<p>Despite the title, much of the article focuses on how some schools (Dickinson is cited) are cutting back on merit aid as a tool to compete for the "better" students, because that money often goes to families who don't really need it in order to send their children to college.</p>
<p>Here's a finding that surprised me: "A 2003 study by the Indianapolis-based Lumina Foundation for Education reported that from 1995 to 2000, scholarship aid to students from families making $40,000 or less increased 22 percent in 1999 dollars. At the same time, scholarship aid for students in families making $100,000 or more a year increased 145 percent." Yikes!</p>
<p>As a former financial aid administrator (but also someone whose kids received merit aid) I really worry that some private LAC's (schools which tend to be very generous with merit aid) are creating an elitist environment for the privileged to raise their young. Is that too harsh? I suppose the LAC's could be just as generous with merit aid to bright low-income kids. The article points out that state-sponsored merit programs have increased the percentage of low income students who go to college.</p>
<p>"I suppose the LAC's could be just as generous with merit aid to bright low-income kids."</p>
<p>Merit aid does not work well for creating the kind of diversified class that LAC's, I think, strive to create. The child of a middle income or lower income family who is offered merit aid will often find that it cancels out any other form of need-based aid to which they might have been entitled to. For that family, a state school for which they are entitled to the same amount of need based aid, but that costs signficantly less than an LAC, is going to be a much more affordable option. A "Merit" scholarship award only functions as such for those who would not otherwise be entitled to financial aid. </p>
<p>Many private schools are unable to meet the full financial need of lower income students - or to the extent they do, so much of the need is in the form of loans that it makes better financial sense for that student to attend a state institution. So, I think, private schools without endless endowment get caught being more elitist and less socio-economically diverse than they would wish to be. Which hurts the school. It becomes less attractive to certain students, potential employers of seniors, etc. etc. Kind of a viscious cycle.</p>
<p>"Despite the title, much of the article focuses on how some schools (Dickinson is cited) are cutting back on merit aid as a tool to compete for the "better" students, because that money often goes to families who don't really need it in order to send their children to college."</p>
<p>I believe that what will now happen is that the academically high end students will go elsewhere, possibly to LACs offering generous merit aid or to the best state universities or to other state universities' honors programs.</p>
<p>Colleges wanting to increase their selectability use merit aid to attract students with excellence in academics. </p>
<p>Dickenson may choose to use their funds to boost need-based aid, and that will probably result in more lower income students going to Dickenson. That will increase socioeconomic diversity and possibly racial diversity, but isn't as likely as merit aid to increase stats.</p>
<p>Ohmadre notes, " So, I think, private schools without endless endowment get caught being more elitist and less socio-economically diverse than they would wish to be. Which hurts the school. It becomes less attractive to certain students, potential employers of seniors, etc. etc. Kind of a viscious cycle."</p>
<p>Response: Actually I think the reverse it true. Need based aid may be more beneficial to society as a whole but merit based aid is more beneficial to the colleges. It attracts better students than the collge would normally get and artificially inflates that college's average SAT scores and GPA, which inturn enhances the colleges reputation and admissions. In fact, an up-in-coming school that is smart (but perhaps selfish) would only give merit based aid and not any need based aid.</p>
<p>I get what you are saying - increase stats, increase attractiveness to academically students, upward spiral. </p>
<p>I think this still creates at least a temporary stage elitism and I have heard the arguement that the employers (not sure if it also applies to grad schools) who come to campuses seeking talented graduates are insisting that schools produce for them a diverse set of qualified candidates. However, maybe it all works out in the long run -get your school to the upper stratum of selectivity, and you become more desireable to all candidates and can then attract (and afford) the brightest students across the board. </p>
<p>But what a risky strategy and those private schools that can't afford to make that committment seem to be in danger of having artifically deflated reputations.</p>
