<p>It more of an incentive for top achieving student to allpy these school that may not be considered top.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with that! Isn’t that what every institution wants, regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not?</p>
<p>Alabama is a good example of a school where merit has come at the expense of need based aid.</p>
<p>Pitt is a school that has given great merit money for years. It has benefitted in increase of name recognition and quality of applicants. It has, in the last few years, lowered amount of money in the merit pool drastically, as well as sharply increasing the requirements for merit money. I would say that investment in merit awards has paid off. </p>
<p>The same may happen to Alabama. There was once a time when a NMS could go for free at any number of school. Now the list is smaller, and there are very few guaranteed free rides on that list. So these things do change over time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with you. Let each school decide for itself and each parent/student decide for themselves.</p>
<p>For private schools, that is entirely true. But for state schools there is a lot of discussion as to what a school can do since it is supported by state tax payers’ revenues. Each time such a school admits OOS students with merit money means a space less for an in state kid and less money too. Now balancing that is the increase in name recognition, improvement in the quality of the student body, more diversity in the school. However, the HOPE program in the state of GA and Bright Futures in Florida did a lot in terms of improving in state schools, particularly the flagships and kept the money “in the family”. So there is room for discussion on these things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow! You got that right! I knew Alabama gave a lot of merit aid, but I never looked at the figures before. According to its 2011-2012 common data set, Alabama gave out over $40 million in institutional non-need-based aid in 2011-12, but only $16.7 million in need-based aid, meeting full need for only 15.3% of the students it determined had need, and on average meeting only 55% of need. That’s a fairly weak effort on need-based aid for a public flagship.</p>
<p>Yet Alabama’s entering class stats aren’t terribly impressive: middle 50% SAT CR 500-620, middle 50% SAT M 495-640, middle 50% ACT composite 22-29, average HS GPA 3.54.</p>
<p>This may be a case of a public university turning a blind eye to the need of in-state students and using its limited resources to “buy” OOS test scores, but still not moving the needle very much on its test score medians because there just aren’t enough students at the top end of the class to influence where the medians fall.</p>
<p>The neighboring University of Tennessee, in contrast, met about 70% of need (not great, but better than Alabama), gave no non-need-based aid, and ended up with entering class stats pretty similar to Alabama’s, or even a little higher: middle 50% SAT CR 520-640, SAT M 530-640, ACT 24-29, average HS GPA 3.87.</p>
<p>The underlying philosophical issue here is who should be given priority for scarce funding resources:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Individuals with the greatest academic potential to leverage higher education, regardless of their present socio-economic status</p></li>
<li><p>Individuals with the greatest financial need, regardless of their academic potential</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The difference between Tennessee and Alabama really shows in the ‘net price’ by income data on IPEDS.
family income;;;;;;;Alabama;;;;;;;Tennessee
0-30K;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;13,815;;;;;;;;;;6,670
30-48K;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;15,630;;;;;;;;;8,979
48-75K;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;18,312;;;;;;;;;13,025
75K-110;;;;;;;;;;;;;;19 410;;;;;;;;;15,675
110K and up;;;;;;;;;20,429;;;;;;;;;16,204</p>
<p>The in-state list prices are similar, about 23K. What’s also interesting is that Tennessee has a better net price for even families at the highest income level.</p>
<p>In terms of graduation rates, they are similar, with a bit of an edge to Alabama</p>
<p>6 year graduation rate, Alabama 66%, Tennessee 63%</p>
<p>I should also add that the residence difference is strikingly different between the two as well. Tennessee has 89% in-state students, while Alabama has only 57%.</p>
<p>bclintok’s claim about using resources to attract OOS students (at the expense of in state students) appears to be correct. This even appears to be the case at the highest income level.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, average debt is less at Tennessee than at Alabama</p>
<p>Tennessee: avg. debt 2010: 19, 987
Alabama: avg. debt 2010: 26, 714</p>
<p>A NET price of over $13,000 for a family making 30K or LESS??? WOW. That is almost their entire take home pay. This is a prime example of why people can’t just look at the sticker price of a college when they apply. At EVERY college our kids applied to, 2 state, 17 private schools, NONE of them would have had a net price of 13K for someone making 30K or less. A student would have gone for free or very close to it even at the 60K/year schools.</p>
