<p>Many colleges only started programs for low income students/loan free initiatives AFTER receiving large donations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think excellent teachers, poets, and peacemakers are the exclusive domain of small expensive colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uc...dad, sorry if I was unclear -- I didn't mean to suggest that was the case. The point I was trying to make was that we EXCLUDE kids with great potential if the only choices they have are junior colleges and mega-unis. The UCs, as I said, are a great option for many students. They aren't a great option for youngsters who need (yes, NEED) a more protected environment.</p>
<p>Youngsters? I thought these people were 18 to 22 years of age.</p>
<p>I would disagree with low income being a "hook" however- if you are a student- who is first gen college- from very low income yet have stellar grades and scores- you are going to be perceived as someone who can really benefit from an challenging academic environment ( and which will probably make the school look good as well)</p>
<p>A student whose parents are college professors, who make 6 figures ( combined), just can't show the challenges that a student who had to make their own breaks can.</p>
<p>More schools are going to "need aware" as many endowments just can't bear the burden of automatically guaranteeing 100% of need, to all admitted students.
If a student has extensive need, he also is likely to have other strengths that is needed in the student body if he is accepted.</p>
<p>emeraldkity, Yes but at highly selective schools where better than 70% of applicants are "qualified" but less than 20% are admitted, low-income "qualified" applicants are more likely admitted. I would venture to guess that at highly selective schools where about 20% of the students are fully funded by FA, it is unlikely that 20% of the applicants are in this category. </p>
<p>That is not to say that they are not well deserving but just pointing out that it is a hook.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Youngsters? I thought these people were 18 to 22 years of age.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I chose that word with some care. I avoided "kids" (a common usage here) because that sounds a little pejorative in this context. I meant to convey, as concisely as possible, that the students I had in mind (HS juniors and seniors zeroing in on college choices) ARE "younger" than most. By "younger," I'm not of course speaking of chronological age. Some people, particularly highly sensitive people and introverted people, avoid the rowdy outgoing social scene in high school, and as a result do seem "younger." They have less experience dealing with difficult situations, such as correcting registration problems, asserting their rights, speaking up to ask for what they need. I've worked with these "youngsters," and I can say that, overall, they do turn out to be the teachers and the poets and the peacemakers. But at 18, or 22, they're not ready to swim with the sharks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They aren't a great option for youngsters who need (yes, NEED) a more protected environment.
[/quote]
I understand that some students might not feel as comfortable in the environment of a Uni as large as the typical UC although I think more would manage it much better than they think - it's not that difficult and now's the time for one to start taking charge of their lives. There are already other public options though, at least in California, with a wide variety of state schools from very large ones to fairly small ones. If a student is looking for the right 'fit' and they don't want to pay the megabucks (assuming no scholarships/grants) for a private, then they can choose from the variety of publics available. That's what they're for and we taxpayers are already subsidizing them. </p>
<p>If the idea is that anyone should be permitted to go to the 'private' college of their choice on someone else's dime, which usually means on my dime as a taxpayer, then I don't go along with that and think it would be impractical and only serve to have college costs increase even more and enrich the coffers of a private business.</p>
<p>I understand that not all states have as many public options as California but I do think people should at least consider what's already available in the public sector if finances are a concern (and even if finances are of no concern) and not dismiss them simply because they're 'public' (I know you haven't stated that). </p>
<p>I'm not sure what you mean by "NEED a protected environment". If it's due to some disability then many publics can already accommodate depending on what it is. If it means the student is shy and just not that outgoing, many will manage just fine once they have more of a need to take charge of themselves and move out of the umbrella of others taking care of them.</p>
<p>Emeraldkity notes"Actually endowments pay for scholarships- tuition from other parents never pay to subsidize another student.
