<p>Charlie, one of the issues about merit aid is that it usually is very much linked to test scores, not grades. And those test scores are tightly lined to economic status. So the merit money is going primarily to those families who have money. Also since merit money is integrated into a need package, any student getting financial aid and where the money is very important is more likely to go to the school with the bigger aid package. I knew some kids who got small merit awards from some schools that did not meet full need, and that gave them nothing more than the financial aid. The big awards can make some difference. I can see why the results of who is getting most of the scholarships is a bad scene for those with need, but the fact of the matter here is that it’s to the interest of the school and its students overall to get higher caliber students in the mix. The definition of higher calibre in terms of test score can be a sticky point. But the ratings of a school is in part determined by the test score ranges as well, so to ignore all of that makes no sense either. No good answer here.</p>
<p>Yes, I fully agree there is a big difference between merit aid that is purely based upon SAT/ACT scores vs. more holistic merit aid that considers a full range of a student’s characteristics and that may be more favorable to hard-working students who are minorities and/or who attend under-resourced rural or inner-city schools. </p>
<h2>The ability to overcome obstacles should be considered, vs. someone who had their family spend thousands on test prep.</h2>
<p>William and Mary recently reconstituted their financial aid system and their tuition rates. I understand they are increasing grants for Virginia residents with need, but they also substantially increased their sticker price of tuition. However, they are promising limits on tuition increases.</p>
<p>[William</a> & Mary -*Financial Impact](<a href=“http://www.wm.edu/sites/wmpromise/financial/index.php]William”>http://www.wm.edu/sites/wmpromise/financial/index.php)</p>
<p>Meanwhile, UVa’s admissions dean has been seeking a source for additional merit aid. UVa offers almost entirely need-based aid, and they lose some top out of state students to competing universities that offer merit aid.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I guess that’s the part I don’t understand. Why is he losing sleep over a few top-stat students who won’t go to UVa due to the lack of merit aid (almost token anyway at other schools). Is he trying to game the silly ranking system? Let’s face it, UVa is not moving up anywhere soon in the ranking game because it is a PUBLIC school and it is in the SOUTH. The all powerful peer review will never give UVa a fair shake anyway. If I were him, I would have the sleep of the just. UVa continues to provide a world-class intellectual environment for its students. It graduates thousands of students every year who go on to be very productive members of this republic. Its graduates generally have no or little debt. (the school needs to work on its graduation rate, though)</p>
<p>I can think of a hundred ways to give kudos to high-achieving high-school students without resorting to giving them token merit aid. Perhaps, the school can open more rigorous classes for these students. Perhaps, the deans could periodically “wine and dine” the parents of these students. Also, the school can be generous with granting credits to these kids (if they pass the placement exams) so that they can graduate sooner.</p>
<p>With the private schools, how they use their money is their own business. I put a Harvard Admissions person in his place once after he stated that noone does not turn down Harvard for lack of funds, telling him that people indeed do. Anyone with parents deemed able to pay refusing to do so is not going to be able to go to Harvard, for all their big talk. That is a niche that exists even when schools do guarantee to meet full need, and with divorce and folks spending and living beyond their means, this comes up quite often.</p>
<p>With public schools, I have more of a problem when merit money is given at the expense of financial aid. The way it works, for the most part, is that if you are low income, PELL eligible, low or zero EFC, the money you get is not likely to pay for sleep away school You gotta go local to a local state school, a community college, and the PELL with the subsidized student loans can usually cover that cost. When you start talking about who is supposed to pay for room, board, supplies, sundries, personal thing, transportation, I’m not sure the tax payer should be on the hook for those unless there are no local state options for college. </p>
<p>Here in NY, the costs are low enough and there are a sufficient distribution of state options so that anyone can afford to go to college if we are talking state schools and commuting from home. When you start talking living on one’s own, or going away to school, that’s a whole other story. For the most part, that isn’t going to be covered even with TAP (state aid) and full PELL, low SUNY tution. SHould it be? Should everyone be allowed to go to, say Ball State in Ohio and live there as well? What is the tuition cost alone for Ohio state schools? </p>
<p>Where we fal down is when a kid finishes community college and there are no like priced options nearby to get his 4 year degree. In such cases, I think borrowing may be the way to go as the kid has proven his academic mettle. I think states should come up with money for such situations.</p>
