Schools "buying" quality students

Parents Forum
1

<p>I think it is unfortunate that some people have this - well, I would say sneery, but that sounds so perjorative - attitude toward schools "buying" quality students. I've seen this comment several times on this board. The underlying concept seems to be that prestige is everything, and any school that gives merit aid to attract students, is a school whose pre-existing prestige quotient is not high enough, and that therefore these schools should be ignored, dismissed, and otherwise looked down on.</p>

<p>The problems with this attitude are that first, prestige is lnot a necessary characteristic of a quality institution. Clearly the "prestigious" schools offer a strong academic opportunity; but other schools do too, and should not be automatically dismissed because they are not quite so famous. We've discussed this at length on this board, and it is obvious that prestige can give you a leg up, but that a quality education can be had at many, many schools. Sometimes we confuse top tier resume, with good quality education.</p>

<p>Second, as a parent, I'm very happy for a school to want to increase its student profile by giving merit aid. We are in a society now where the very rich and the very poor all have access to money. In addition, the very rich have added benefits others may not, in the form of academic environment and assistance. One of my friends pays for extensive private tutoring for her children for each SAT II, never mind the SAT I !! And she has private tutoring for every single EC as well. Will her kids have the maximum chance to score well on the tests, and maximum opportuntiy to put together a strong application? Sure. And as chairman of the board of her top private school with many famous parents, will the GC make sure her children get the best shot at top schools? Sure. </p>

<p>So where does that leave the middle class student with strong, 1400+ and 4.0+ stats, but whose family could not afford tutoring, whose son had to spend a lot of time working, and who did not have a say in the salary of the GC who would be writing the recommendation? The parents who could only afford a good school if they mortgage their house, or go heavily into debt? </p>

<p>If a school is smart enough to realize they can use merit aid to compete with the public schools for these kids, I applaud them for being smart. It certainly does not make sense to sneer at them for "buying" students.</p>

2

<p>The concept is the same as celebrity advertising. If I'm promoting a new product that's not quite ready to compete on an even level with the industry leaders, I'm eager to pay Tiger Woods to use it so that other potential customers will see that he's attracted to it and feel that it would be acceptable for their consideration. In the case of a college trying to move up the ranks, the best "celebrity endorsement" is from a student who's representative of the kind of student that they hope to attract once they take their reputation and programs to the next level. The only negative that should cause some people to have an "attittude" about merit aid is that in order to receive it, a student must agree to attend a college for which s/he is clearly overqualified.</p>

3

<p>As long as football players are recruited and offered scholarships, the best academic students should have at least equal if not better access to the same opportunities. What are colleges in the business of producing, NFL football players or great minds?</p>

4

<p>More importantly, this merit aid provides opportunities to strong students from middle class or poorer backgrounds to education they might not otherwise have! Everyone benefits from merit aid, in my opinion!</p>

5

<p>gadad, Don't agree at all. Why pay more, when you can get more for less. Merit aid is something that all families should consider when looking at schools especially those families who don't qualify for FA or can't reap the benefits of a full package. And it's not a matter of moving up the ranks. Who really cares. What type of education will my son or/and daughter get? Parents need to research carefully and be a voice in the wilderness. Who wants their children to carry heavy debt. If you can pay full price, great! If not, be very careful now so that when next April comes you are not taken by surprise. Be aware of those schools that have good merit aid.</p>

6

<p>hayden:</p>

<p>I'm not sure I've preceived any sneering, but Bluewife says I'm blind anyway. Personally, I think its great that schools want to buy their way to the top 10 bcos it means there is ample merit money available for kids of all income levels. Also, it means that schools will compete for talent. An article in the WSJ last year noted a student accepted at Yale, Duke and Emory, but chose Emory for the full ride, plus stipend for overseas study. As players in this game, the key is to find those schools and make sure a good student applies.</p>

7

<p>guiltguru, I am in your spirit, but if kids truly don't have any money and are great students, American citizens especially urms the playing field is more open for them. And I am all for that as well. I have one at home. But we didn't know that. We just went where there was merit...and I love those schools so much! I'm glad we didn't know.</p>