However at Ds school room and board costs included maintainance while students who lived off campus, didn't include those fees."</p>
<p>Response: Schools would like you to think that all scholarships are paid by endowments. From what I have seen and heard from college officials, this simply isn't always the case. Yes, with Harvard and schools with huge endowments, it might be true. However, for schools such as University of Richmond or Syracuse, it isn't true. Richmond specifically noted that they increased tuition to pay for more scholarships. I saw what Syracuse did as well. CMU doesn't have a huge endowment. Tuition has to pay for their scholarships. </p>
<p>Moreover, it certainly doesn't cost a school 30,000++ a year to educate a kid. Somehow that money must be going somewhere other than for college expenses. Many schools publish charts showing their costs and income. A good portion, (usually 10%-30%) of their revenue goes towards scholarships. Since few schools spend all of their endownment income each year, the tuition must be paying for some of the scholarships.</p>
<p>Ditto taxguy! That is why attorney husband thinks higher ed is such a rip-off. Oh, he believes in higher ed, don't get me wrong--it's just that costs are almost prohibitive in some cases. One really does wonder just where that tuition money goes---</p>
<p>Our public K-12 schools use tax dollars for long range planning-building and maintainance, raises and benefits ( even above budget), investments for future growth etc.
If all pots are equal- but then an additional pot gets added- then money has to be shifted around.
So I can see your point. If the university has revenue consisting of donations/tuition/grants & expenditures of scholarships/ raises & benefits and operating costs- when one expenditure increases, but they cant increase general revenue- even if technically they move money from a grant to support scholarships, if additional tuition is then needed to support operating costs which now have a shortfall- it has the same effect as increasing tuition to cover scholarships.</p>
<p>( which also is what I think state schools are talking about- increase overall tuition but "giving" more in aid to low income)</p>
<p>To the OP:
It may be helpful to visit the thread, "Brag About Your Lesser Known School," on three accounts:</p>
<p>(1) 'lesser known' schools often generously merit-aid the high-scorers
(2) many of these values have been further discussed in books like "The Hidden Ivies" and "Looking Beyond the Ivy League."
(3) many of the posters on the thread just referenced, are graduates of Elites themselves (HYPSM) and/or already have a son or daughter in such an Elite. Thus, you can safely assume high standards from these posters.</p>
<p>Just an idea.</p>
<p>About being introverted and sensitive...many times a larger, more "anonymous" environment is better for those people. First of all, on a large campus, there will be so many more opportunities to find people "like-minded". For example, at my kids' school (50K students) the honors program is HUGE, has it's own 2-high rise dorm complex. Lots of opportunities for folks who don't want to go out partying with the animals every night of the week. There are hundreds of studious, quirky, smart, creative kids living in that complex. </p>
<p>Also, there are TONS of activities and clubs at a large university. There is definitely something for everyone. If you can't find it at a big school, it probably doesn't exist (but they'll grant you the money to start it up!).</p>
<p>Secondly, being a little fish in a big sea has it's advantages for an introvert. Being visible all the time in a "small town" environment, having to keep a face, is stressful for people who tend towards wanting to be invisible. Sometimes, the WORST place of all for the shy introvert is a small society, where they are ALWAYS on stage.</p>
<p>doubleplay, thanks for offering your perspective. I can see your point.</p>
<p>Let me preface that I didn't read the entire thread.....just the OP's vent and a few subsequent replies.</p>
<p>How dare the OP rant at those who may not have finished college, nor graduate school and rushed home after work to coach. Where would we be as a society, if some didn't put aside their earning potential, or possible advancement in a career, etc, to coach. Thank goodness we have persons willing to sacrifice their precious time for our children. Some how, I doubt their goal was to increase the financial aid probability of their own kids. The rest of the thread doesn't even interest me as this line had me raging.</p>
<p>side note.....I probably coached your daughter, running her home after practice because you forgot, with a hectic schedule. Also was their the first time she scored. (you had to prepare for a presentation) And held her hand when she broke a toe and we were waiting for you to arrive in the ER.</p>