<p>
Do you advocate stripping the National Geographic Society of its tax-exempt status because it doesn’t give away free subscriptions to its magazine? If Harvard wanted to charge full tuition in order to free up funds for its other non-profit goals–such as supporting research–why would that be a problem? (This is a separate question, I think, from just how big an endowment a nonprofit should be able to accumulate without spending it on good works of some kind.)</p>
<p>Harvard is an extreme example and making policy based on that one school would not work for that reason. Look at some more typical situations. Harvard could raise its price substantially and give no financial aid and still fill their classe several times over. There are many parents with their right arms, or both arms extended to chop them off if so required to get their kid in their.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, those Harvard kiddles better go into IB in order to pay for the healthcare of their amputee parents. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could, but it would soon lose its best applicants to Princeton, Yale etc. and have a class with lower stats than those schools, causing it to drop in the rankings. Then even more excellent students would go elsewhere, causing a downward spiral.</p>
<p>Ah, but what would likely happen is that the “et al” will do the same. Perhaps, substantially is not the best way to put it, but say $10K. Say it also keeps its financial aid policies as is or maybe even downgrades that a bit. I don’t think it would hurt Harvard one bit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would they go elsewhere? Are you suggesting that top students don’t want just-a-class-of-rich-people? Who would have thunk?</p>
<p>An administrator from Lafayette College responds to the original article:</p>
<p>[Why</a> Ending the ‘Financial-Aid Bidding Wars’ Won’t be Easy - Head Count - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/headcount/why-ending-the-financial-aid-bidding-wars-wont-be-easy/33283]Why”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/headcount/why-ending-the-financial-aid-bidding-wars-wont-be-easy/33283)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I kind of chuckle at the pony reference. Many people I know WILL charge less to a good rider whose family doesn’t have the means to pay full price. Some have been known to give a good pony to a good rider - or to free lease one to them until the child moves up in size. Yet they still have no problem charging market price to others who can afford it. I have never heard complaints (maybe there are some unspoken?). I’ve only heard praises to folks who are kind hearted enough to do this. The pony world is small enough that people often do try to help each other.</p>
<p>^^^ But unlike ‘private colleges’ the pony world is not tax payer subsidized. Any completely private institution can and should be able to spend charitable resources as it pleases. If the community or other pony stables were forced to subsidize the ‘givers of ponies’ then it would be a similar situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, so? And Macy’s just sent me a 15% off coupon because I bought something from them online because they want to influence my shopping decisions and steer them to Macy’s over Bloomingdale’s.</p>
<p>Not sure why this is positioned as a) such a revelation or b) some kind of “a-HA - those are their TRUE intents.” Of COURSE the purpose of merit aid is to influence a student’s enrollment decision by lowering the net price they must pay. Duh. </p>
<p>It’s considered normal for purveyors of products and services to want potential customers to actually … choose them!</p>
<p>Look at it this way–giving merit scholarships to top students is the same as fashion designers giving free stuff to celebrities.</p>
<p>There are a LOT of businesses that get subsidies, not just colleges. Many areas will give tax breaks or eliminate taxes altogether for business that bring new jobs into the area or farmers that get subsidies for pretty much everything. How about professional sports teams that get state funding to build new stadiums? Even small businesses get reduced rates on loans from the SBA. Colleges bring in a LOT of money for their communities…</p>
<p>I think colleges just need to leave each other alone and let each make decisions which work best for each one. There isn’t a one size fits all solution.</p>
<p>Let the colleges who are happy with the quality of their students and who have endowments big enough to fund everyone’s “need” continue to do so.</p>
<p>Let the colleges who want to improve the quality of their students make decisions to give merit. </p>
<p>There seems to be this belief that merit is all going to families who are sitting on huge bank accounts. Yes, some might be, just like some FAFSA-only “poor students” may have affluent NCPs or some “poor students” may be hiding income/assets. On both sides there may be some recipients that may not “need” the help. That’s not a good-enough reason to ding either position. </p>
<p>On the merit side, I frequently see families who “on paper” don’t qualify for much/any aid, but that doesn’t mean that they can full pay. Some have or will have multiples in college at the same time and the other kids don’t have the stats for schools with good aid. So, even with a “split EFC”, they won’t get the aid that they qualify for. Some families have to use the strategy that their high stats kid has to take the “huge merit”, because they know that they will be full-pay for the sibling that has good-but-not-great stats. </p>
<p>Do we really want the high stats kid to have to choose to commute to his local state school just because with multiples in college at the same time, the family’s total EFC will just cover local tuitions?</p>
