<p>
But CC does not reflect common language, or common values in regard to the entire country. See the above posts, for example.</p>
<p>
By what reason?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the end of the day why is it anyone’s damned business outside of Jimmy’s parents, what they can or cannot afford to pay for college? </p>
<p>The family making $60k and under make no contribution to an education at Harvard. I know that this family would be paupers by CC standard, but they are still making more than the average family in Americia (average family not by cc standards). </p>
<p>What about the family that makes 180,000 and only pays 18k for the same Harvard education? If mom brags about the wonderful Harvard scholarship(because that is what the school will call it) that Janey got from them be under the same assumption that Janey got the wonderful scholarship because of her family’s inability to pay?</p>
<p>logic=fail</p>
<p>psych_</p>
<p>What is your original concern, why it bothers you, why do you care when people call “Merit” when it is actually “need based”. Who cares? Don’t we have enough of our own stuff to take care? Why to be bothered with labels that others put on thier whatever… Cool it, it will make you much happier. However, you have all the rights to be bothered with any minute thing that is out there, but I thought you are soliciting opinions, so here is mine.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, actually we all need to make Double-Extra-super-duper-darn-sure that everyone knows Jimmy’s parents don’t have any money. The fate of the free world hangs in the balance. and</p>
<p>MiamiDAP who made you the minutia obsession sherrif of the world? and finally</p>
<p>Psych I really like your show</p>
<p>swdad, I thought I had a monopoly of misspelling.</p>
<p>I vaguely recall reading an article in the New Yorker. It was about elaborate efforts made by dictionaries to keep word definitions current reflecting how they are used at present by general public. The article was published 20-30 years ago, before the megazine changed. This is off topic. I was also quite impressed how they list all the curse words with eloquent definitions.</p>
<p>
Well said. I remember having lunch with a very successful and educated (PhD from a top university) colleague a few years ago and his daughter had been accepted at a mediocre college. He told me that it is now rated as the #35 college in the country. I knew immediately that what he meant was “On one of those 16 or so lists of top 50 colleges (which by the way enable most of the colleges to be top 50 in something) her school came in #35.”</p>
<p>My response: “That’s great!”</p>
<p>Iglooo re: my spelling…see what happens when you let just anybody go to college</p>
<p>^^bird rock…perfect answer.</p>
<p>
hmm … I really need to work on my writing skills … my intent was talking about the parents of the student not difusing the idea it is a merit scholarship … “my son is going to Harvard and on an athletic scholarship” … or “my daughter won a full-ride to Amherst”. I guess some of these parents aren’t clear about the FA their children received but I believe many are fine with the scholarship being publicized and with the impression it is a merit based award. FYI - I also do not see the need for others to call out any misinformation unless there is a reason to do so beyond mere clarity (for example, new parents on CC ask about their child getting an athletic scholarhip to an IVY like their neighbor’s older child did … in this case the clarification will help the posters).</p>
<p>I’m fine with parents saying whatever they wish about their own children’s college financiald aid, merit or otherwise, even if it paints their children in a more favorable light than is warranted IMO. After all, I know enough about the better schools to correctly interpret what they say.</p>
<p>But, I do get a little annoyed when people imply that my child is a less-qualified candidate or a less desirable athletic recruit because she did not get a “full ride” to an Ivy like so-and-so did. I used to try to explain to people how Ivy FA really works, but they tend to say things like “Well, that might be what the school says it does, but believe me–they find ways to give athletes money if they want them bad enough. I know that so-and-so got free room and board.” So my D still ends up being inferior.</p>
<p>Interestingly, depending on the person’s axe to grind, I’ve experienced the opposite misunderstanding too. One parent refused to believe me that D was not getting an athletic scholarship to her chosen school. I explained that she was getting FA instead–the same amount she’d get whether she was an athlete or not. “You can’t tell me they’re not giving her money to play for them.”</p>
<p>Haven’t read the whole thread.</p>
<p>I was accepted to and went to Princeton many years ago. I was a recruited athlete from a very small town and I was given almost full need based aid, which at the time did include a fair amount of loans.</p>
