Moral issue? Maybe I'm quibbling here , but this is no more a moral issue than the original topic, which I guess is gone forever. LOL. </p>
<p>The answer is still - somebody values the soccer players effort that is in a position to do something about it. The Rhodes scholarship people, the Greeks, and most other Western institutions have a distinct, palpable, clearly identifiable down through recorded history, love affair with the concept of the scholar athlete. I don't remember that many statues of ...of....of...(insert non-perjorative word here for what less kind people would call nerds ).</p>
<p>BTW, I don't have a dog in this "either/or" fight. My kid is blessed to be at the top of both ladders. And IMO, she is getting more because of it. Should she? Well, somebody with the bucks to dole out thinks that ideal is valuable. Just like Siemens Westinghouse, Bill Gates, Coca -Cola, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, the National Merit folks, and the Daughters of the Confederacy think what they reward is valuable.</p>
<p>You're right (cringe). We've sorta strayed from the original discussion. Sorry.</p>
<p>curmudgeon, you put it well, though. As long as there are people willing to come up with the scholarship money to aid in the college education of their particular self-interest, whether it's football or civil engineering, that's their business, not ours nor Diane Feinstein's. </p>
<p>Yanking the discussion back to the original topic, however, I would argue that to claim that merit aid is immoral is . . . well . . . immoral. Feinstein makes it sound as if schools are stealing money away from students with need, and that isn't the case.</p>
<p>I guess that's why they work in government or at colleges. Capitalism is based on merit. Why should college scholarships be any different? The real world rewards merit. I'm not against need-based scholarships, but many middle income kids can't get need-based aid and their parents haven't saved enough for them to go to expensive colleges. The current system (FAFSA and CSS Profile) also penalizes those families who save. Take family A and family B and assume they have the same annual income (say, $60,000 to $100,000). The only difference is that family A has almost no assets, a big house and a huge mortgage, while family B lives in an modest house with no mortgage and has scrimped to save money for their child's education. Family A gets financial aid and Family B doesn't. Is this fair? To me, financial aid is not anywhere near the panacea it appears to our the hapless politicians you name. It just shows they don't live in the real world and apparently don't understand that need-based aid rewards the big spenders and penalizes the savers.</p>
<p>I believe that the original "immoral" comment really comes from the way financial aid is often adminstered. For example, some schools that provide merit scholarships gap those that have need based aid. It is very enlightening to see the financial aid numbers provided by USNews.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, my preferred position is that schools should fund 100% of "demonstrated financial need" first then they can provide whatever they want in merit aid elsewhere. The interesting thing is that "demonstrated financial need" is something different at every school. For example, some colleges use private school tuition in their calculations and others do not.</p>
<p>I also think that it is not right to label what is really need based aid as merit aid. The worst part of it, is if an average applicant receives this "merit aid", and does not have the ability to hold onto a 3.0 as a freshman, it is taken away. I think this is a cruel reality, b/c this student may need to either leave the school, or they need to go further into debt than they were planning on.</p>
<p>I agree entirely. It's easy to slip, especially as a freshman and this could turn a college that barely affordable to one that's unaffordable. I think the entire scheme for financing college is a mess.</p>
<p>Another issue I've thought about while reading this thread is that the debate centers around ways to pay for whatever a college sets as its tuition. If we're looking for moral issues (which we probably shouldn't be but it makes the discussion more interesting), I wonder if it's moral for colleges to charge what they do. I saw an earlier post with a quote citing an actual cost of instruction of $60K/year. Does anyone know where number like this come from? Is there any way to verify them? How can public colleges with reasonable tuitions even exist? </p>
<p>Throwing another inflamatory question into the fire "Was it moral for colleges to allow tuition to rise to current levels?"</p>
<p>I think that about 75% should be need based because the point of FA is to open up opportunities for poor students. However, at the same time, I also believe that students who academically excel should be honored. Therefore, I think that the rest should be merit or merit/need.</p>
<p>although some schools may view that just being accepted to their school is acknowledgment of academic merit- so they will give need based aid only ;)</p>
