<p>Three ongoing threads are going on simultaneously on the Parents Forum. Some parents are arguing in favor of need based aid. Some want to end all need based aid except loans. Some are somwhere in the middle. Some say students and parents have a sense of entitlemnet to a Harvard, Yale, or Princeton education when community colleg is hwre they should be if there parents can't afford it. I'd think some of y'all might want to weigh in on one side or the other. I'll post links.</p>
<p>BTW There are also some who love need aid but think meit aid is the spawn of the devil.</p>
<p>OK, enough chitchat, time to step up to the plate and take a side... :D</p>
<p>I <strong><em>hate</em></strong> all the whining I see on this site about "my EFC was X, but this college gave me only Y, they are such stingy b**tards". This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the entitlement mentality is alive and well. This does NOT mean that I am against need-based aid. Kids from low income families have often had to work much harder than well off kids with the same academic accomplishments --- there is no doubt in my mind about that. Before you flame me, consider my situation: high earner, paying full ride wherever D goes (ouch, there go $250k, never to be seen again). For many, I am arguing for the wrong side.</p>
<p>However, the converse is also true. Kids who have busted their a** throughout high school to rise to the very top of the distribution deserve equal consideration for merit aid, regardless of income level.</p>
<p>Like most arguments, the above position is easy to defend at the extremes. However, it does get messy in the $75k-$125k level. Not needy by any reasonable yardstick, yet FA seems to be disproportionately large relative to income. Ironically, this is where most of the whining seems to come from.</p>
<p>as a low-income kid, who is going to be paying her own way through college, i find the mentality that need based aid should be cut off and kids that can't pay shouldn't go to college sickening. haven't these people ever considered the fact that low income students have to face so much more obstacles then theirs? low income students often have to work jobs, can't take many ECs because they have to take care of siblings/ do housework and go without iPods, vacations, college visits-- some can't even pay for the cable or for water and electricity. that kind of mentality is just plain elitist and selfish.</p>
<p>"Parents of full-pay kids want to end need aid". Oooh, what will the alumni who are funding many of the institutional grants, new buildings, latest high tech facilities in your kids' colleges will say about that I wonder? In 10-20 years whn I am rich and famous or at least "middle-class" and donating fat checks to my alma mater, I will tell you all straight ahead I want that money to help students frm low-income background like me who had to fight to get an education. But please I will not be asking to name scholarships in my honor, I am too modest :)
And for all those implying that low-income should go to cc, please..My relatives told me the same thing, I got a 1470/2130. Their daughter had a 1200s in her old SAT, she went to University of Maryland. Her parents, middle class, never gave her the same "advice". She dropped out of college, her pre-med course load was to heavy for her. But apparently good college education should be for the privileged with money and not for high achieving students regardless of their income bracket.
I will be working my way through college too. I will be working around 40 hours in summer, 15-25 hours in college.
College is not exclusive for certain class. Without institutional based need aid, college admissions will become more need aware not need blind. So S couldn't get into top college G with a 2100s because his family annual income is less than 10000, but B did with a SAT score 1800 with a Presidential scholarship. Welcome to the real world. Academics don't matter. How rich you are matters.
Of course if the college had been need blind in admissions, S will got in and then considered for merit scholarships even.
I think a college should have a good amount of need and merit aid equally.</p>
<p>And please if poor people really get showered in need based aid, I will be sipping my tea in Case Western right now instead of looking at my acceptance letter gathering dust from last year.</p>
<p>IMO, what colleges have in mind are the kids. that all education should be within the reach of kids who have worked for it, and the kids should not be penalized for their parents finances(lack thereof). </p>
<p>also, it will be a vicious circle if only the rich kids get the best degrees and best jobs(just cause they were born into it) and the poor ones continually suffer for something that happened circa 1880. </p>
<p>what everybody wants it a fair world, most def. (and i can see the argument on both sides). this is called the levelling the playing ground. </p>
<p>Anyway, I believe all education should be free. key word=should.</p>
<p>Ok, here is my answer (and therefore the right answer).</p>
<p>I'm going to have it all. S1 paying full freight at a highly selective LAC (in retrospect, probably a mistake); S2 has a good chance to get a full tuition merit scholarship at the lesser of our two flagship state Us and D (S2's) twin probably going to a less selective LAC with enough merit money to bring the cost down close to state U, where she would not qualify for merit money.</p>
<p>My view is that we have no right to pass judgments on private colleges--its their money, they should be able to use it however they please. However, I have a strong opinion that public universities should not give merit money; their job is to provide educational opportunities to the public at large at the lowest cost possible, not to move up in the US News rankings. I get particularly upset when state Us offer merit money to out of state applicants.</p>
<p>Of course, if they want to offer money to S2, we're going to grab it.</p>
<p>Curmedgeon - you didn't even raise the concept of "need-based admissions" or bait and switch (where you are admitted and enticed with that nice merit scholarship of 1/2 off tuition then hung out to dry)</p>
<p>Let's take a logical look at the situation -
Prior to WWII - those who could afford a college education got one. After the war the GI Bill educated the male population, Vietnam contributed more since if you stayed in school you could avoid being drafted.