<p>Financial aid is a game for college. Based on my limited experience, I have seen that school can match any offer even more than FAFSA or profile states provided they want your kid and most imporatant they think money can be a great factor in a kid decision to choose school. If they want the kid, they will offer more grant and less loan. But if they have more similiar candidates, then more loan and less grants. So be careful when you read number game.</p>
<p>In my case parental contribution ranged from $20,000 to none. The best offers in terms of samller parental contribution came from univerities with better endowments. But I still think I do not understand this game ever as it involves many factors which I may not be aware. So parents give your best shot and hope for the best.</p>
<p>I know what the stats say and what most CCers say (about private schools giving more money) BUT this has been the exact opposite for me. Even at lesser quality private schools where my scores were relatively high I got merit money, but as a percentage of total cost, it was very small. At numerous big, known public schools ranked much higher than the private schools I was accepted at, I got near full tuition scholarships... </p>
<p>My family is fairly wealthy but I'm going to a public school... most kids that I know who are going to private schools are lower income and have received massive amounts of financial aid(not merit). My parents had big concerns about private schools being elitist and it was a big factor in me not going. </p>
<p>Ohmadre notes,"I think this still creates at least a temporary stage elitism and I have heard the arguement that the employers (not sure if it also applies to grad schools) who come to campuses seeking talented graduates are insisting that schools produce for them a diverse set of qualified candidates.":</p>
<p>I have my own business and have hired college kids. I also am a member of our Chamber of Commerce. I can honestly say that I have NEVER though of or heard from any chamber member the fact that" they won't hire from a specific college because it isn't diverse enough." NEVER! All we were concerned with was: what was the school's reputation for producing smart, qualfied prospects. We looked at SAT scores, difficulty in admissions, rating of certain programs of interest etc. Again, having a diverse set of qualfied applicants rarely, if ever, is part of the consideration. </p>
<p>I will admit, however, that I am speaking from the mindset of small business. Maybe larger companies have a different perspective.</p>
<p>Larger companies just put Howard, etc. on their recruiting schedules and continue to go to the colleges that produce quality applicants without regard to diversity.</p>
<p>I'm skeptical. Dickinson has been one of the BIGGEST offenders when it comes to using merit money to boost stats and yield. In fact, most people don't know that back in the early 1990's Dickinson was actually in danger of closing because of financial difficulties. The solution: let's discount our price (i.e., offer merit money) so we can stay in business. The comments at the bottom of the article suggest to me that Dickinson is now cutting back mostly for financial reasons. They've bought their higher stats already, why keep paying for them, especially when there's this huge bubble of kids applying to college? How about we just use that money for more heavy-hitting marketing. Or, hey, we still need to keep our name in the press, so let's now start talking about diversity. I guess I'm cynical but I've read too much about Dickinson's marketing tactics over the years to believe this is anything besides a simple change in marketing strategy. </p>
<p>And, I found it hysterical that the article quoted a professor from Skidmore. Skidmore is one of the most expensive schools in the country and is known for its pitiful financial aid packages - for everyone, white, black, middle class, poor. Kind of ironic that they have a professor on staff who is spouting about financial aid equality.</p>
<p>Carolyn notes,"They're still pretty middle of the pack"</p>
<p>Response: I just researched Dickenson, and they have average SATs of 1274. This doesn't sound Middle of pack to me." I guess it is better than some but worse than others,but still not bad.</p>
<p>Taxguy: They are middle of the pack if you look at the schools they compete with for students - Lafayette, Lehigh, Muhlenberg. Their marketing goal was to compete with schools like Swarthmore, Haverford, Colgate. They have not managed to get into that league. They are still ranked towards the bottom of the top 50 LACs.</p>
<p>I am not saying this to dis Dickinson. I think it is a nice solid school and I often recommend it. But I usually recommend it to kids with SATs in the 1200s and B+/A- averages, NOT to kids with stats in the 1400's and A averages.</p>