<p>Where I am seeing abuse of some federal funds and aid is when community and local schools are using COAs for kids living on their own and they borrow as well as get money to do so, when they really should be living at home with their parents. This has come to my attention with some kids I knew back in the mid west. They had no business taking out those loans to live in the same town as parents but on their own for comm college, as they could not afford to do this. Then they are now looking at HAVING to borrow to get the their bachelor’s at an away school and they are crying that they are short on PELL and all loaned up having taken 3-4years locally to get where they are and will likely need another 3-4 years at the state u to get their degree, looking at what others have done in the same route. And I’m not impressed or so sympathetic.</p>
<p>As the father of twins who are now college freshmen, I can assure furrydog and others that state schools are already “wining and dining” high school stars to get them interested in applying and attending. I attended roughly a dozen fancy dinners last year between my two kids, plus numerous invitations to special events, weekends and more to generate interest. Also, the University of Kentucky just opened a fabuous new dorm for their Honors College. There are innumerable programs offered to kids promising research opportunities, special access to professors, and more. The merit scholarships are simply the most easily quantifiable indicator of how colleges recruit academic stars.</p>
<p>The NYT loves to bash merit scholarships that are awarded based primarily on test scores, claiming that these awards favor the rich. However, in a society that is largely a meritocracy (those who contribute more to society earn more compensation), smart people tend to marry other smart people and their families generally have higher incomes. Smart people also tend to have smart kids, owing to both genetics and environment. Therefore, high income families tend to have smart kids who do well on standardized tests. Test tutoring and other prep work available to high income families are a red herring; they will help scores marginally but not drastic increases.</p>
<p>Merit awards are given for test scores simply due in large part to the fact that colleges are convinced that these represent bright, talented kids.</p>
<p>Umm… Ball State is in Indiana, Cpt. We have a good friend and several family members who graduated from there.</p>
<p>
Not necessarily. Here, if you’re a West Virginia resident with a measureable pulse, you’re in, at least conditionally, because we’re so desperate to raise our college graduation rate. Whether or not you get to stay, though, is another matter.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ouch - as a fairly conservative person, it won’t do for me to agree with NYT. 
I guess I really disagree with concept of merit aid without taking into account the economic situation of parents. For us, an extra $30K-$40K over 4 years will not make or break us - however, this money opens up a life-changing opportunity for a kid from lower-class/middle-class (and most likely, a first generation college attendee) - it is a win-win for every one in the society.</p>
<p>I also agree with cpt. The government should use the power of purse string to strongly discourage needy kids from attending “sleep-away” colleges (unless there is no other good option). Room and board is a very large component of college cost in this country and it would be advantageous to limit this cost for students and tax payers. I don’t think US tax payers should subsidize my study of soap making in Grasse, France.</p>
<p>Re: post # 57. “a school like Eastern Virginia Tech.” What the heck does that mean?</p>
<p>Sorry about mispacing Ball State. </p>
<p>Sevmom, there isn’t an Eastern Virgina State Tech. It’s an example of a school where admissions is not competitive and a lot of the kids are on financial aid, and the test score range is not so high as opposed to the state flagships. Such schools want to attract top students that will tend to go to the flagships for slightly more cost for Reputation, Ratings and Recognition reasons. But throw some merit in the picture and it might make a difference. As I said, there is a local school here that aggresively goes after local “good” students and they do net a number of them who are attracted to the free or nearly free rid and other goodies that are offered vs spending $20K a year minimum to go away to school. How else can some of these schools compete with the flagships that cost just about the same, in terms of getting academic talent? They get enough kids with financial aid, too many for them to give full need, most of the time even if they do stop the merit dollars. So they use merit scholarhships which some of the more selective schools such as UVA would not be offering to some of the those kids who could get accepted to UVA. UVA vs the ficticious Eastern Virginia State Tech at the same price, no contenst. The kid would go to UVA every time. But throw in a free ride, and the famly has all sorts of financial issues that could really be more easily resolved without a $100K nut to UVA to crack that could take years to pay if loans are taken, and graduate level opportunities too. Sold! Not do everyone, but to some.</p>
