If colleges moved to a holistic review for merit aid (low scoring kid but hey, look how many hours of community service he’s done. sub-par grades but wow- she’s published a novel) there would be a hue and cry.
I get that there is a lot of anger over college pricing, admissions, etc. but do any of you stop and consider the consequences (beyond your own kid) of any of the “fixes” you suggest?
I am not a fan of merit aid in general; I suspect that there will be a study coming out soon which shows that it serves to subsidize the people who need the money the least (certainly the case among the kids I know who have chosen the merit aid… children of doctors/partners in big law firms/corporate exec’s) but who prefer the bragging rights of modest merit awards at a private college vs. a lower sticker price at big state U.
But honestly- and apart from your own kid- what is actually wrong with something called “merit aid” which is awarded based on grades and scores? It’s not a community service award; it’s not a “who is the kindest kid in our county” award. It’s based on academic merit as measured by two highly flawed but easy to understand metrics.
I get it that the kid with a 4.0 GPA from wildly grade-inflated HS isn’t as “meritorious” as a kid with a 3.6 from “intensely academic/highly rigorous/no grade inflation” HS. But do you really think that a holistic review on merit aid is going to solve the problems you’ve articulated???