<p>Curm, As a member of weenie's Slob Strata, I have read all of these posts. My first son will be attending an oss public, and no regrets. We felt that we could not afford 5 private schools, even with the merit aid carrot dangling under our noses. S had 5 open doors, and 5 closed b/c of money.</p>
<p>cur, you've made some good points and backed them up with stats; that's helpful. This dialog has raised more questions and I'll continue looking for answers in all the usual places. It saddens me that some list participants can't/won't see beyond their own backyards and get annoyed if someone asks them to. On CC we're naturally parents first, but college admissions and FA policies have global impact too and it seems very short-sighted not to consider the common good as well. Maybe it's because I'm ancient (grandkids in school now), but I try to take a longer view. When I talk to D's friends' families (most of whom are much better-off financially), I hear they're not even considering LACs -- their kids are all going to a UC or Cal State because they're cheaper. So the merit question doesn't come up around here. I also hear a bit of cattiness that we're relying on generous FA, as though it were a shameful to ask for "charity." Jeezus. It doesn't even occur to them that our tax dollars are paying for their kids, and that their kids will spend the next four years living and studying with none but privileged white or Asian people who have never been out of California. Sorry, I'm starting to ramble. Thanks for your patience.</p>
<p>
And thank you for being willing to listen with open ears. I really appreciate it.</p>
<p>
Yeppers. I can believe it. Most of them can't be bothered with facts. Gets in the way of their prejudices. ;)</p>
<p>Cello -- I'm a little late getting back into the game, but I just want to clarify something from yesterday.</p>
<p>I said ..
[quote]
"it's the taxes that we so-called wealthy people pay that fund those government-sponsored grants. I for one don't begrudge my tax dollars going to fund education for low income students, and quite frankly get a little ticked off when I hear proponents of need-based aid complaining about merit aid programs."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Celloguy said:
[quote]
I think, though, that you misunderstand my point. The federal government isn't offering merit aid. The wannabe colleges are. Government grants don't begin to cover tuition at top-tier colleges. If high-achieving low-income kids are going to attend good schools, the colleges' need-based aid needs to approach 100%, which is the case at top-tier schools. It's the less prestigious colleges that are offering merit aid as a bribe. That's the issue I'm raising.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Celloguy -- I didn't misunderstand your point ... and no where did I say (or think) that the government is offering merit aid.</p>
<p>I'm from the camp that believes private institutions should be permitted to spend their money however they wish. I think we need to give them a little bit of credit for making decisions designed to ensure that the private money continues to flow in. Otherwise, how will they continue to fund the need-based aid? If it takes merit dollars to maximize revenue, so be it.</p>
<p>jersey, thanks for the effort to clarify, but I guess I still don't quite get your point. When you said, "it's the taxes that we so-called wealthy people pay that fund those government-sponsored grants," what exactly was the connection to the merit aid debate? I guessed you were confusing merit dollars with "government sponsored grants," because you put them together in your argument. If that's not it, are you saying that po' folk get government grants so the wealthy deserve merit? Or ...? Sorry, I'm trying to follow. Help me.</p>
<p>Celloguy, you linking of your reservations about merit aid and the "Admissions Revolution" thread/the Thacker book, "College Unranked: Ending the College Admissions Frenzy" leaves me somewhat confused.</p>
<p>Yes there is an admissions frenzy in higher education today, and I would add an unhealthy one at that, one I have posted about many times here. However it is largely restricted to the most highly selective institutions, those which can, because of their endowments, afford to offer only need bases finaid. Because of their brand name they have the luxury to eschew merit aid altogether.</p>
<p>I will give you a very personal example. Our son would have been a viable candidate at colleges like Cornell, Swarthmore, Columbia SEAS, etc. However, with an EFC of $83000(and one which I have no complaint about) we had a family choice to make very early on, like freshman year in high school. We chose to not embark on the frenzy of elite admissions which require course scheduling and ec selection with a wary eye on how those choices would be view by a Princeton adcom. As a result our son was able to have a very enjoyable hs experience, forming his own band rather than spending countless hours of practice to make the all state or local symphonic orchestra which would impress an adcom. Feeling free opt out of Spanish 3 and 4 to take courses like CompProg AP, Music Theory, Madrigal Chorus.</p>
