Morehead Foundation Gets $100 million gift...renamed

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
While I am interested in your response, the situation is history. With the Supreme Court's 2003 decision, UGA reinstated its affirmative action program. It's now back to diversity levels antebellum.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By antebellum, I assume you must mean 1860.</p>

<p>In 2005-06, UGA's undergrad student body was 86% white. African American enrollment at the University of Georgia was 5%, compared to a state wide population of 30%. Only 21% of the University of Georgia's undergrad students received need-based aid discounts. </p>

<p>There's no other way to describe that but a "disgrace". This is what happens when you shift the financial aid dollars from need-based to merit discounts with no cap on family income.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]

By antebellum, I assume you must mean 1860.</p>

<p>In 2005-06, UGA's undergrad student body was 86% white. African American enrollment at the University of Georgia was 5%, compared to a state wide population of 30%. Only 21% of the University of Georgia's undergrad students received need-based aid discounts.</p>

<p>There's no other way to describe that but a "disgrace". This is what happens when you shift the financial aid dollars from need-based to merit discounts with no cap on family income.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, by antebellum I mean before whatever year it was that UGA decided to do the right thing and drop racial preferences. Sadly, it is difficult to maintain poise amid a sea of demands from redemptive liberals and grievance elite members.</p>

<p>Whenever I read statistics like those of the second sentence in the second paragraph and notice that the user expresses disdain at such numbers, in my heart, I know that the user secretly supports quota systems. Obviously, to you, 5% is an unacceptable number and should be higher. So, just how are we going to raise that number? Are we going to lower standards in the name of "diversity?" Or are we going to directly address the problems that result in such a "low" number? I myself favor the latter approach. It has more lasting effects and actually does something.</p>

<p>You say that only 21% of UGA's undergraduates received need-based aid. How many received the HOPE scholarship? If more than 21% of all the undergraduates are HOPE scholars, then why complain? Their tuitions are waived due to their high school records.</p>

<p>Georgia is actually not a good example for you to use when trying to market the equity of need-based aid. The HOPE scholarship helps countless students achieve their dreams of becoming college graduates by rewarding accomplishment and excellence. You'd be better off finding another state that isn't as committed to the ideal of a meritocracy.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Obviously, to you, 5% is an unacceptable number and should be higher.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I think African American enrollment at the flagship university of a state with 30% African American population and one of the most historically vibrant African American communities of any major US city should be higher than 5%.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, just how are we going to raise that number?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For starters, try shifting some of the funding for merit discounts to higher income white students back to need-based aid.</p>

24

<p>interesteddad: I guess I could sit here and correct your statistics all night long, but I think this will be the last time for me. It's getting tiring.</p>

<p>Carolina topped the list of Kiplinger's "best public values" for the 5th time in a row in 2006:
<a href="http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan06/kiplingers010906.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan06/kiplingers010906.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Part of this ranking stems from the cost and the financial aid offered at these universities. "Kiplinger's story mentioned UNC's academic quality, admissions process, the Carolina Covenant and financial aid, and successful private fundraising through the Carolina First Campaign." </p>

<p>The Carolina First Campaign, with a goal of $2 billion, ending in December 2007, has currently met 99% of that goal. Part of the plan for those monies is to endow the Carolina Covenant with ~$10 million--and to create more programs like the Carolina Covenant. </p>

<p>The article went on to praise UNC's financial aid policies, stating that "UNC is the only school in our survey that meets 100% of each student's financial need . . . it's more common for colleges to meet 80% of the need or less . . . since our last survey in 2003, UNC has actually beefed up its financial aid . . . "</p>

<p>I will just end by saying that I am always amused (and bemused) by the folks here who jump up and down, screaming the need for more diversity (and quoting incorrect information), who--by and large--have chosen to send their own children to very expensive "elite" private universities. Maybe it's just me, but I see a real disconnect there. I firmly believe that if people are truly interested in diversity, on every level, then a public university will be much more diverse--always--than will a private university.</p>

25

<p>Hope Scholarships at maximum cover roughly $4900 of a $15k annual cost of attendance. So take a family where the 18-year-old also contributes to the family income and how much do you think would be necessary to make it financially viable for him/her to attend?</p>