<p>Ok, but you said “Eastern Virginia Tech”, not “Eastern Virginia State Tech” in your other post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with much of your post, but you’re dead wrong about the “all powerful peer review” not “giv[ing] UVa a fair shake.” UVA’s peer review score of 4.3 is actually very strong, higher than similarly ranked schools like #23 Wake Forest (3.5), #23 USC (4.0), #23 UCLA (4.2), and #23 Carnegie Mellon (4.2), and higher than some higher-ranked schools like #20 Georgetown (4.1), #20 Emory (3.9), #18 Notre Dame (3.9), #18 Rice (4.0), #17 Vanderbilt (4.1), and #14 Wash U (4.1). If anything, then, UVA’s peer assessment score is keeping it higher in the US News rankings than it otherwise would be. Academics know UVA is a great school, and that’s reflected in its peer assessment score.</p>
<p>Where UVA gets hurt in the US News ranking is in all the factors that hurt all public universities: high student-faculty ratio, low percentage of small classes, high percentage of large classes, low faculty salaries (relative to top-paying privates), student selectivity (because they take a larger class, to fulfill their public mission), spending per student, alumni giving rate. Some of these are just ludicrous indicators of quality. Others punish larger schools for being able to achieve economies of scale, with lower costs per student. Others, like student-faculty ratios, are areas where most private schools cheat, calculating s-f ratio counting only undergraduates as students, even though the instructions clearly indicate that graduate students in programs where the same faculty teach both undergrads and graduate students should be included for purposes of that calculation.</p>
<p>Yes, UVa ranks towards the top of measurements of cost-effectiveness. It is a shame that US News rewards some universities for their excessive spending. Also, UVa can be more cost-effective because it is not located in a city with an extremely high cost of living, unlike many of the highest rated universities. </p>
<p>In regards to a comment about UVa needing to improve its 4 year graduation rate - UVa is now 87%. UVa’s rate for African-American students is an equally impressive 86%. UVa’s 6 year rate is 93%. The 1st to 2nd year retention rate is 98%.</p>
<p>UVa’s 4 year graduation rate is tied with Cornell, Penn and Duke. In comparison, Columbia is 90%, Georgetown and Yale are 89%, Princeton is 88% and Harvard is 86%. </p>
<p>(Note - at many selective universities, a high percentage of the remaining students graduate after only one extra semester).</p>
<p>[Current</a> Enrollment, Facts at a Glance, University of Virginia](<a href=“http://www.virginia.edu/Facts/Glance_Enrollment.html]Current”>http://www.virginia.edu/Facts/Glance_Enrollment.html)</p>
<p>[Highest</a> 4-Year Graduation Rates | Rankings | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate]Highest”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate)</p>
<p>Rmldad wrote:</p>
<p>The NYT loves to bash merit scholarships that are awarded based primarily on test scores, claiming that these awards favor the rich. However, in a society that is largely a meritocracy (those who contribute more to society earn more compensation), smart people tend to marry other smart people and their families generally have higher incomes. Smart people also tend to have smart kids, owing to both genetics and environment. Therefore, high income families tend to have smart kids who do well on standardized tests. Test tutoring and other prep work available to high income families are a red herring; they will help scores marginally but not drastic increases.</p>
<p>End quote</p>
<p>Seriously? </p>
<p>I assure you that if the expensive test tutoring were available to the lower SES, who naturally have not-so-bright parents, that their inherent propensity towards stupidity (tongue in cheek here as that sometimes doesn’t come across in posts) would show a whole lot less on the standardized tests. I assure you that it does make a difference in test scores, regardless of the SES of the student. It might, probably would?, have an even greater impact on the test scores of those who can’t afford it. But to say test prep only helps higher SES students marginally isn’t accurate, in my opinion. Not sure if there are any studies on this, but I think you’d have a hard time finding a control group willing to forgo the expensive test prep for their students as they’d want them to have every advantage. Who could blame them?</p>
<p>Yes, seriously.</p>
<p>In our area, the kids who are the high scorers (32 or higher) do not typically take prep classes. These high scorers will either self-study (even using books from the library!) or forgo any prep at all. These are the kids who are generally offered merit scholarships based on their scores. </p>
<p>I am not convinced that exposing lower SES students to expensive test tutoring would have the dramatic effect that you expect. I have known “rich” kids who took prep classes and had lower scores afterwards. They thought simply showing up to class was enough to ensure success. I have not known anyone who improved their score more than a few points after taking a class.</p>
<p>Does test prep make a difference in scores? Almost certainly yes. However, does this test prep need to be expensive or exclusive? Almost certainly no. Bright, motivated kids are going to find ways to be successful regardless of circumstances.</p>
<p>I agree that some test prep “classes” can be fairly useless. I was referring to tutoring, which I assume to be one on one. Yes, anyone with the time can use the test prep books to prepare, but I definitely agree with NYT’s assessment.</p>