<p>The result was that durng senior year he had a totally stress free college application experience. He did not have to stress out wondering if he would be one of the lucky ones to get the thick envelope from an Amherst or Dartmouth, he didn't feel pressed to choose one college and apply ED to maximize his chances. He didnt feel the need to spend endless hours prepping for the SAT and to take that infernal test 3, 4 or 5 times and he didnt feel the need to take any SAT 2's either. He wasn't compelled to spend countless evenings writing and honing multiple personal essays. He did his in a couple of hours one evening and, because he used the CommonApp he only had to do that one. In short he took the SAT once his senior year, completed 5 of his 6 applications in one weekend(the exception being his flagship state u app) and was unconcerned about being accepted to any college he applied to. The only question was how much merit aid would college see fit to offer him. However I should add that he did spend much time researching colleges which he would enjoy and might offer him some merit aid.</p>
<p>In short we avoided all the "horror stories" noted in your citations. To wit, he had a wonderful time in hs where choosing to hangout with friends had a higher priority than participating in appropriate ec's to pad a resume, he didn't need to stress over testing scores or application decisions out of his control, and he didnt feel compelled to enter the high stress elite college sweepstakes because we allowed him to opt out of it 4 years earlier.</p>
<p>In the end he was accepted to every college he applied to, was fortunate to receive merit aid offers totalling $370,000+ and was able to choose to attend fine colleges like Case, Oberlin and Rensselaer. Not among the big bad brand names but on a par with them academically I would submit. And haviing spent my entire adult life in academe, I believe I have enough first hand experience to make that statement.</p>
<p>originaloog, congratulations on a relaxed, enjoyable college admissions experience with wonderful results. Your son is a lucky young man. (I think I'd disagree that Oberlin isn't among the big names, but perhaps that's mostly a music lover's bias because of the Conservatory.) My D had a similar senior year (madrigals, her first love, took up 2 and sometimes 3 periods a day, and she loved playing in youth symphony), she took the SATs just once without prep and called it done, and her apps were pretty low-key (photocopying graded lit papers was a little inconvenient). We agreed that her time would be better spent reading and learning the things that interested her, and in the end she had a 4.5 (weighted) GPA and was accepted at her best-fit college with full need-based aid.</p>
<p>So my point about merit aid wasn't about a personal concern, but a global philosophy.</p>
<p>In your post to me, I wonder if you're focusing on the "frenzy" in the book title rather than the philosophy behind it. Thacker's Education Conservancy is an attempt to calm the waters in college admissions; he's garnering support from elite college presidents on the theory (justified I think) that if Yale, Amherst, and Williams get behind him, as they have, it will be easier for others to follow. Offering merit aid as a strategy for pumping up ratings is just one target for reform, but it's the one we were discussing on this thread, and it's well discussed in Thacker's book: "Once a mechanism for meeting student need, financial aid has become a tool serving institutional self-interest, as exhibited by the threefold increase in scholarship money awarded during the past five years and the corresponding decline in need-based aid. "It used to be that providing aid was a charitable operation," said Michael McPherson, president of the Spencer Foundation and a higher-education economist. "Now it's an investment, like brand management" (New York Times, as quoted in The American Prospect, October 7, 2002). There is growing concern that the increasing use of financial aid for strategic purposes -- that is, to increase rank and maximize revenue -- is violating equity principles traditionally associated with education ... An Educational Testing Service study of students at the 146 most selective colleges concluded that 3 percent came from the nation's bottom economic quartile whereas 74 percent hailed from the top quartile (The Nation, October 13, 2003)." [edited to insert closed quote]</p>
<p>And so on.</p>