8

<p>Speaking as a "renter" rather than a buyer, I can't see why it's a problem. First of all, the top tier schools ARE buyers, just like all the others. They know it is a competitive marketplace, and will bid for the students they want just like everyone else. You would find the differences in offers from top schools for students who qualify for any aid to be astounding, and it is amazing how much new poverty can be found in April for students they truly want. EVERY school in the country has merit aid.</p>

<p>Secondly, there are only so many places, etc., etc. HYP say quite publicly that they reject entire classes of students every bit as academically qualified as those they reject, and I think we should take them at their word. These students are being "bought" elsewhere. </p>

<p>Finally, these are private institutions. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want? No one forces anyone else to believe all the hype. The educational quality isn't necessarily higher (only Princeton Review even attempts to rank schools based on their educational quality free all of the prestige hype, and only two Ivies finish in the top 10, and none in the top 5, for undergraduate education), and future income/success is likely only higher for those from families with high incomes/success to begin with, or at least that's what the studies seem to show.</p>

<p>My kid will graduate without one penny of debt, and the rental payment for us is high enough that we won't have any either. If they return the property "improved", that's pretty cool, I would think. ;)</p>

9

<p>< I think it is unfortunate that some people have this - well, I would say sneery, but that sounds so perjorative - attitude toward schools "buying" quality students. I've seen this comment several times on this board. The underlying concept seems to be that prestige is everything, and any school that gives merit aid to attract students, is a school whose pre-existing prestige quotient is not high enough, and that therefore these schools should be ignored, dismissed, and otherwise looked down on. ></p>

<p>It would be SO funny if the colleges decided to give in to the snobs and quit providing merit aid, and this resulted in everyone slacking. Then the snobs would complain that we've become a nation of infidels lacking moral values.</p>

10

<p>I don't think there is any "sneering" about schools buying high-stat kids. Rather, I think it is just being accurate in describing the commercial mechanism involved. To the extent that people understand the commercial nature of the addmissions game, they will play the game more effectively, IMO.</p>

<p>Mini is correct that all colleges buy their students. The most heavily endowed colleges spend far more per student than their tuition revenues, with per student spending at some undergrad-only colleges in the $75k+ per year range. That's a minimum 35k per year "merit scholarship" even for the full-fare students.</p>

11

<p>Every school "buys" students, they just buy them with different currencies:</p>

<p>-buying the "name" professors
-building the big fancy facilities
-buying small student/faculty ratios (more profs)
-buying the great sports teams
-buying security (endowment)
-buying location (more expensive near urban offerings vs. boonies)
-buying distinctive expensive programs (nuc. accelerator)</p>

<p>etc.</p>

<p>So why not buy top students directly, via merit aid? If you are Harvard, the top students are flocking to you, so you allocate your $ elsewhere. Emory allocates their $ where it will have maximum impact on their program/prestige: get these top kids!</p>

<p>Over the years, money invested this way will slowly but surely create better prestige. These top kids blaze a trail at the Vanderbilts & Wash Us so the kids who come after them (& the guidance counselors) will already view the schools as more prestigious-- "so & so, who was brilliant, went there." "Oh look, evilrobot turned down Yale for Vandy." </p>

<p>Other kids from around the country will see the # of high stat kids and think, "I will find peers here." Great professors will think "I will enjoy teaching these fertile minds." </p>

<p>Buying top kids has a positive snowball effect on the school. It seems like one of the best ways to turbo-charge a school's prestige. The schools that are doing it have been climbing the prestige ladder quite successfully.</p>

12

<p>to rephrase, a critical mass of brilliant kids is just as important as any other ingredient in a school's ultimate success-- probably the most important ingredient.</p>

13

<p>As the fat, dumb and happy(and proud) parent of one of these "bought" students, I don't let it bother me that some people deride merit aid as buying a class and others seem to feel it violates their overarching moral values by "robbing" from the need-based aid pool. </p>

<p>We lucked into the merit aid for our S, by which I mean he loved the school separately from their merit policy (H and I loved it more once we learned of the policy and more still once S was a recipient :D).</p>

<p>Whether a school offers the merit $ to "climb the ranks" or to enrich the educational experience for the students by attracting the academically highly qualified and highly motivated or to enrich their faculty's experience by attracting such students, or for whatever reason, why is that to be criticized, much less sneered at? Agree with hayden there.</p>

<p>Now here I disagree:
[quote]
The only negative that should cause some people to have an "attittude" about merit aid is that in order to receive it, a student must agree to attend a college for which s/he is clearly overqualified.

