<p>I think we should continue switching from need-based aid to merit-based aid and only give need-based aid to families who have low incomes.</p>
<p>We should not punish families who decided to save for their children's education.</p>
<p>fabrizio: where did you get admitted and where are you going?</p>
<p>3togo,</p>
<p>"The bias, those from less affluent backgrounds score worse than kids with similar ability and drive but from more affluent backgrounds."</p>
<p>Do you have anything like evidence to support this assertion?</p>
<p>3togo,</p>
<p>Organizational teams do need a fair number of followers. But education is not the same process. I have been been told by PhD types in education that all students learn better with smarter peers.</p>
<p>simba,</p>
<p>I'll PM you.</p>
<p>Interesting thoughts, especially some of those in post #36. </p>
<p>I agree with curious. You could easily have a room full of people of the same ethnic background, who all identify themselves as members of the same religion, who grew up in the same city, and who are similar in terms of socioeconomic background, education, etc., and have either a very diverse group or a very similar one with regard to their opinions on important topics. </p>
<p>In an ideal classroom, the professor would present the differing viewpoints on an issue being discussed in a way that is so balanced that the students aren't able to discern the professor's personal opinion. The second best option would be a variety of professors who hold many different views on the topics being studied so that over time the student receives a more balanced view. The current situation with mostly liberal professors using their classes to propagate their viewpoints, especially at tax-supported universities, is the worst.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The current situation with mostly liberal professors using their classes to propagate their viewpoints, especially at tax-supported universities, is the worst.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what do you propose as a solution?</p>
<p>Political litmus tests and quotas in the hiring of professors? For example, do we ensure that each department have professors who support the repeal of Roe v Wade? Or, the teaching of creationism in place of evolution?</p>
<p>Who decides? Karl Rove? Alberto Gonzales? Monica Goodling?</p>
<p>It is a very slippery slope when you make university professors political appointees.</p>
<p>"I think we should continue switching from need-based aid to merit-based aid and only give need-based aid to families who have low incomes.</p>
<p>We should not punish families who decided to save for their children's education."</p>
<p>At the prestige privates (admitted, a very tiny portion of the collegiate system), the main losers would be individuals in the top quintile ($92k-$160k) who make up the plurality of those who receive need-based aid. Under merit aid, it is precisely those families who saved, but didn't save enough, who would be the greatest losers.</p>
<p>Interested dad, </p>
<p>I don't know about "Another Voice" but I for one don't see a remedy only a problem: lopsided political leanings at universities. I don't like it but I don't like the solutions either. Perhaps just some loud complaining might help.</p>
<p>That college professors only expouse liberal views is a myth that is propagated by the radical conservatives. Ever taken a course with Arkes at Amherst or any courses in Economics at Chicago?</p>
<p>Professors are suppose to impart their personal viewpoints to students. They are the best proponents of certain trends and ideas. Even in scientific fields, professors leave their imprints onto students by guiding them on certain courses of scientific inquiry.</p>
<p>I would like to see all those who give so much lip service to "diversity" actually encourage true intellectual diversity instead of blocking it with their PC litmus tests.</p>
<p>curious:</p>
<p>Oh, there's plenty of loud complaining. It's a constant drumbeat from the right-wing political groups. The problem is that much of the complaining is so mindless and superficial. For example, of all the college courses in America, The Weekly Standard singled out this one as one of the top-ten in the country in terms of "ridiculous content" or lightweight mindless fluff. Did they even bother to look at the course syllabus and reading list? I seriously doubt that any students in that class felt like they were taking an academic stroll in the park.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the prestige privates (admitted, a very tiny portion of the collegiate system), the main losers would be individuals in the top quintile ($92k-$160k) who make up the plurality of those who receive need-based aid. Under merit aid, it is precisely those families who saved, but didn't save enough, who would be the greatest losers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would surprise me if these students at prestige privates received more than $2,000 in need-based aid given that their families have incomes in that range.</p>
<p>Under merit based aid, the "losers" are ones who can't distinguish themselves from the rest of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Under merit based aid, the "losers" are ones who can't distinguish themselves from the rest of the applicant pool.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. I'm not sure that your conclusion reflects a true understanding of merit-aid discounting.</p>
<p>Merit-aid is a price discount, plain and simple. It is used for the same reason that any price discount is offered -- to make a sale. In this case, merit aid discounts (let's say a $10,000 Scholars award) is used to make a sale to a customer who can write an annual check for $30,000. That's $30,000 in revenue that a college would not have received had the seat gone unfilled or gone to a low income applicant.</p>
<p>Consumers respond to a discount pricing, especially when they are told that they are only getting the discount because they are "special". All the colleges are doing is competing on the basis of a lower price against higher priced colleges. No different than the annual Toyotathon grabbing some customers from the BMW dealer down the street.</p>
<p>I'm all for price discounting. Makes sense to shop around. But, let's not attribute some "greater good" to the process. Enrollment and revenue management is not serving an altruistic or philosophical goal. It's putting butts in seats at the highest revenue possible.</p>
<p>Note that ID's description of merit aid fits Princeton' need-based no-loan policy for top quintile students to a "T". These distinctions are not as clear or as obvious as the colleges would like you to think.</p>
<p>"It would surprise me if these students at prestige privates received more than $2,000 in need-based aid given that their families have incomes in that range."</p>
<p>Then you should be surprised. Try a Princeton EFC calculator.</p>
<p>Interested Dad,</p>
<p>The course sounds good to me, but then I used to like everything in the catalog. I think the complaint is ligitimate even if I don't agree about everything with those complaining the loudest.</p>
<p>Interested Dad,</p>
<p>Need based aid is a discount too, if you want to look at it that way. People are proud of their bonuses at work and no one is under the illusion that the company is providing it out of altruism. Professors are proud to earn the highest salary in their departments or to receive the most grant money. The fact that those giving the money (or discount as you call it) have their own reasons for giving it makes it no less an honor for the recipient. The honor comes from the basis for the award not the motivation of the giver. And by the way I've been poor and see no honor in it.</p>
<p>The basis of the award may be the capacity to pay the rest of the full freight, and to keep said applicant away from "the other guys". That's ID's point, but I think you missed it. (It's correct, too.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Need based aid is a discount too, if you want to look at it that way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it is. At the majority of schools where need-based discounts are offered, the motivation is partially to fill seats that cannot be sold to full-fare customers.</p>
<p>There are only a limited number of colleges that could sell all their seats at full price (at their current academic standards).</p>
<p>So what is the point of this line of argument then?</p>