<p>I'll also mention that Reed College, with one of the smallest endowments among top colleges, offers only need-based aid (unless we factor in curmudgeon's observation of the universal hidden tuition break inherent in the difference between full tuition and colleges' actual cost per student). Reed is at the forefront of the "unranking" revolt, having refused to provide U.S. News & World Report with data for the past ten years. This year Reed's apps topped 3,000 for 350 slots, and average enrolled GPA is 3.9, so apparently they're not suffering brain drain. But I agree with you (and other posters) that merit aid is an effective tool for increasing revenue, and that's a serious trade-off. The colleges with multibillion dollar endowments BELONG at the forefront.</p>
<p>I know we've beat you up enough celloguy (and you've been most courteous) but I just have two responses to your last post (and I really did I think I was done with this thread).</p>
<p>First off, if your daughter had not received "full need-based aid" (good for her!) at her "best-fit college" what would you have done? What if she had gotten in, but received only 1/4 of her need? Would you have turned down merit aid? How would you have felt if she had had to settle for her fifth choice school because that was what you could afford?</p>
<p>Second...I don't know...but it sort of scalds me to hear about the "elite colleges" trying to reform the system -- the same system that feeds them the wealthiest of the wealthy? I think not. Perhaps they are stressed that "less elite" schools will buy students away from them. God forbid anybody encroach on their sacred ground.</p>
<p>weenie, you're probably right that we've flogged this one, and I'm ready to withdraw, but you deserve a response: Because we're of modest income and have two kids in private schools, D applied only to LACs that meet 100% of need (all excellent choices), and to the local (inexpensive but sadly inappropriate) UCal, to which she'd been guaranteed admission because of GPA in top 4%. So we knew she'd have at least one affordable choice even if none of the LACs accepted her. She was offered merit aid at Mt. Holyoke, but because we qualified for need-based, it made no difference to our bottom line. If we were wealthy, $15,000 a year wouldn't have swayed us, but it certainly might have if finances and EFC were different. Part of the reform that needs to happen, apparently, is that EFC needs to be more closely in line with reality; I don't know how to fix that. I didn't know it was broken.</p>
<p>Re "elite colleges trying to reform the system," I hear your suspicion but don't share it. I believe these are mostly good people struggling to achieve social justice without putting themselves out of a job -- the same struggle most of us have most of the time. What I hear and read from them is mostly heartening. Their clients have traditionally been America's wealthy elite, but I don't hear admins or faculty at Williams, Amherst, or Yale strategizing to exclude bright, motivated, low-income kids. I think they're sincerely trying to bring ethics back into admissions. I've seen this first hand at elite preps, so I believe it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
jersey, thanks for the effort to clarify, but I guess I still don't quite get your point. When you said, "it's the taxes that we so-called wealthy people pay that fund those government-sponsored grants," what exactly was the connection to the merit aid debate? I guessed you were confusing merit dollars with "government sponsored grants," because you put them together in your argument. If that's not it, are you saying that po' folk get government grants so the wealthy deserve merit? Or ...? Sorry, I'm trying to follow. Help me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cello -- I'm not trying to connect govt aid and merit aid, but understand why you might have thought that (poor wording on my part). I was attempting to contrast (not connect) the different attitudes about the two types of aid from those on opposite sides of the fence.</p>
<p>As a die hard liberal, it would never occur to me to be resentful about the fact that my hard-earned tax dollars are used to fund programs such as federally sponsored aid for college students (or health care for the uninsured, or Head Start programs, etc.). It just seems strange to me that someone who accepts one type of a handout (need based aid) would be resentful of those who accept another type of a handout (merit aid). Both parties are on the dole, so to speak ... pot calling the kettle black, etc.</p>
<p>It would be considered extremely insensitive for anyone (liberal or not) to speak out against need-based aid. Yet, somehow it's okay to criticize those who don't qualify for need-based aid, but dare to take advantage of merit-based programs rather than wipe out their life's savings, delay retirement, or assume a ridiculously high amount of debt. I just don't get it. Poor form, I think they call it.</p>
