<p>Hayden, Don't worry. You and your son are the lucky ones! But you are not alone.</p>
<p>Byerly, you've made two quantitative statements that warrant some sort of evidence:
[quote]
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>AND</p>
<p>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.
[/quote]
Would you mind sharing your sources?</p>
<p>Byerly: As driver points out, you make some sweeping statements here. Also, as I am sure you are aware, many merit aid scholarships are privately endowed, which do not negatively effect funds for financial aid and have nothing to do with state tax dollars.</p>
<p>And, to further driver's question re merit aid
[quote]
increasing much faster than "need-based" aid
[/quote]
I would like to know not only the sources but the basic data. I am not disagreeing with this statisitic as I have no information, but I have always wondered (knowing that one can find or create a statistic to support anything) how meaningful that one would be.</p>
<p>If, for example, need-based aid in, say, 1990 was at a level of $500 million for the sake of argument and increased 20%, it would now be at $600 million. If in 1990 merit aid was at a level of $25 million and is now at $50 million, then it would have DOUBLED. It certainly would have increased much faster but that does not mean that schools are making it a higher priority in their budgets than they are need-based aid.</p>
<p>To add perspective to jmmom's comment, we discussed this a few weeks ago after a NYT article came out making Byerly's argument. One of the college officials making the "robbing the poor and middle class to provide merit aid" argument was from, I believe, Dickinson college. When I looked up their numbers, Dickinson was spending $15 need-based dollars for every $1 spent on merit aid.</p>
<p>As long as flagship state schools can buy football players (and coaches) irrespective of need, they certainly should be able to 'buy' a future Pulitzer or Nobel candidate. The idea is to encourage scholarship. That encouragement is valid for all economic levels.</p>
<p>Byerly where is it written that middle class parents have an obligation to pay to eduacate their own and someone else's kid at a selective private school? I don't want to be cold hearted here but...</p>
<p>It is funny we are always told by big hearted folks that it is not a zero sum game when it comes to admissions and having lower standards for under-represented minorities. Your are NOT loosing your spot to a less qualified kid based on racial preference because you wouldn't have gotten in anyway (probably). But as soon as it comes to money and merit aid the tune changes and it is a zero sum game. Merit aid means less need aid and "Its not fair!"</p>
<p>Nobody assigned private colleges and universities the mission of righting the wrongs of the world least of all their paying customers.</p>
<p>
You know, Byerly, I was going to "except" public U's from my analysis. However, you've got me thinking. Yes, they are spending tax dollars. But what is their mission with those tax dollars? I won't claim to fully codify that mission, but it seems to me it is to provide a quality education and there are costs to doing so: buildings, faculty, programs, ... If they believe it is a wise expenditure to spend some $ building a quality student pool, then I think that is worthy of consideration. One can certainly debate the merits of different allocations of their tax and tuition revenues. But I don't see the validity of rejecting out of hand the use of merit aid as one of their building blocks.</p>
<p><em>waits with interest for byerly's response to the several provocative questions which have been posted</em></p>
<p>EVERY school has merit aid. Swarthmore has 25 or so scholarships where all loan and other obligations are turned into grants. Williams has Tyng scholarships that pay for three years of GRADUATE school. The list could go on and on. When Princeton needs a quarterback, the bidding begins.</p>
<p>The issue - which I think is a fair one - is whether merit aid scholarships are offered at the expense of need-based ones (and, if so, 1) whether one thinks that is fair, and 2) does it make a difference whether it is done at taxpayer expense.)</p>
<p>As far as the most prestigious institutions who openly admit to offering merit aid (they all offer it, even if they don't like to admit it), the jury is out whether the enrolled number of students requiring need-based assistance has been affected at all by the existence of merit awards. Has the percentage of enrolled students requiring needbased assistance gone down in recent years? I think (but am not sure) that there has been a slow drift downward at schools that claim not to offer merit aid (HYP, WS, etc.); but I haven't seen a similar drift at the WashUs of the world, though others with more experience might be better able to comment. Of course, this may simply reflect the reality that the income of top 5%ers has risen more quickly than listed college tuition prices.</p>
<p>And some schools are known for packaging small amounts of "needbased" aid to candidates who really don't need it, but who might be enticed to attend as a result. </p>