<p>It is awfully easier to find merit in white (higher income) students.... especially when they see it as financially viable to even apply.</p>

<p>(And I too think UNC should be congratulated - it IS a good start, and wish they'd do something like that in my state.)</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
The article went on to praise UNC's financial aid policies, stating that "UNC is the only school in our survey that meets 100% of each student's financial need . . . it's more common for colleges to meet 80% of the need or less . . . since our last survey in 2003, UNC has actually beefed up its financial aid . . . "

[/quote]
</p>

<p>According to UNC-CH's own common data set information supplied to USNEWS, they met 100% of need of those students receiving need-based aid. However, only 75% of those students determined to have need had their need fully met.</p>

27

<p>interesteddad,
Would you please provide some link to back up your numbers? They're significantly different from anything I've seen about UNC.</p>

28

<p>One thing I forgot to add is that for NC students, the UNC system (with major support from NC taxpayers) makes it a very affordable education (~$4700 instate tuition). There was a recent tuition hike, however, which will generate ~$46 million across the 16 campuses, $19 million of which will go towards covering "tuition bills for needy students."
<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/398611.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/398611.html&lt;/a>
Now I really am done.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
I will just end by saying that I am always amused (and bemused) by the folks here who jump up and down, screaming the need for more diversity (and quoting incorrect information), who--by and large--have chosen to send their own children to very expensive "elite" private universities. Maybe it's just me, but I see a real disconnect there. I firmly believe that if people are truly interested in diversity, on every level, then a public university will be much more diverse--always--than will a private university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We kicked the tires at UNC-CH. Liked it a lot. But, at $27,000+, with a student/faculty ratio of 14/1, and 30% of its class sections taught by TAs, it's a very poor value for out-of-state students. Different value equation entirely for in-state students.</p>

<p>If it weren't a poor value, they wouldn't need to offer the Morehead price discounts to attract top out-of-state students.</p>

30

<p>Well, does anyone know if they post their Common Data Set? That would settle the argument.... (I couldn't find it offhand - found Greensboro, and Asheville, but not Chapel Hill.)</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Would you please provide some link to back up your numbers? They're significantly different from anything I've seen about UNC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>USNEWS premium on-line edition. Data is from the 2005-06 Common Data Set filings, which I cannot find for UNC-CH.</p>

32

<p>Well, I do know that USNEWS prides itself on using the Common Data Sets. So I expect ID is probably right, but I'd love to see the actual filing (why don't they post it?)</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Well, does anyone know if they post their Common Data Set?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In this day and age, doesn't it make you want to scream when schools don't post their common data set filing on their websites? I mean, come on. Almost everything you need to know to understand a school is in those documents (except the binge drinking rate!)</p>

<p>I'd like to see the CDS filing, too. The way USNEWS publishes their financial aid need-met percentages is confusing as heck -- 75% in one place for UNC, 100% in another. I think it understand it from the CDS filings for other schools, but those schools are all 100% need met in both places.</p>

34

<p>Here's a link to the Common Data Set from the website:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ais.unc.edu/ir/CDS/pdf%20files/cds2006_2007.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ais.unc.edu/ir/CDS/pdf%20files/cds2006_2007.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

35

<p>Once again, interesteddad, I think your figures are off. I could only find where it says 100% need met here on this CDS.
<a href="http://www.ais.unc.edu/ir/CDS/pdf%20files/cds2005_2006.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ais.unc.edu/ir/CDS/pdf%20files/cds2005_2006.pdf&lt;/a>
By the way, it was certainly easy enough to find (and has been posted here on CC fairly recently, too).</p>

36

<p>Thanks! There seems to be truth on all sides of the argument.</p>

<p>There were 3,751 first-time, first year undergrads.
Of these, 2,840 applied for need-based aid. (75.7%)
Of the those who applied, 1,230 were determined to have need (or only 32.8% of the total freshpeople - this would confirm ID's characterization of an overwhelmingly wealthy student body.)
Of those who had need determined, 1,210 (98%) had their need covered in full (confirming their seeming generosity), with an average grant of $8,366.</p>

<p>Overall, 32.3% received need-based grant aid.</p>

<p>750 students (20.0% of all students), received non-need-based, non-athletic grants. These "merit" grants averaged about half the size of the need-based grants. An additional 85 received athletic scholarships.</p>