[/quote]
S is going to Tulane on a great merit award ($22K/yr); he is in the top 10% of their applicant pool. But I in no way feel he is "overqualified;" in fact, I feel it is quite a good match for him, as does he. To me, this statement implies that the school is not up to the challenge of educating the merit award kid, and I don't see that at all. Is this just another way of saying that HYPS is everything and any "lesser" school doesn't "deserve" the well-qualified student? Is whoever is the top candidate for HYPSM "overqualified?"</p>

14

<p>I have "heard" a story that even Harvard has bought student(s). One of the high school kid in our area had done some really nice work in genetics and he is going to Harvard on a full ride (parents are very high income folks).</p>

15

<p>I sense a lot of rationalizing here - apparently of the enlightened self-interest variety.</p>

<p>The trouble is, those "signing bonuses" dangled in front of upper - and upper middle - class applicants come, necessarily, from funds that might otherwise be allocated to deserving students on the basis of financial need.</p>

<p>I fully understand the view ( expressed by some earlier posters) that "its time <em>we</em> middle class folks with above average kids got a piece of the pie; why should it all go to those URMs, poor kids, athletes and the super-achievers who can write their own ticket?"</p>

<p>There are stats showing that so-called "merit" aid is increasing much faster than "need-based" aid, and, indeed, that the need-based aid pot is often reduced in order to shift payments to those far more able to afford tuition in order to achieve whatever institutional goal this reallocation of resources allegedly serves.</p>

<p>Just because it is happening doesn't make it right. (And this coming from a conservative Republican.)</p>

16

<p>merit aid is income blind. Even URMs or poor kids can qualify for those. I don't see increase in merit aid $ as depriving money to need based people.</p>

<p>I see that as an additional vehicle for schools to meet their recruitment goals - how they want to furnish their campus.</p>

17

<p>I assume you actually believe that.</p>

18

<p>Byerly, I run a business and a household. As such, I allocate some of my $ resources to what I need, some to what I want and some to charitable giving. I also devote some of my time to being successful in my business and doing the best possible job for my clients. I devote some of my personal time to volunteering where I can fill a need and give back to the community. Who is to say that I should fill none of my "wants" in favor of devoting all of my discretionary $ to the needs of others? Who is to say that in my business, I am required to provide some of my services free to the needy? That is my choice.</p>

<p>Why is a private college or university any different? Why shouldn't they allocate some of their resources to filling their "wants" for certain applicants and some to subsidizing the needs of certain applicants. And, as simba points out, needy applicants have just as much opportunity for the merit-based aid as anyone else.</p>

<p>Do those who decry merit based "signing bonuses" as taking away from the "deserving" conduct your own business and professional activities on a fully pro bono basis?</p>

19

<p>bluebayou and interestedad, I hesitate to try to show the "sneering" since it would be tantamount to me making these individuals the issue, rather than the point. But what I was reacting to was a recent post on another thread. In response to curmudgeon making a great point about a good school that was attracting quality students with merit offers, a poster wrote "A school so "good" they need to buy quality students. What's wrong with that picture. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm." The implication was that a school that offered merit money just wasn't up to par. There was another thread a little further back in time in which a student posted that students were "on to" schools that offered merit aid, as if it were some cheap trick. Only two examples, but it raised the issue with me. It just sounded so snobbish. And yes, like some of you, my son was happily bought! And he loves where he is.</p>

20

<p>Your "free enterprise" argument falls a little flat in the face of evidence that the biggest users of the "merit aid" device are not private schools (with the exception of athletic scholarships) but, rather, flagship state universities spending tax dollars.</p>