<p>jersey, thanks, sorry I was dense. I can see where you were going now. I didn't see a contrast because I was endorsing full need-based aid for every student at the best college s/he can get into, whether the money comes from Pell grants, private foundations, or institutional aid. Simply put, at colleges with limited scholarship dollars, merit aid favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Parents on the list have been patiently explaining to me that EFC doesn't truly reflect their financial need, and I see now that my view of "need" is different from yours.</p>
<p>
You know, I think I've sensed that all along. I have a few more things to share as you ponder the situation at America's Top Colleges. </p>
<p>My personal scenario was not as simple as the dentist in my example. I knew that my personal grabbag of indecipherible numbers and issues was enough to confuse everybody so I just chose some high points to discuss. I actually set down with two FA officers , and spoke on the phone to two more. I received glassy stares from the first two, dead silence from the second two after their fifth "I have no idea how to treat that." I had decided in our case that since our Fafsa EFC was X and our institutional EFC (Profile) was likely to be X + $3K to X + $13k (literally as close as I could figure) , and since we could afford with struggle our Fafsa EFC we'd let the kid take her shot at some need based aid schools. </p>
<p>Celloguy, do you know that our EFC varied from need based college to need based college by as much as $8k, and that at three primarily need based schools the self help component was removed and then of course, offered back for an out of pocket difference of as much as $16,000? Per year? Of course she was the recipient of those school's highest "award". Penn has it (Vagelos), I believe Brown has it (Sidney Frank?), Colgate does (Alumni Memorial), Hamilton does (Schambach - a need award), Scripps does (any scholarship recipient, a merit award) . It is what we (or at least I ) call preferential packaging where the top applicants at 100% of need schools are given treatment that is more fair. As in "everyone is treated fairly, it's just that some are treated more fairly than others" (my homage to Orwell ;)). Some colleges consider it "merit within need" while all the while eschewing pure merit awards. Several of the schools mentioned also add to the costs of attendance items for their star applicants that they don't add to others to raise the grants, while others eliminate the Profile number if the Fafsa is more favorable to their selected students.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, under what I know about the process, Yale and Amherst were the least generous to my D as they were the most selective schools to which she applied to attend. </p>
<p>Again, merit aid is alive and kicking at many of what you may have thought were need-only schools.</p>
<p>Oh, and the FA guy from MIT everybody raves about on the FA thread for being so clear and helpful -I gave him just a small slice of my "problem pie" and he went screaming away like a scared bunny. ;) AS my profane Aunt Gert would've said "Left so fast I couldn't see nothing but a$#@#$@# and elbows".</p>
<p>Curmudgeon's experience is the same as mine. My Federal EFC was about $3K more than my Institutional EFC. My second son applied to a number of 100% financial need schools. These offers varied by $5K in the amount of need based aid provided in direct grants and by a few $K more in the need based self help aid, i.e. work-study, Perkins, etc.</p>
<p>Additionally, my older son, who had some merit aid in his previous packages continued to get the same amount of merit aid. He recieved a need based grant equal to his brother. His school also provides for 100% of financial need. When you put his merit and need based aid together it varies from my second sons aid by $8K.</p>
<p>So, at the end of the day, I am as confused as ever by the financial aid formulas used by the schools. Most of the posts on CC are about the competitiveness to get in to schools leading to the increase in the number of applications. I have come to believe that the explosion in applications is to compare FA offers because it appears to be so random.</p>
<p>I feel a bit like a broken record but I see no reason why the increase in cost of education continues to far outpace the rate of inflation and has for a long long time. While that continues I expect that applications will continue to increase.</p>
<p><<i have="" come="" to="" believe="" that="" the="" explosion="" in="" applications="" is="" compare="" fa="" offers="" because="" it="" appears="" be="" so="" random.="">></i></p><i have="" come="" to="" believe="" that="" the="" explosion="" in="" applications="" is="" compare="" fa="" offers="" because="" it="" appears="" be="" so="" random.="">