<p>I think it is also worth remembering who the middle-class candidates are. Our family income puts us in the top 40% of American families. Roughly $65k. My wife and I could sell absolutely everything we own (except the kids!), house included, and still not pay for two private college educations. (When d.#2 arrives, it will be well over $200k.) So we don't particularly care what they call the aid - just so long as we can get some. I know - by taking it - we are depriving another family of similar assistance. Zero-sum game. Ugly, isn't it?</p>
<p>Anyhow, private colleges are private, and can do what they want. Some of the prestige ones pay for a percentage of the student body through "needs-based" aid precisely because it enhances the quality of the academic experience for all students, the plurality of whom are top 5%ers. Others do the same with merit aid. No big deal to me.</p>
<p>When it comes to the publics, I object to paying for well-heeled candidates who could just as well go elsewhere. But then I feel the same way about football players, too. Female gymnasts, well, that's another story entirely. ;)</p>
<p>This is an issue which I have followed closely for some years. </p>
<p>Time pressures prevent me from citing sources etc at the moment, but suffice it to say that the CHOE has published many useful studies and commentaries. </p>
<p>COHE is a pay site. </p>
<p>I'd post these studies, except for the harsh opposition to such on the part of CC "management". Other college discussion sites aren't as hardline. I have had my knuckles rapped here for posting even what I considered reasonable exerpts.</p>
<p>The posting of short excerpts is acceptable.</p>
<p>It seems to me that in our parents' day, academic (and athletic) scholarships were the norm. Rich or poor, the star students were offered scholarships to entice them to attend a certain school. My father was the son of a hillbilly and an eastern European coal miner's immigrant daughter who (his parents, that is) reached reasonably comfortable middle class status. I have no idea if they could have afforded to pay for his college education back then (early 50s), but he got a full ride to a very famous university because he was a math/science genius. The school wasn't trying to achieve any kind of diversity or social end, just trying to get the brainiest students they could. I'd love to see some historical data on scholarships.</p>
<p>Forget the stats. </p>
<p>There is something unseemly about privileged kids getting huge merit awards. I know too many who truly "need" the leg up. Whether it's tit for tat is irrelelvant. I would like to see the truly needy get more advantages. But that's me.</p>
<p>My S's (expensive) private high school offers scholarships based on merit. S2 qualified for a Maths scholarship. We declined. It might not be easy to pay that quarterly tuition, but our children don't "need" a private top drawer education. </p>
<p>We want them to have it, but they don't actually "need" it.</p>
<p>Driver, though I have not seen direct statistics , there has been some press expressing concern about merit aid increasing to points where it is competing with financial aid at schools that are not need blind and do not give 100% of need. Given that there is a built in advantage to those kids who come from well to do and involved families, every bit of advantage that the system gives to those who have the money is a concern. </p>
<p>I don't know if state schools are increasing out of state merit awards to the detriment of in state need awards, but I consider it a serious problem when kids who can make the entrance requirement at their state school despite disadvantageous financial households, and then cannot go because the school gaps. It hurts when an OOS or private school does this, but my feeling is that the state schools should have a strong commitment to helping their own get an education and that is where the funds should be primarily directed. Many kids who come from households where funds are tight are the very ones who would benefit most from going away to state U as many times such households have a degree of chaos that make it a difficult place to do college studies. Many times I have seen kids that really deserve the chance to go away to school just so that they can have a fair chance to study and focus on academics, something difficult to do in their environment. They do not get the merit awards because most of the times their SAT scores do not qualify them for that level. If they are to go to college , their only option is to work parttime, and commute which means juggling more than most middle income families' kids who can do the family experience. </p>
<p>Whether the trend is actually going toward merit awards to the detriment of financial aid, or not, I believe the subject is worthy of being one that needs to be watch dogged because it is just so much easier for colleges to go that route.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Isn't the attraction of a critical mass of top students an important goal if a school is to be a top flight school? </p>
<p>Soon enough the schools that do this begin to attract top students without merit aid. They will change the way they are viewed. Then the allocation towards merit aid will naturally fall and more will be available for poor kids or URMs.</p>
<p>I would be very surprised if any school has successfully weaned itself from merit-aid discounting in today's marketplace.</p>
