<p>or Red Sox/Yankees tickets. Fenway only.</p>
<p>Why hasn't anyone brought up whether athletic scholarships are immoral or is that completely off topic? Bugs me that my overachieving D will likely get squat compared to athletes in her school, some have already committed with full rides. I see the money that public school systems with no money for the arts spend on athletics and it makes my blood boil.</p>
<p>Some of the Athletic scholars impress me, because they can have both the grades and the talent to succeed. But then there are the athletes who have not put much effort into the school work to get the free rides that drive me crazy. However, if they have not worked in HS, I don't see how they will succeed in college.</p>
<p>Jenny
High School Sped teacher</p>
<p>OhMother, is the tuba performance scholarship a young man got from a top 100 uni for a full-ride plus immoral? How about debate scholarships? Scholarships for red-heads? Or is it just athletic performance scholarships that bug you? Just wondering, were you or any of your kids competitive athletes? </p>
<p>I really don't see where all this antipathy comes from towards athletes. Some schools (some pretty good schools) reward kids who score highly on a 10th grade test far more grandly than kids with far far better test results on other tests. Why? Because someone at that school has decided it is valuable. That's it. I don't like it (my kid is an ACT kid) but I don't think its immoral to give them preferential treatment. Just goofy. </p>
<p>Example. Texas Tech max award for a 36 ACT,1600 SAT, 4.0 val-$4K a year. No more. Max award for an NMF with a 1500, 3.8, 30th in class- effectively a full-ride. Automatic upon acceptance. Someone in administration decided it was valuable to have a winning ball team and someone decided they wanted to say "we have X NMF's" . But its not immoral. Just goofy.</p>
<p>OhMother---there's a reason that colleges place so much importance on athletics. what do you think earned Texas the most money this year, their football program or their performing arts center? ;)</p>
<p>I wouldn't mind so much if the money generated by athletics was spread around a bit, but in my experience, it just goes to fund more athletics. My alma mater charges music majors and nursing students more in tuition (supposedly because they cost more to graduate) than business majors. This country is going to be in sad shape in 30 years when there are no nurses to wipe the bottoms of the CEO with Alzheimer's in the nursing home! Money generated by athletics should help educate ALL students, not just those with athletic ability.</p>
<p>Nurses generally do not wipe the bottoms of those in nursing homes. Those pleasant tasks are left for the health care aides.</p>
<p>It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to relate tuition to the cost of providing education. Even if this causes a short-term shortage of workers, this shortage will be corrected by the market in the long run. Thus, if schools charge nursing students more to become nurses, that will eventually be reflected in higher pay for nurses.</p>
<p>Per athletics, many athletes play for colleges without receiving the mythical "full ride." The NCAA limits the number of scholarships per team in DI an DII and there are no scholarships in DIII. Scholarships are offered on a year at a time basis. If an athlete is injured or cut from a team after the first year then the scholarship is likely to be lost.</p>
<p>Aside from character and physical development, once four years of eligibility have been used, the athlete has received all the benefits he or she is likely to receive from athletics. It isn't clear that either the athlete or non-athlete should be required to subsidize the others education.</p>
<p>I think the poin they are making (not that I agree with it) is that second tier colleges are increasing merit aid while at the same time decreasing need-based aid. Robert Reich wrote a whole book concerning "human capital" and value in education. The gist: better educating the poor is good for society as a whole.</p>
<p>sanguine: the Ivy's do not provide merit aid, nor athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't really understand why people think its "immoral".
