<p>This article appeared in the NYTimes yesterday. The article examines the relationship between a student's stats, family finances and school aid packages. Aid is no longer as clear cut as it once was. Richer may still be better...</p>
<p>Robert Frank is an excellent economist. Ian Ayres, a law and economics professor at Yale, was one of the people who blew the whistle on the elite schools' pact. </p>
<p>Frank's argument is logical and frightening. The Ivy League, MIT & Stanford, to my knowledge, do not offer merit based awards, at least not in large numbers. However, the 2nd-tier elites, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash U-StL, all compete in this manner.</p>
<p>However, the article does not present evidence that these schools have cut back on need based aid. It strikes me a bigger problem is finding the poor kids with minimum credentials to be considered at these schools.</p>
<p>The main problem with need based fin aid is that middle-income families end up with the short end of the stick. My family makes too much money to be eligible for Pell grants, or significant school grants, but we def. can't just write off 1/4 of our income for college (which is what Dartmouth and Cornell were asking us to do).</p>
<p>I'm going to Umich-Ann Arbor in the fall because they gave me significant merit aid. Bottom line. The difference was like 14K...sorry Ivy League...maybe I'll be back for Law School.</p>