<p>Many people in my small town were convinced that since “I had received a full ride to Princeton on an athletic scholarship” I should not be considered for any local scholarships, which I really could have used since my parents were not able to pay even their small EFC.</p>
<p>I wonder, does this sort of misunderstanding still happen?</p>
<p>soomoo, yes, it still happens. I’ve already expressed on the CC ahtletic recruit sub-forum my fear that D will not be considered for any local scholarships because everyone assumes she’s getting an athletic scholarship when she isn’t. And we sure could use the help! The reality is that she’s eligible for enough FA that the FA amount would be greater than whatever athletic money the school would consider giving, so the understanding was she won’t be offered athletic money.</p>
<p>Where you stand depends on where you sit. We are all correct. That is, each of us has earned our different perspective on this issue.</p>
<p>If your straight-A child had to turn down her admission to Ivy League College because your family can’t afford the cost and didn’t qualify for FA, then you are going to feel the sting when another student receives “oohs and ahhhs” for a big “scholarship” to Ivy League College which is really need-based aid. This is normal human nature, because it feels like your child is being belittled for not getting the same award.</p>
<p>Whereas for most other people, the “oohs and ahhhs” simply mean, “I’m glad for your good fortune.”</p>
<p>For another family, it might raises hopes that their child might qualify for a similar big “scholarship”, which may be totally realistic or unrealistic, depending on whether it is being defined accurately.</p>
<p>So, each of us could legitimately have reactions of resentment, joy, annoyance, goodwill, etc., and be equally justified, depending on our circumstance.</p>
<p>Have not read the whole thread. But some need based only schools do use the term “scholarship” to descripe the award. </p>
<p>I have double checked the award letters and confirmed the category of DD’s award is “scholarship”. Apparently I have been mistaken for all these years. We are not on need based aid!!! She is attending S with a full tuition scholarship!!! </p>
<p>Men, that does make me feeling real good.</p>
<p>For the life of me, I can’t understand why full pay parents resent those who receive need based aid. There is an “ouch” to both types of parents’ pocketbooks, relative to their income level. With need based aid, unless it is a full ride, parents still need to come up with the balance of tuition/room/board. That amount is still a significant percentage of their income and a challenge to pay in the same way as full pay parents feel the ouch of paying a percentage of income to college expenses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither can I…and we’re full pay.</p>
<p>I get the feeling that those who are lamenting the fact that some get need based aid and their kids didn’t, are thinking that need based aid families have it easier as they have to come up with less money than they do. But they have less money to begin with. They still have to pay a bunch of their income toward college. </p>
<p>If someone makes enough to have an EFC of the full amount, they are free to get a job that pays less and they too can get some FA. :)</p>
<p>From psych:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t read every post in between, and I might very well be mistaken, but it seems that the term “merit-within-need” has given psych - and maybe the rest of us - an opening to a broader definition of merit aid. </p>
<p>This leads me to a further thought: what if Federal grants that are purely numbers-driven, such as the Pell grant and subsidized Staffords, were really the only need-based aid available? Everything else has a merit component, whether explicit or implicit. Heck even the Cal Grant has a minimum GPA requirement. And the Ivies - they wouldn’t be giving kids “scholarships” if the kids weren’t highly qualitifed (and thus meritorious) to begin with. Same with the institutional aid doled out by the “lesser” private colleges. Everyone who gets aid of this type, whether it’s called a grant or a scholarship, is getting it because of their merit to that particular college. </p>
<p>Voil</p>
<p>I think we know why ^. No doubt the resentment comes from the assumption that they worked harder than the less wealthy child’s parents and are being penalized for that. There are times when that may indeed be true, and more times when it clearly isn’t. Also, for every other type of expenditure the affluent family can, if they choose, make apparent to others their wealth and success by what they purchase. Perhaps it irks them that the poor, lower class kid from the wrong side of the tracks gets to go to the same expensive top school their child does and doesn’t even have to pay for it. It cheapens the value of the school for them. If suddenly every kid in the ghetto could buy a Jaguar, a Jaguar wouldn’t be a status symbol any longer.</p>