s room for differences of opinion.</p>
<p>Speaking of different meanings, I think that high SAT scores are also “truly about merit”. ;)</p>
<p>I’m sure we could all come up with different opinions on this, but my main point is that colleges should try to be as transparent as possible with their policies about merit aid. This would be helpful to families and make them less likely to become anxious about what goes on behind the black curtain of admissions.</p>