<p>If any school has achieved such status, I would think Duke would be an example of a university that has achieved such status that it no longer needs merit-aid discounting. Yet, as of fall 2003, 14% of its students received merit-aid discounts with an average of $9,370 each. If Duke hasn't been able to end its merit-aid discounting, I doubt very much that any other schools are seriously considering such a move. To the contrary, I believe that the few remaining need-based aid schools are under extreme market pressure to shift dollars from need-based aid to merit-based discounting.</p>
<p>Cheers and Jamimom,
While I understand your concerns, it seems to me that an academic institution should have academic excellence at the very top of its list of priorities in admissions--right up there with ethnicity and social class. If it's important for students to rub elbows with all types of folks to achieve the total educational experience, they ought to experience a few real geniuses or super-hard workers in the classroom as well. That's why big merit awards are made, and I think it's totally legit, for the benefit of the school and the student body at large. As for "the press" expressing concern that need-based dollars are being siphoned off to pay for wealthy over-achievers---I saw the NYT article, and as usual, what the NYT reports is echoed by most other media outlets as if it were gospel. I was unimpressed with that article, and cited my (minor) subsequent research project above. Finally, I don't believe for a second that any under-privileged student with credentials that would warrant merit aid is going to go wanting for scholarship money. No way. If anything, they will have an admissions advantage over their upper middle class counterparts.</p>
<p>Where does the financial aid - need or merit aid come from? Do the person or persons supplying the aid even realize they are supplying it? On what basis are they assessed the levy for this aid? Is there consent involved either explicit or implicit? Do those supplying the funds have a say in their expenditure?</p>
<p>If we are going to talk about "fairness" then lets answer a few of the above questions while we are at it. It is amazing how "fair" people can be with somebody else's money. It is also amazing how "fair" they can be when raising an artificial financial bar to keep the riff-taff out. Consider for a minute what tution might look like at Selective U if there were no financial aid - neither need nor merit. How would that change the applicant pool and who would the winners and loosers be?</p>
<p>Not sure if this applies broadly, but as the former board member of an elite private elementary school in the US, there were no 'merit' awards. Awards were given to needy kids only.</p>
<p>There were great tuition rise debates every year; ie how much can we raise the tuition without losing core families. To avoid a link between tuition and aid, an endowment was established. Subsequently, all aid was drawn from the endowment. Therefore, the contribuotrs knew exactly where the funds were allocated.</p>
<p>Further, all genius is not bought, nor is all genius demanding merit aid. In my S1's class there were two so-called brilliant minds. One was the only child of two academics and the other was the child of two physicians. Neither needed any aid whatsoever and neither applied for such aid. BTW, Both children were accepted to many top schools including HYP and UChicago. One went to Yale, one to UC.</p>
<p>Again, those wildly brilliant children did not "need" that top private school education. Their parents "wanted" it and bought it. Neither set of parents would have dreamed of asking for merit aid on the basis that their children contributed more to the ocmmunity. I think they would have blanched at the notion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where does the financial aid - need or merit aid come from? Do the person or persons supplying the aid even realize they are supplying it? On what basis are they assessed the levy for this aid? Is there consent involved either explicit or implicit? Do those supplying the funds have a say in their expenditure?
[/quote]
This is an interesting question. It is often said that need-based aid is not charged to those paying full tuition, but instead comes from endowments. However, the article discussed here last month (my mistake, btw--it was the Phila Inquirer, not the NYT) claimed that merit awards (much rarer than need-based) were causing rising tuition rates.</p>
<p>Cheers: Our expensive and elite private el-hi school doesn't offer merit awards either, but I don't think you can compare the situation of such el-hi schools with colleges and universities competing with the Ivies/Little Ivies for top brainiacs. </p>
<p>SBMom took the workd out of my mouth. The top univeristies buy all sorts of things to attract the best students. Many "trophy" faculty seldomly grace the undergrad classroom. Many of the advanced labs and research groups which make the headlines are off limits to undergrads. Princeton invested many additional millions to build a showcase undergrad dorm.</p>
<p>Every top tier spend money to attract as fine a student body as possible. To single out merit aid is to ignore the others, particularly given the fact that it permits many middleclass students attend fine colleges which would otherwide be beyond their fiscal reach.</p>