<p>Taxguy: Something I forgot - At Dickinson, submitting SAT scores is optional in admissions. I just checked: 17% of students do not submit SAT scores to the admissions office. Guess we should keep that in mind when looking at their median scores - chances are good that if we had the full 100% their scores would be lower because the people that usually don't submit SAT scores at SAT-optional schools are those with lower ones. Of those who submitted scores, the 25 percentile score is 1180, top 75 percentile is 1360. Again, a nice middle of the pack school. They rank 40 on the US News Report's ranking of LAC schools.</p>
<p>Another thought may be that they have found that the kids they bring in with those big merit packages don't stay all four years. I think of CC dad cyclingdad whose daughter got a full ride there last fall but only stayed for a semester. Their 4 year graduation rate is 71% (according to US News).</p>
<p>You get what you pat for or in the case of colleges what you discount for. If you want better students give merit aid. If you want poor students give need based aid only. You can buy a lot more well qualified students for the same dollars spent than you can poor but honest lads. I wouldn't look for marit aid to go away. It makes too much sense from the schools point of view - and the consumers.</p>
<p>It is tough for some of these schools. My son's friend got into a slew of schools, one that has really been courting him for a minor sport. It was the only one of the favorites that did not offer some merit award. The awards ranged from $1500 from the state school to $5000 from the most expensive. The fact that this school did not give aid makes it one of the most expensive alternatives, and for him not worth it, as he is not really hung up on the schools, he is making the choices more objectively. The sticker prices of two schools, and the merit awards at two other schools are much better deals and the schools are just about as "good" in reputation and offerings. I can see what kind of pressure that puts on a college. I am pretty sure that if he really wanted to go to that school, he could probably squeeze $5K out of them. Had they offered that amount, it would be seriously in the running as a choice, had they given $7500 I think it would clinched the deal.</p>
<p>Well, Dickinson could certainly use some diversity. Only 8% of their students are non-white. :)</p>
<p>Seriously, I hesitate to say that "merit aid is decreasing" based on the story of just ONE college. Seems to me that Jay Matthews relies on the Dickinson admissions director as his primary source for an awful lot of things. It would be nice if he had actually called 10 or so schools and asked all of them if they were decreasing merit aid. I don't think merit aid is going away any time soon, just maybe shuffling around in marketing priorities at some schools.</p>
<p>Merit aid is going down at URochester. UR used to flatly give out $10,000/yr for an SAT score of 1350 (but not any more), and their tuition was significantly lower at that time. In fact they are raising tuition by another 8 or 9% this year, so what little merit they still offer is not nearly as affective.</p>
<p>"A 2003 study by the Indianapolis-based Lumina Foundation for Education reported that from 1995 to 2000, scholarship aid to students from families making $40,000 or less increased 22 percent in 1999 dollars. At the same time, scholarship aid for students in families making $100,000 or more a year increased 145 percent."</p>
<p>This is the reason I would like the schools to meet 100% of need first then provide merit based aid. However, the reality is that many schools that provide merit aid gap on need based aid skewing the pool of students toward those more financially able to attend.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I am all for merit aid. I would just like to see the need based component addressed first by the schools.</p>
<p>We covered this topic recently (see link below), but I still maintain that the relatively paltry amount spent on merit aid--for the purpose of expanding the academic talent pool part of the "diversity" quotient--pales in comparison to the amount spent to provide "economic" diversity. Dickinson was mentioned, so consider this: they spend $1M on "merit" aid each year, compared to $15M spent on "need."</p>
<p>Our own experience justifies an educated guess that often merit aid is "hidden" within what is also need, & so I would agree with chinaman's opinion. Example, big sis is generously aided wherever we apply to whatever private program/opportunity/institution offering "strictly" need-based aid. Younger sis, just as bright but with stats slightly lower (& similar great performance & good behavior), is often unfunded or less funded by those same institutions, at the same time of application, in the same household, etc. Institutions can call it whatever they want to. They'll find a way to fund you under whatever nomenclature, if they really want you.</p>