[/quote]
The argument would be that given a limited pool of money for aid for students every dollar given in merit aid is a dollar denied a student who could have received financial aid instead. I don't know if I would describe the situation as "immoral" ... it's certainly a trade-off ... and one that any priavate school is free to make ... I have a little more trouble when state schools get into the merit business.</p>
<p>I think many second tier colleges raise their tuition beyond the value they are providing and then offer merit aid as a discount to make students who will tend to raise their USNews ratings think they're getting a bargain.</p>
<p>Something no one has said about need-based aid in many private LACs is where it comes from. In many cases, students not receiving need-based aid are footing the bill for those who do (look at the college's financial aid section in their CDS and do the math). It probably is in societies interest to train everyone who is trainable. However, I don't think people who support the current financing scheme have a lock on the moral high ground.</p>
<p>how can u describe something as immoral? it's so funny that democrats r using that term when they r "immoral" in other issues. Don't even start with morals. Talk about how each side benefits society and which one benefits society more. That's the core.</p>
<p>I understand the perspective of many who view merit aid as immoral. However, I disagree with that perspective where a school provides for 100% of financial need first then funds merit aid out of other funds the schools may have.</p>
<p>Private tuition is out of the range of all middle class wage earners. I'd like to better understand what all the escalating endowments are going to be used for. It certainly isn't tuition reduction since tuition increases far outpace the rate of inflation.</p>
<p>Those who advocate eliminating merit aid may want to consider the impact of that suggested course of action. The impact of losing the brightest students are many and varied in both the short and long term for the school, other students in attendance and the local area of the public college/university. </p>
<p>Sometimes programs with the best intentions end up having unintended consequences. Those who consider merit aid immoral might reconsider their position if they truly understood the impact of a totally non-merit based program.</p>
<p>I have never heard that tuition paid by some students covers tuition expenses of others
I thought that special development/fundraising campaigns raise money for scholarship
From Swarthmore bulletin</p>
<p>
[quote]
To qualify for need-based aid does not require being poor. The average family income of aided Swarthmore students this year is slightly higher than $88,000; there were twice as many aided families earning $80,000 or more (55 percent of the total) as there were earning $40,000 or less (22 percent of the pool). Depending on the number of children in college, a family earning as much as $150,000 may qualify for need-based aid at Swarthmore. (Also influencing the need determination are such factors as the cost of living in the students geographical area and medical care and elder care expenses.) The notion that our tuition and financial aid policies squeeze out all middle-income families just does not hold up when you see where our aid dollars are going, says Jim Bock '90, Swarthmore's dean of admissions and financial aid.</p>
<p>The percentage of the student body receiving aid has remained remarkably stable over recent years, hovering at around 50 percent. That does not mean the cost of the program has likewise held steady. The College devoted $12.7 million to scholarships in the 1999-2000 academic year; the figure was $16.1 million for 2004-2005, a 27 percent increase in 5 years. The funds for financial aid are drawn from income generated by the College's endowment. As a result, the families of full-paying students are not subsidizing financial aid, notes Suzanne Welsh, vice president for finance and treasurer. (In fact, because the College expends more than $60,000 a year per student, even full-pay students receive a substantial subsidy from Swarthmore's endowment.) Although more than one-half of the money for scholarships comes from endowments restricted by donors to financial aid, the rest is from unrestricted endowment.</p>
<p>The worry, says Welsh, is that the need for scholarships is growing faster than our endowment. Part of the reason is that other sources of financial aid, like federal and state governments, are covering less and less, which leaves us to make up the difference. We dont want our students to graduate with a lot of debt, so we're keeping our loan expectations low. Also, some other institutions with which we compete are offering even more generous scholarship aid to some categories of students, which exerts pressure on us.</p>
<p>Financial aid is one of the top priorities in the College's fund-raising campaign, The Meaning of Swarthmore, which runs through the end of 2006. To date, more than $205 million has been raisedmost of it from alumni donorstoward the campaign goal of $230 million....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even though I may be new here, this has got to be one of the silliest topics that I've seen here yet. Face it, the bleeding hearts want everything given to the poor to "even the palying field" even if its at the expense of someone else who works hard to get ahead and just happens to have some resources. The rich, conservitive right wants things given to them or costs lowered cause they think everything should be by merit alone and nothing should be done to help those who need a little help to ensure they make the contribution to society that they are surely capable of making.</p>
<p>The answer is simply in the middle. college's want a well balanced student body, that means being able to invite a wide cross section of society into that student body. Need based aid ensures that those qualifying can be part of that mix. Merit aid ensures that the student body has its share of stellar scholars to invigorate and challenge the class as a whole and to help keep the college recognized in its academics. merit aid isn't there for the rich, middle class or poor specifically, its pretty social blind. It's there to ensure the high standards of the school and to raise those standards over time.</p>
<p>IMHO</p>
<p>this might sound harsh/heartless, but if I was a college, I would rather give aid, and therefore attract, students with good stats, aka students who will likely go somewhere in life/make lots of money/donate back to me than give aid/attract students who simply need money.</p>
<p>EDIT: gosh that sounds horrible :(</p>
<p>It sounds horrible, but what you are doing is thinking about college admissions from a business standpoint. Although the Ivy leagues have their infamous lure, state schools and other less popular private schools need a way to attract future nobel prize winners and productive members of society to give back to the school.</p>
<p>Allow me to add this thought to sooners.brians post: And it is in the best interest of society to ensure that those who cannot afford a higher education have the opportunity to attend. Therefore, state funded institutions must also seek to assist with the higher education needs of all of its citizens.</p>
<p>Athletic scholarships at most of the big-time universities are supported by alumni (and fans') contributions. That's the goal of most of them, at least. In most cases, the football and men's basketball teams earn enough revenue to fund the scholarships in all the other sports.
By NCAA by-law, a football scholarship at a Division I school must be a full-ride. A baseball or volleyball player, on the other hand, may only have room and board paid for, or maybe only books and one meal per day.
That said, being an athlete remains the second-most effective way to get your college education paid for (most effective=military academies, if you can handle the six-year commitment).
The moral issue here isn't need vs merit-based aid. It's a system that rewards volleyball and soccer players and doesn't reward students who excelled even more in the classroom. Why is the soccer field held in higher esteem than the classroom?</p>