Now we have a generation of kids whose parents are colleged educated who expect their own kids to become college educated - even if their kids are better suited to being a hairdresser or brick mason or a soldier.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>All need based aid - Most of the high tier schools offer only this because - they can. lol. Seriously, they have all the full pay applicants they need that are qualified. They are also under social pressure to "diversify" and that requires helping out worthy needy students.<br>
I kind of like this actually because I think if you are worthy enough to make the cut then the school should help you find a way to pay for it. The federal grant/loan money just doesn't cut it. Some, but not all of these schools pledge to meet 100% of your "need".</p></li>
<li><p>All Merit based aid - some schools do offer this. St Joseph's University in Philadelphia is one. They are a Jesuit school with a good reputation and they cater heavily toward students in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
All their grand money is Merit. This school is also what I call "bait and switch" - they really don't make it clear until you get your financial aid award that the scholarship you got is all the help you will get. Needless to say - the student body is fairly wealthy and only those needy students who got this highest scholarship can afford to attend.</p></li>
<li><p>Combo schools - Most private colleges use a combination. Not all are inferior schools either. They offer merit scholarships, usually with the admissions offer as an enticement. Usually they base it off a matrix of GPA and SAT scores and many schools publish this matrix on their website.
They also offer some nice need based grants for those who need financial aid.
If you are a good student you can end up with a pretty nice combination package. The dollars are awarded seperately and while FA knows about the merit their dollars are limited so bumping up the merit scholarship definitely helps.
If you rely on financial aid you will probably not get 100% of your need met - but many schools come close.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Which is better? Depends on your circumstances. The important thing is to know the difference and what questions to ask. Therefore you can sever the relationship if you need to before it gets too intimate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I get particularly upset when state Us offer merit money to out of state applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't blame you. Of course, the reason they do this is to entice students to come to their school.</p>
<p>I didn't even touch on public schools - what cranks me up is when public schools do not give any need-based aid. in-state. Yeah - like the $3500 Stafford Loan is gonna make a dent in +$20,000 in state COA. but then I live in a state where they don't HAVE to. They have plenty of bodies who can and are willing to pay.</p>
<p>In the "old days" the colleges communicated with each other, and financial aid packages were within dollars of each other so students could decide where they really wanted to go. Then a whiny middle class parent decided that that was an unfair trade practice and took it to court and unleashed all of this merit aid money for middle class kids whose parents (on paper at least) can pay for (at least) in-state tuition. Look folks, we can't have it both ways. We can't have a completely transparent (and most likely need-only) system, if we want to be able to put our kids up to the highest bidders!</p>
<p>Now, if the financial aid fairy could just wave her wand and produce an education for my kid that will still allow me to pay into my IRA and support grandma without taking on a second job....</p>
<p>
[quote]
I get particularly upset when state Us offer merit money to out of state applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If those kinds of scholarships result in strengthening the university, either over-all or perhaps a specific program or two, in-state students (or at least some of them) reap the benefits of being able to attend a better university, or a better in-state program.</p>
<p>Or, let's consider the case of a state like Wyoming. The Univ of Wyoming seems to offer very large scholarships to OOS students, using a formula based on rank and test scores. If they didn't bring in any OOS students, it is likely the state wouldn't have a university worthy of the name, because the population of the state is so small. So, someone in Wyoming is picking up the bill for someone from another state, but the alternative is the students of Wyoming having no decent university. So who loses? (Probably Alaska falls in this category as well.)</p>
<p>I think that the main problem with need-based aid is where the definition of "need" becomes messy. Single parents can get somewhat screwed if the other parent is still around, making a lot of money, owning a house, and just deciding it is not his/her responsibility to pay, since he/she doesn't have custody. People who have also climbed the financial ladder very recently and for that reason who have debts from times of unemployment or very low income also might have a difficult time affording what a financial aid formula calculates they can, since such formulas often assume money from past income.</p>
<p>Some people say "Need-based aid is great because kids aren't punished for their parents' lack of money." I completely agree. However, what about the kids who are "punished" for their parents just not wanting to take responsibility - or for financial situations over the past 18 years that financial aid offices don't/can't take into account? I really feel for people with parents who can pay but won't, and I just think that in that situation "need-based" doesn't do such kids justice.</p>
<p>I think that you and I disagree on what it means to be a "better" university. if out of state students are not paying, I fail to see how other students benefit.</p>