<p>^^^ I agree, and it’s why I often tell people not to just go with guaranteed high merit award places. Middle son had super stats, so yes, he applied to UA as a safety. It would have made a nice safety had other places not worked out better financially (and for what he, specifically, wanted). But UA did not end up the least expensive for him. He’s at a higher ranked place with a combo of merit and need-based aid. There was one other option that came in less expensive too (again, higher ranked).</p>
<p>BUT, had those not come through, the guaranteed free tuition was a financial safety and he’d be a happy student there (he’d have been happy and done well anywhere - easy to please and a great student).</p>
<p>Students with a bit of need-based aid required would definitely do best looking elsewhere pending how much they qualify for (EFC or CSS) vs how much they feel they need. UA (and similar) work out better for those with high EFCs if the student qualifies for the merit aid.</p>
<p>The other thing about that net price–chances are someone in the 30K or less bracket is sending off a first generation college student. If they see that pricetag that kid isn’t going to college anywhere unless they have a good GC or someone to help them through the process. DD has a friend that while their family does ok, they aren’t really making a ton of money, especially for our area. They were looking only at state schools because they “can’t afford private schools”. Well, I ran a couple NPC with her friend showing 2 or 3 income levels and how the aid packages work. The private school she loved would have cost her about $3000/year LESS.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the majority of the better known privates in Alabama, as well as those in the region, have similar net prices for low income families as the University of Alabama. Sewanee is an exception, as well as, of course, Vandy (but it has a very low admit rate). Emory is also surprisingly not that great, with a net price for a 30K or lower family at around 14-15K.</p>
<p>The other state flagship, Auburn, is a better deal for a low income family, with a net price of between 9-10K. It, too, attracts a lot of out of state students (56% in-state) and also awards lots more non need based aid than need based aid. It enrolls a stronger student body as well.</p>
<p>skrlvr–makes you wonder about the correlation between AL having one of the lowest average household incomes in the nation and one of the lowest average ACT/SAT scores in the nation (statewide). Maybe if the colleges there were more affordable for residents, more students would be better motivated to do well in high school…</p>
<p>On the reverse, MN/MA colleges are very affordable for the lower income levels and they rank at the top for ACT/SAT scores and near the top for average incomes…</p>
<p>I think your correlation is backwards. Improving the affordability of Auburn and Alabama isn’t going to counteract the effect of the elementary and high schools.</p>
<p>Bclintonk - how do those SATs compare with other flagships? (Ignore the Michigans and UVAs, ignore the Big 10 Midwestern flagships- I just mean the “normal average” state flagships.)</p>
<p>I sorta doubt that making higher ed cheaper here would raise ACT scores. It’s more likely your first suggestion–Alabama is a very poor state, and the well-known correlation between family income and standardized test scores. </p>
<p>One thing about Tennessee is that though they give no need based aid, they get lots and lots of money from the state lottery. So it’s the lottery that’s helping here. And the lottery scholarships require some merit–a 21 ACT or a 3.0.</p>
<p>I guess I was thinking more along the lines that if college was seen as something that was obtainable, more kids would start attending and then the NEXT generation would start seeing a rise in ACT scores, etc. It’s a proven fact that children of people with college degrees do better in school. I guess I’m not all that familiar with the job opportunities in AL but since most kids will stay in the general area after college, that will have a trickle down effect in future generations…I would hope anyway.</p>
<p>SteveMA - that is an interesting thought, but I don’t think that too many gets develope the early reading and study habits after the learn the cost of four years in college. there are some exceptions, but most kids who are well prepared for college at age 18 have been in an environment created by their parents that highly values reading books, trips to the library and museums and frequent feedback on school work, with praise when it is appropriate. The awareness of the value of learning is a constant from a very early age. </p>
<p>There are many such homes in the middle-class. Hundreds of thousands of these kids would be shut out of certain colleges in they eliminated merit aid. There is a lot of day light between EFC (calculated by a college’s FA Office and PFC - the family contribution that is actually POSSIBLE, calculated by mom & dad.</p>