<p>nvdad, I have thought about there being something wrong with the prices that schools set long before this post. I really think that some schools set prices for marketing purposes. It is very easy to give a fair number of students "merit aid", perhaps 10,000/year, when tuition with fees, room and board, is 40 something thousand. A school that costs 42,000 is now 32,000 for the kid that keeps a 3.0. If they don't keep a 3.0 first semester, then second semester of freshman year, or sophomore year it is back to 42,000. Now the student has to either leave, and perhaps lose credits if transferring, or stay and go into some heavy debt. Of course, a fair number will probably make their 3.0, but I would bet that a large number of students don't get a 3.0 as freshmen.</p>
<p>That is the position of the Ivy league schools. No honors colleges, no merit aid what so ever. That is an admirable position but not for schools that have endowments the size that they do. Thier tuitions and their endowments are growing well ahead of the rate of inflation and have for generations. However, they also provide the best financial aid packages around and are now offering them to more low incu=ome students than in the past.</p>
<p>That policy makes the Ivy League accessible to the rich and the poor but leaves a lot of the middle-class out in the cold. However, they can get away with it since a degree from HYP is something a graduate can work into every conversation for the rest of their lives. </p>
<p>My problem is that schools that aspire to be like HYP are trying to institute the same financial aid policies. Dickinson College is an example. My D was very interested in the school, accepted in their Early Admissions pool (which they make a big deal about being the most competitive), and got zippo financial aid. </p>
<p>Schools like Dickinson are OK, but if I were able to pay $44k/year, I'd be looking at an Ivy. Now I'm looking at a state school (I actually don't feel too bad about this since I live in Virginia and some of the state schools have better reputations and only cost one-third as much as the HYP want-to-be's). However, I've found myself in the position of telling my D she can't go to some schools because I make either too little or too much money.</p>
<p>Most of us are in the same boat. However, many private schools provide better financial aid than the state schools to the point of eliminating the price differential. With a second son about to enter college we are about to test this . . . and thus the reason my son applied to a bunch of schools. The economic uncertainty is too great otherwise.</p>
<p>With that said, he will not make the decision base upon which is the least expensive. It is just one of the variables that need to be considered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is an admirable position but not for schools that have endowments the size that they do.
[/quote]
Hmm .. that is exactly what I think is admirable ... if you believe they have a set budget for aid for students only providing financial aid (and not merit, athletic, or other types of aid) allows the largest pool of admitted students to the financial ability to attend ... any other type of aid (above what the student would have received in financial aid) reduces the amount available for financial aid.</p>
<p>Now arguing about how much they make available for aid (with such large endowments) is another question on which I have bigger issues with the IVYies. In addition, their recruiting and admission policies tend to self select their admits towards wealthier families (compared to median income levels)</p>
<p>I'm not sure the highly selective private LACs (versus the most selective HYP types) have many real advantages over some of the small publics. For example, we have William and Mary, Mary Washington, and St. Mary's of MD near us and they all seem to be equal to or better than what I've seen of the private LACs (mostly those in eastern PA).</p>
<p>A problem I have is that my D seemed to really like Dickinson [I thought it was aweful but I'm not going to college]. However, paying $44k for Dickinson vs $12K for William and Mary would seem to be insane even if I could afford it (I have my Dickinson financial aid offer in hand -- zippo). </p>
<p>[Note: My D has a 1380 M+V SAT, 6 APs, a solid GPA and is a two sport varsity athlete -- all state in one sport and recruited by Dickinson in two. Not HYP, but IMHO, a reasonable candidate for merit aid.]</p>
<p>nvdad, I am sorry to hear about Dickinson. I happen to agree with you about your wonderful state schools, and the fact that you would think that your D would qualify for some merit aid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Um... I feel like everyone's making the assumption that the less well-off kids have nothing to give back to society. In my school that's definitely not the case, a lot of the rich kids (business type) tend to be middle/average students (obviously that's how far their tutors get them- I am not being sarcastic) most of the top kids not wealthy (of course the same goes for the bottom of the pile) of course I can't say their not well-off either because most of their families are from the academia (I guess that's their push). </p>
Many hardcore capitalists find the concept of Need-based aid to be uneccessary. "Those who cannot afford to pave the way should not be given the opportunity".
[/quote]
I'm a hardcore capitalist and I have no problems with the private charity of others.</p>
<p>What the hell is the point of this thread. Merid aid is given out. Period. Deal with it. Kids need merit aid to pay for college, and they get it. Why is this even being discussed. Let people who need the money and who have striven in high school to get good grades get it. This thread is closed.</p>