<p>Eagle, I agree with you. At least this is what our family felt it needed to do. We needed to rely on tuition discounting, whether it came from financial aid, merit aid, or both. We also needed to look at what would be required to keep that merit aid b/c we were not going to play roulette with our futures. We really needed to see who was going to make our son's education doable (by our definition). We had a tougher road to climb, b/c our son is not a typical cc student, but a good student. </p>
<p>I keep wondering where this is all going lead 5 years, 10 years, and so on. Colleges cannot keep raising the COA and keep doors open to those who are not from the most affluent families, or the few brightest students (receiving large scholarship awards). What will happen to the B/B+ students who come from a family with an income of 75-100,000 and are living in a higher cost of living area? Oh, and I know many people believe that 75-100,000 is affluent, but l still don't think that 40,000+/year is afforable for this "affluent" group.</p>
</i>
<p>NEM,</p>
<p>Agreed, and it isn't just about income. The $75K-$100K may be what the parents are making now but that may not have been true a few years earlier when they were "supposed" to be putting some of that money away for college tuition. </p>
<p>I'd also note that $75K-$100K is only $60K-$80K in after tax dollars. Pretty hard to squeeze out $45,000 to pay for a private college from that.</p>
<p>Eagle, I am in 100% agreement. Also, what is often forgotten is that in some families, out of the 75,000-100,000 salary many self-employed, as Curm pointed out, need to fund their retirment account (and those annual dollars are counted against the family as available for the colleges), and basic medical insurance which can easily cost 15,000+ in premiums.</p>
<p>What I could never figure out about the FA formulas, was that say you had $60K saved for your kid's education. You have an EFC of some huge amount and get no FA. What are you supposed to do? Go ahead and attend the school, pay for one and a half years and then, what, HOPE that you get aid to carry you through the next 2 and half years?</p>
<p>Another reason we opted for a 4-year guaranteed Merit Aid scholarship (assuming a 3.2 GPA).</p>
<p>weenie, I think that this is what you are supposed to do. They do not count your future worries in the formula for efc. Lets say that you have 2,3,4 or even more children, and they are spaced 4+ years apart....oh well, efc is figured for the one in that year. You catch a break on the living expenses for that year for your other dependants, but they are not thinking about what a parent might be thinking about when calculating that efc. The fact that they expect 30,000+ out of a family for one kid in one year is one thing, but coming up with those dollars for 15 years (3/4kids for 4/5 years each if they do not overlap in college years) is quite another situation! You are also going to have higher efc if you add to your retirement fund while you have kids in school. This can last for a decade and half in the scenario I just described!</p>
<p>Weenie, does Denison require a 3.2 to keep that merit money? I think that is steep for a freshman. I am glad that your son was able to meet it. My son was offered only one scholarship where a 3.2 was required, but it started at 3.0 and climbed by .1 each semester until the 3.2 was reached. He is not attending (financial aid looks poor if a student missed the mark). Interestingly, it was his most generous merit offer (and sticker price was lower than most privates), and he was also offered the honors program, but S turned down this offer (his decision).</p>
<p>Weenie, and I guess about that 60,000, it should have been saved in the parent name, rather than the student's name, for the best financial outcome. Jeez....</p>
<p>Northeast, Yeah that money should have been in our name (or moved into our name at some point)...but try telling my husband that. And we still have money for son #2 in his name. Oh well. I'm glad there's a little money somewhere! :eek:</p>
<p>Your question inspired me to dig out my son's scholarship info (can you tell I'm light on work lately???). I always get confused between requirements for the honors program and the scholarship. Here's what it says. His particular scholarship (which I'm not even sure Denison offers anymore - the Heritage 1/2 tuition) requires a cumulative GPA of 3.0. If his GPA were to fall below that but was still 2.0 or better then his scholarship would be replaced with a $10,000 Dean's Award. So, you are right it is lower than 3.2! I think it is very reasonable. My son has good grades; so far so good. :)</p>