<p>I think merit is often based on test scores because it’s an easier and faster way than the holistic approach that is taken with admissions. I think it also lets students and families know where they stand and gives them goals regarding the scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The CSU system in California effectively does that. Need-based financial aid appears to be the same for both commuter students and those who live at the school, even though estimated costs differ by about $7,000. The net price for a maximum-financial-aid California resident at a CSU is typically about $4,000 for commuters and $11,000 for those who live at the school, providing an incentive for students to commute from home.</p>
<p>However, there are certainly students who do not live within commuting range of a CSU that they can get into, or which offers the major that they want to study. For example, someone living in San Luis Obispo may not be able to get admitted to Cal Poly as a frosh from high school, or as a transfer from Cuesta College (the community college there). Or perhaps his/her desired major is chemical engineering, which is not available at Cal Poly. So s/he may have to go to a non-commutable school to complete his/her bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, different schools have different priorities on test scores versus grades for scholarships. In the <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/1348012-automatic-full-tuition-full-ride-scholarships-19.html#post16145676[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/1348012-automatic-full-tuition-full-ride-scholarships-19.html#post16145676</a> , the HBUs appear to be more favorable to higher GPA, lower test score students (e.g. Prairie View A&M full ride at 3.5 HS GPA, 26 ACT), while non-HBUs appear to be more favorable to lower GPA, higher test score students (e.g. Louisiana Tech full ride at 3.0 GPA, 32 ACT).</p>
<p>Ucbalumnus, personally I think that a student’s GPA is a better indicator, than the SAT, of how well they will do in college. In my opinion, students with high test stats and lower GPA, than their scores would suggest, find college difficult as they often were able to skate by without having to put in much effort. College work requires good time management and study skills which those students never developed in high school. The problem with comparing GPAs of students is that some high schools have such ridiculous grade inflation (show up and turn in a blank page with your name at the top for math homework validation and you’re guaranteed at least a B) while others actually still consider C grades to be average and As indicate exceptional work. From what I hear, the grade inflation is happening at many schools. </p>
<p>Louisiana Tech’s criteria doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would you want to attract obviously bright students who can’t pull off more than a B average? And I know there are sometimes valid reasons. Prairie View A&M acknowledges that test scores will be lower for some excellent students. </p>
<p>You’re right, it’s just as easy for merit to be based on GPA as on test scores, or a combination of the two.</p>
<p>My “Seriously?” comment above to Rmldad actually wasn’t about the SAT test prep.</p>
<p>Sevmom, whatever I said, it’s a fictitious school, which I should have called Generic VA State, to make it clearer. What I am saying is that those instate school that are non flag ship and are not well known, have a hard time attracting students with academic excellence. It does make the school better, more attractive and raises the bar to have such students, and one effective way to attract such students is with merit money. Not financial aid, because, they have enough students that need financial aid, and they can’t meet the need there. Such students often have other options that meet need anyways or they don’t really need it. But a generous merit award can be a head turner and something to consider. </p>
<p>I don’t see any problems with schools doing that, offering merit money to attract more of a type of student that they feel will improve the university community. Where I draw the line, and there are school well beyond it is, when merit money is given BECAUSE there is less need. And that is done. What happens is that things are done on a model basis, and when the model says there need to be, say 10 more students accepted at least and your best bet is a kid who needs $50K to go there. Even then it’s going ot be tight as the family is strapped. Or you can offer 10 kids $5K apiece or 5 kids $10K apiece in merit money. You know those kids’ families have a higher likelihood of being able to financially pay for school. And also there are those studies that all link income with academic success. So even though the needy kid is really more qualified to be accepted, the smart thing to do is to accept 5 or 10 kids,none of whom are really “next”, but are better bets. Happens all of the time.</p>
<p>Then there are schools that out and out are need aware for admissions, so, yes, in that category, a prospect can be definitely be at disadvantage if they need aid. The PA link to 529 is unconscienable, in my opinion. Blatent, deliberate giving fo advantage to those who have more. Poor familes are highly unlikely to be able to use 529s, so that benefit goes exclusively to those who have had straight out more money to put away. Shame of PA, and for a number of thiings regarding academia in that regard.</p>