<p>Or, I’ll see famiies that live in high rent/high tax regions. They can’t live elsewhere because that’s where their jobs are. Some might argue that they still should have “planned better” for college, but some people just aren’t as gifted in foresight and planning. And, some might have wanted to “save for college” but they were only earning enough to get the bills paid. There really are many, many reasons why people with highish EFCs cannot pay their “family contribution.” </p>
<p>So, these families turn to schools that will give their high stats kid merit. I don’t think any of us want any kid punished simply because of circumstances beyond his control. And, if there are schools that want those high stats kids on their campuses, then let those colleges pay for them to be there. </p>
<p>We were actually in kind of two camps. At first, we thought our younger son wouldn’t score well (he’s not the best test taker, but he is a dedicated student). We thought we’d be full pay for that child and we didn’t feel that we could be full-pay for two kids without liquidating assets that are intended for retirement. Secondly, we also knew that both boys would likely do some kind of grad school which might need funding. So, we did look for big merit for our older son and he got it. We were later surprised when younger son scored very well, so he took the large merit as well since he wants to go to med school. Since he’s now been accepted to med school, our monies will be going towards that. </p>
<p>Some people don’t really understand that the merit awards aren’t benevolent give-aways. They are part of a long-range strategy which defies that one college president who thinks it will hurt colleges in the long-run. If a school doesn’t have enough high stats students, and focuses only on need-based aid, then it stagnates in rankings, attention from future employers, donations from alumni, and applications from the better profs. A college president isn’t doing his job if his school is just maintaining the status quo. </p>
<p>Having a higher quality student body is a winning strategy which will eventually mean being able to better fund the needy students. Having a better student body on campus means that it’s easier to attract better profs, better research grants, more companies recruiting on campus, and more generous donors. Soon the school will be able to better fund needy students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The more I re-read this comment, the dumber it is. Of COURSE they are rewarding them for superior academic performance - by giving them a break on the tuition to sway them to go there, because they want them to grace their campuses! Of COURSE any “reward” a college offers for superior academic performance is going to be tied with “come here.” I don’t know any colleges that hand out $2,000 for superior grades and say to a student, we’re so proud of you, use this $2,000 wherever you like; do you?</p>
<p>From the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s his own stupid fault. By his own admission, the girl was good was just slightly above average. She wasn’t “worth” giving the merit money to when she was clearly full-pay-material. So they lost her to a different institution; so what? If they aren’t reserving merit for true stars that are worth pulling away from elsewhere, that’s their problem.</p>
<p>Put it this way-how did you and your child select their college lists? I’m sure a big part of your decision was where your child’s GPA and test score fell, right? How many people on this board have flat out said they won’t send their child to a “lesser” school–whatever that means. In order to attract students, colleges give big discounts for kids that come in with high stats. What is wrong with that? Most of these schools give some kind of graduated awards for kids with lower GPA/test scores too. If you are ONLY applying to lottery schools though, no, you don’t get this benefit and that is your choice.</p>
<p>Merit aid isn’t being used to ‘improve’ the student body–the study I referenced above found that in general, those lower selective schools that saw an increase in merit money did not see an increase in SAT scores. </p>
<p>What you might say is that if institution A didn’t give merit, they might see the stronger students go to institution B that does, and thus the SAT scores of A might have decreased without it, but that’s just conjecture. </p>
<p>The school is more worried about decreasing enrollment in general–not that we won’t have enough high stats kids, but that we won’t have enough kids period.</p>
<p>In general, the more merit money you give doesn’t necessarily equate to increasing the SAT scores of the student body. Selectivity and prestige are still prime movers here. </p>
<p>The article tells you why merit is offered–to get students to enroll and thus get a certain net revenue of tuition–not to get a better student.</p>
<p>It’s the same way ‘honors college’ is used–those, too, have basically become enrollment management tools as a way to keep numbers up.</p>
<p>
At levels less than a full scholarship, that is true. But if the merit is a full scholarship ( e.g. NMSF at Alabama, Pitt Chancellors ,Emory Scholars etc… to name a few) they are ‘free riders’ and net revenue losers for the school. The school ends up with less tuition revenue but with a higher stat student who does enroll rather than go elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true in the year the scholarship is given, but schools are looking for students that raise the prestige of the school and thus enable it to charge more in the future, partially recovering the cost of the full scholarship.</p>
<p>
I think there’s a question of semantics involved here. When Macy’s gives you a coupon, they are in a sense, rewarding you for shopping there, but what they really want you to do is shop there some more. I guess I’d call it an incentive, rather than a reward.</p>