<p>So interpret away. The number that sticks out for me is the very, very low percentage determined to have need. I expect those numbers are far higher at Greensboro or Asheville (or NC State). As to why so few who applied for need-based aid are found to have it? That one is a mystery to me. I haven't looked at many state u. Common Data Sets, but this one stuck out to me as somewhat odd.</p>

37

<p>Thanks for posting the CDS of UNC-CH.</p>

<p>FWIW, I wonder how much time they spent following instructions when completing the form:</p>

<p>Answer to C12 at UNC: Average high school GPA of all degree-seeking, first-time, first-year (freshman) students who submitted GPA: 4.37</p>

<p>For reference, this is the answer of Princeton to C12: Average high school GPA of all degree-seeking, first-time, first-year (freshman) students who submitted GPA: 3.84</p>

<p>Do I believe the answer to C12 by UNC to be correct? Sure! As much as I trust Middlebury's comical and creative interpretation of the CDS.</p>

38

<p>Well, doesn't everybody apply for need-based aid, just as a matter of course when they apply to a university? Or am I mistaken? Once again, though, the UNC system is a relative bargain, most notably for in-state students, and so "wealthy" is a relative term here. Don't you think? (Students there aren't paying $45,000 a year.) </p>

<p>Thanks for the break-down.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
Once again, interesteddad, I think your figures are off. I could only find where it says 100% need met here on this CDS.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It says 100%, but it's not true. Look at page 19 of the PDF.</p>

<p>Line C is the number of students determined to have need: 5265</p>

<p>Line D is the number of students given financial aid: 5197</p>

<p>Line H is the number of students from line D whose need was fully met: 3845 </p>

<p>3845 is not 100% of 5197.</p>

<p>Their claim of 100% on line (i) has a double-asterisk notation. It's only 100% for students who apply for financial aid by March 1st. I just checked the deadline at my daughter's school. It's late April. So basically, UNC uses an artificially early filing deadline as an excuse to not count the 25% of their financial aid students who do not get their full need met. Typical shell game. Kind of like colleges that don't count their low-band athletes in reporting their SAT scores.</p>

<p>BTW, thanks for the link. I had searched both Google and the UNC-CH website and had not found a link.</p>

40

<p>Wow, so much to comment on. It's late, so I'm going to be brief now, but these are really interesting topics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The merit discounting has no income caps and goes substantially to higher income families.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's all about marketing. College tuition has risen faster than practically any other of the economy other than medical costs. A lot of this tuition inflation is then counterbalanced by discounts ("scholarships") given to targeted students. If your public universities are using their target money to attract National Merit Scholars, or musical theater actors, or athletes, I suggest you develop some voter activist spine and hold your state university accountable for their actions. Just because the academics think they are above politics in the name of "academic freedom" doesn't mean that voters can't cut off the tap. The discrepancy to which you refer is caused by the fact that smart people graduate from college, marry other smart people and have smart babies that grow into smart teenages who do well in school and on the SAT, and become desireable college applicants. I don't see the sort of you-are-what-you-were-born class system of old England, but I do see one based on an intellectual/money basis. </p>

<p>I recently read a quote from an administrator at the University of Washington that since they went to a "holistic" admissions process there are a lot of people on campus who would not have been there before. Yeah, but this also means that an anonymous, unaccountable bunch of temp employees have been given control over the admissions process to a taxpayer-funded instutition. That some people are on campus who wouldn't have been equally means that some people who would have been there aren't, and instead of using objective criteria (grades and test scores) they are now being "holistic." </p>

<p>I think that the "tuition discounts" given students to attract certain applicants, are about as objectionable as using fuzzy-wuzzy admissions criteria. It really is time to decide what we want from public education, if anything, and how it should work.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The result of this trend is reduced opportunity for low income students to attend college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Citation, please?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The national stampede away from need-based aid is quite disturbing, especially at public universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Citation, please?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wish I could remember the university president who said on a panel discussion I watched (because it may have been the UNC-CH president) that the shift to merit price discounting is the worst thing to hit public education in decades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The worst thing to hit higher education in decades is the ascension to power of the Vietnam era hippy graduate students in the country's universities. But that's just my opinion...</p>